пропозиції роботи
konto usunięte
Temat: The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
Dr Rochus Boerner,"The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics"
Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors." (1)
Introduction
Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity and open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This 'new inquisition', as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilson (2) consists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "skeptics", and last but not least of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original. The scientists in the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published, and which is not, the science bureaucrats at the patent office who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals or institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, is frequently rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence.
In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go - no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, how much mathematical elegance it contains, how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.
This article will show that a different reaction occurs with disturbing regularity. Anomalous evidence is first ignored, then ridiculed, and if that fails, its author attacked. Scientific conferences will not admit it to be presented, scientific journals will refuse to publish it, and fellow scientists know better than to express solidarity with an unorthodox colleague. In today's scientific world, the cards are stacked heavily against true scientific breakthroughs. Too many careers are at stake; too many vested interests are involved for any truly revolutionary advancement in science to take place any more. All too often, scientific truth is determined by the authority of experts and textbooks, not by logic and reason.
In 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections (3) Robert G. Jahn writes: Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed.
Henry H. Bauer gives a similarly bleak assessment of the state of modern science (4): Mainstream orthodoxy routinely resists novelties that later become accepted. (..) Indeed, it may well be that the suppression of unorthodox views in science is on the increase rather than in decline. In Prometheus Bound (1994), John Ziman has outlined how science changed during the 20th century: traditionally (since perhaps the 17th century) a relatively disinterested knowledge-seeking activity, science progressively became handmaiden to industry and government, and its direction of research is increasingly influenced by vested interests and self-interested bureaucracies, including bureaucracies supposedly established to promote good science such as the National Academies, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.
In many cases of anomalous evidence that threatens established theories, simple denial of publication suffices to suppress the anomaly. Sometimes, however, renegade scientists manage to capture the attention of the general public, pleading their case to a larger audience that has no vested interest in the validity of the established theories. When that happens, and significant interests are at stake, the scientific establishment may turn nasty and resort to misrepresentation or outright falsification of evidence and to ad-hominem attacks.
Special Relativity Theory: Beyond Criticism
Einstein's special theory of relativity, published in 1905, is one of the foundational theories of modern physics. It states that the vacuum speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerated) reference frames, and that time and space coordinates combine in a peculiar way when measured from different inertial systems. Exactly how this happens is described by a set of equations called the Lorentz Transformation.
Strictly speaking, special relativity theory does not apply to anything in the physical universe, since gravitational fields, however minute, are always present. It took Einstein about 10 years to incorporate gravity and acceleration into his theory, and the result is known as general relativity. It describes gravity not as a force, but as curvature of space-time caused by mass. According to general relativity, there can be no such thing as a gravity shield.
Despite the consensus of a majority of physicists that special relativity is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and general relativity proven at least with a high degree of confidence, there are reasonable arguments and pieces of evidence against these theories. But relativity dissidents are routinely censored from presenting their ideas at conferences or having them published in the scientific literature. John E. Chappell, Jr., the late director of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, relates the following suppression story: (22) One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year's International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis-'Evans is wrong; you are wrong,' he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my 'faulty' arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him 'Then how would you explain...', he loudly interrupted me with 'I don't have to explain anything.' The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."
Such reactions are not uncommon. To even begin to criticize Einsteins' theory of special relativity has become a scientific heresy of the highest order. The prevailing attitude of the physical establishment is that anyone who doubts the validity of this "bedrock of modern physics" is insane, and that trying to refute it is a symptom of "psychosis"(23).
Caltech Professor David L. Goodstein states in a video-tape lecture: (24) There are theories in science, which are so well verified by experience that they become promoted to the status of fact. One example is the Special Theory of Relativity-it's still called a theory for historical reasons, but it is in reality a simple, engineering fact, routinely used in the design of giant machines, like nuclear particle accelerators, which always work perfectly. Another example of that sort of thing is the theory of evolution. These are called theories, but they are in reality among the best established facts in all of human knowledge."
Isaac Asimov has stated that "no physicist who is even marginally sane doubts the validity of SR." (25)
An article on relativity dissidents (26) quotes relativist Clifford Will of Washington University expressing a similar sentiment: SR has been confirmed by experiment so many times that it borders on crackpot to say there is something wrong with it. Experiments have been done to test SR explicitly. The world's particle accelerators would not work if SR wasn't in effect. The global positioning system would not work if special relativity didn't work the way we thought it did.
Unfortunately for the progress of physics, when opinions like these reach a critical mass, they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dissent is no longer respected, or even tolerated. Evidence to the contrary can no longer be communicated, for journals will refuse to publish it (23). Mathematically and logically, the notion that a theory that has made many correct predictions or leads to engineering applications must necessarily be true is untenable. Wrong models can make correct predictions. Scientific models may produce arbitrarily many, arbitrarily good predictions and still be flawed, as the historical example of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) model of the solar system shows. It does not matter how many observations are consistent with a theory if there is only one observation that is not. Ironically, relativity theory itself teaches us this lesson.
For centuries, Newtonian physics had led science to one triumph after another in explaining the inner workings of the natural world, and at the end of the 19th century, no physicist who was "even marginally sane" doubted its validity. After all, hadn't the validity of Newtonian physics "been confirmed by experiment so many times" that it would have "bordered on crackpot to say there is something wrong with it"? Didn't the operation of the world's steam engines prove its validity? And yet, Newtonian physics loses its validity at speeds approaching the speed of light. In hindsight, it is obvious why the discrepancy was never caught. Due to the enormity of the speed of light c, effects of the order of (v/c) only manifest themselves in highly sophisticated experiments. Similarly, even modern technology cannot easily distinguish between relativity and competing theories that agree with relativity at first order of (v/c) but disagree at higher order. One such competing theory is Ronald Hatch's Modified Lorentz Aether Theory (27).
Hatch, a former president of the Institute of Navigation and current Director of Navigation Systems Engineering of NavCom Technologies, is an expert on the GPS. Concerning the question of whether the operation of the GPS proves the validity of SR, he has come to conclusions diametrically opposite from Clifford Will's. In Relativity and GPS (28), (29), he argues that the observed effect of velocity on the GPS clocks flat out contradicts the predictions of special relativity.
Hatch's proposed alternative to special and general relativity theory, Modified Lorentz Aether Gauge Theory (MLET), agrees with General Relativity at first order but corrects many astronomical anomalies that GRT cannot account for without ad-hoc assumptions, such as the anomalous rotation of galaxies and certain anomalies in planetary orbits. In addition, the force of gravity is self-limiting in MLET, which eliminates point singularities (black holes), one of the major shortcomings of GRT. One of the testable predictions of Hatch's theory is that LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, will fail to detect gravity waves. As of July 2007, this prediction stands. (30)
The myth of the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Relativity textbooks all contain the story of how the Michelson-Morley experiment (28) supposedly proved the non-existence of a light-carrying medium, the aether. In this experiment, light rays are sent on round trips in different directions and then reunited, resulting in an interference pattern. If an aether "wind" caused the speed of light to be direction-dependent, then rotation of the experimental apparatus would result in a shift of this pattern. But such a shift was never detected, proving the isotropy (direction-independence) of the speed of light, or so the story goes.
But physical reality is more complicated then the foundational myth of relativity would have us believe. An examination of historical papers on the subject indicates that relativists have rewritten history. The M-M experiment of 1887 found only a fraction of the effect size predicted by the stationary aether hypothesis, thus clearly disproving it, but the effect was emphatically not "null" within the accuracy of the experiment.
In a 1933 paper, The Aether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth (31), physicist Dayton C. Miller reviewed the evidence and concluded that: The brief series of observations was sufficient to show that the effect did not have the anticipated magnitude. However, and this fact must be emphasized,the indicated effect was not zero; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887, stated that the observed relative motion of the earth and aether did not exceed one-fourth of the Earth's orbital velocity. This is quite different from a null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by the writers on Relativity.
Miller showed that there is a systematic effect in the original M-M data indicating a speed of the Earth relative to the Aether of 8.8 km/s for the noon observations and 8.0 km/s for the evening observations. He believed that the aether was entrained ("dragged along") by the earth. To test that hypothesis, Miller endeavored to replicate the M-M experiment (which had been performed in a basement in Cleveland) at greater altitude on Mount Wilson, where presumably there would be a stronger aether drift.
After years of careful experimentation, Miller indeed found a systematic deviation from the null result predicted by special relativity, which greatly embarrassed Einstein and his followers. Einstein tried to explain it away as an artifact of temperature variation, but Miller had taken great care to avoid precisely that kind of error. Miller told the Cleveland Plain Dealer on January 27, 1926, The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature.
But the tide of scientific opinion had turned against the aether and in favor of Einstein. The 1919 solar eclipse observations led by Sir Arthur Eddington that allegedly confirmed general relativity's prediction of the deflection of starlight by a gravitational field were not accurate enough to test Einstein’s prediction, and confirmation was obtained by reading the desired result into the data. (32) This "confirmation" was triumphantly announced by Eddington at a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society to an audience that had not actually seen the data first hand. In the judgement of an eye witness, the meeting resembled a coronation ceremony rather than a scientific conference (33).
Because of this scientific fraud, Einstein became a world celebrity overnight, surrounded by an aura of scientific infallibility. Miller's results, which suggested that in order to detect anisotropies in the speed of light, the interferometer needed to be surrounded by as little matter as possible, and located at a high altitude, were ignored in subsequent null replications of the experiment, such as the Brillet-Hall experiment (34), and the Müller experiment(35).
After Miller's death, one of his students, Robert S. Shankland, gave the physics establishment the final excuse it needed to forget Miller's work for good (36). Shankland simply revived the old criticism of temperature variations, against which Miller had always successfully defended himself during his lifetime, to reach the conclusion that Miller's results must be invalid. Relativity skeptic James DeMeo, Ph.D., has undertaken a detailed review of Miller's work and Shankland's critique (37) that comes to the conclusion that the Shankland team with some degree of consultation with Einstein, decided that 'Miller must be wrong' and then set about to see what they could find in his archive that would support that conclusion.
A 2003 paper by Reginald T. Cahill and Kirsty Kitto of the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences at Flinders University, Adelaide, published in the dissident journal Apeiron (38), argues that the reason why earlier M-M experiments gave small but detectable non-null results, while more recent replications gave clear null results, is that the earlier interferometers were filled with gas, while the modern ones were evacuated. It presents a new unified analysis of M-M type experiments that derives consistent estimates of the absolute speed of the Earth from gas-mode M-M experiments while predicting the observed null result for vacuum-mode experiments.
In a later paper (60), Cahill charges that the evidence for absolute motion is not being considered by mainstream physics not because it is weak, but because it is being censored: Physics is a science. This means that it must be based on (i) experiments that test its theories, and (ii) that its theories and reports of the analyses of experimental outcomes must be freely reported to the physics community. Regrettably, and much to its detriment, this has ceased to be the case for physics. Physics has been in an era of extreme censorship for a considerable time; Miller was attacked for his major discovery of absolute linear motion in the 1920's, while DeWitte was never permitted to report to physicists the data from his beautiful 1991 coaxial cable experiment. Amazingly these experimenters were unknown to each other, yet their data was is in perfect agreement, for by different techniques they were detecting the same phenomenon, namely the absolute linear motion of the earth through space. All discussions of the experimental detections of absolute motion over the last 100 years are now banned from the mainstream physics publications.
In 2004, Cahill's analysis found a mainstream advocate in Maurizio Consoli, a physicist at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Consoli managed to get this idea published in the mainstream physics journal Physics Letters A (39). A 2005 New Scientist article (40) reports that the quantum optics group at Humbold University, Berlin was interested in performing a gas-mode version of the M-M experiment. At the time of this writing (October 2007), no results have been published, and it is unknown to this writer whether this crucial experiment which could overturn our entire understanding of nature is still being planned.
Is the Speed of Light in Interplanetary Space a Constant?
The late physicist Bryan G. Wallace discovered in 1961 that radar distance measurements of the surface of the planet Venus did not support the constancy of the speed of light. There were systematic variations in the radar data containing diurnal, lunar and synodic components. Attempting to get his results published in Physical Review Letters, he encountered great resistance from referees, and eventually settled for a lesser journal (41).
In a letter to Physics Today (42) Wallace summarizes his findings as follows: The 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best [general relativity] fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense.
Let us do a reality check here. If the speed of light in interplanetary space is non constant, how could NASA not have noticed in its robotic exploration of the solar system? Wallace makes the scandalous claim that NASA has noticed, and has been using equations with non-relativistic components to calculate signal transit times in the solar system all along: At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation.(43)
In a 1973 paper (44), Wallace describes how the Lincoln Lab introduced averaging to suppress the anomalous radar results and refused to release the raw data to him, stonewalling his investigation.
The apparent improvement in the residuals for later years was due to the fact that the Lab interpolated the 1964 [Venus] data to 12:00 UT and the 1967 data to one observation a day from 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT. The observing time for the 1961 data ranged from 00:33 UT to 23:40 UT. The involved radar astronomers are publicly claiming nearly complete agreement between their recent radar analysis and general relativity, but my investigation reveals otherwise. At the Fourth Texas Symposium of Relativistic Astrophysics, I.I. Shapiro of the Lincoln Lab promised to send me any data I wanted. I read in an article published by the lab that they had data for the same observing dates covering a wide range of daily observing times from both the MIT and USSR radar stations. I wrote Shapiro requesting this data 2/13/69; his letters of 2/28/69 and 3/12/69 ignored my request. I made an issue of this in my letter to him of 3/20/69, and in his reply of 3/27/69 he stated, 'Unfortunately the data do not exist in the form in which you wanted them and hence, I cannot honor your request.'
Shapiro later sent me data that were completely worthless for making an objective test of the relative velocity of light in space. The data were from two MIT radar stations in Massachusetts. The separation between them was only 0.2' of longitude and 20.6" of latitude and the observations had been interpolated to 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT with only one observation per day. It seems obvious that the Lab eliminated the variations by interpolating the data for each day to the one observing time for that day that agreed with the general relativity prediction. One could use the same method to prove that a stopped clock keeps perfect time.
A subsequent letter submitted to Physics Today on July 9, 1984 was denied publication. Wallace reproduced this letter in the chapter Publication Politics of his self-published online book The Farce of Physics (45). In it, he wrote: “During a current literature search, I requested and received a reprint of a paper [T. D. Moyer, Celes. Mech., 23, 33(1981)] published by Theodore D. Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The paper reports the methods used to obtain accurate values of range observables for radio and radar signals in the solar system. The paper's (A6) equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) in my paper RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE. [B. G. Wallace, Spectros. Lett., 2, 361(1969)] The additional terms in the (A6) equation correct for the effects of the troposphere and charged particles, as well as the general relativity effects of gravity and velocity time dilation.
The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to challenge Einstein's sacred second postulate. Over twenty-three years have gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS to bring true scientific freedom to the PR journal's editorial policy.
Supporting evidence comes from Ronald Hatch who finds that the NASA equations for interplanetary navigation follow his MLET theory rather than special relativity: (27) The experimental evidence is almost overwhelming in support of the MLET view. There is a large disjoint between the SRT theorists and the experimentalists. The SRT theorists continue to claim that the speed of light is automatically the velocity c and isotropic with respect to the moving observer or experiment. But the SRT experimentalists do what is necessary to explain and make sense of the measurements. The equations for tracking and navigating the interplanetary probes developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for NASA clearly follow the MLET template."
Mr. Wallace died on April 19, 1997, his findings ignored and thus neither confirmed nor refuted by the physics establishment. The question remains: Is the speed of light in interplanetary space subject to systematic variations in time?
References:
1. Martin, Brian. Stamping Out Dissent. April 26, 1993, pp. p.49-50.
2. Wilson, Robert Anton. The New Inquisition. s.l. : New Falcon Publications, 1991.
3. 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections. Jahn, Robert G. 1, 2001, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, pp. 21-.
4. Editorial. Bauer, Henry H. 3, 2000, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, pp. 304-305.
5. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. Stanley Pons, Martin Fleischmann. 2A, April 10, 1989, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, pp. 301-308 .
6. Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in palladium. al, N. S. Lewis et. 1989, Nature, Vol. 340, pp. 525 - 530.
7. Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma ray emission rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having Pd cathodes. Albagli, D. 2, 1990, Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9, p. 133.
8. Upper Limits On Neutron And Gamma-Ray Emission From Cold Fusion. Gai, M. July 6, 1989, Nature, Vol. 340, pp. 29-34.
9. Beaudette, Charles G. Excess Heat - Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. s.l. : Oak Grove Press, 2000. p. 113.
10. Charles G. Beaudette, Excess Heat - Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. s.l. : Oak Grove Press, 2000. p. 113.
11. Mallove, Eugene F. MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report. Infinite Energy. March/April 1999, Vol. 4, 24, pp. 64-118. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport...
12. —. Ten Years That Shook Physics. Infinite Energy. March/April 1999, Vol. 4, 24, p. 3.
13. Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss. Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D20 System, Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories. [Online] http://spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/t...
14. B. Daviss. Reasonable Doubt. New Scientist. March 29, 2003, 177, p. 2388 .
15. Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice: emission of charged particles. Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Frank E. Gordon. 6, 2007, Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 94.
16. Cold Fusion Conundrum at Texas A&M. Taubes, Gary. June 15, 1990, Science, Vol. 248, pp. 1299-1304.
17. Platt, Charles. What If Cold Fusion Is Real? Wired. November 1998, Vol. 6, 11.
18. Editorial. Epstein, Mike. 1, 1994, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8.
19. Mallove, Eugene F. The Triumph of Alchemy: Professor John Bockris and the Transmutation Crisis at Texas A&M. Infinite Energy. July/August 2000, Vol. 6, 32.
20. Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation. Y. Iwamura, M. Sakano, T. Itoh. 2002, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 41, pp. 4642–4650.
21. Higashiyama. Replication Of MHI Transmutation Experiment By D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complex. [Online] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Higashiyamreplicatio.pdf
22. John E. Chappell, Jr. What Ideas Does The NPA Stand For? Natural Philosophy Alliance. [Online] http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/Steps.htm
23. Farrell, John. Did Einstein cheat? Salon Magazine. [Online] July 6, 2000. http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/ein...
24. Goodstein, David L. Atoms to Quarks. The Mechanical Universe ... and beyond. s.l. : California Institute of Technology/Intelecom, 1985. Vol. 51.
25. Asimov, Isaac. The Two Masses. [book auth.] ed Timothy Ferris. The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics. s.l. : Back Bay Books, 1993.
26. A Varied Group. Goodman, B. 10, May 15, 1995, The Scientist, Vol. 9, p. 3.
27. A Modified Lorentz Aether Theory. Hatch, Ronald R. 39, September/October 2001, Infinite Energy, Vol. 7, pp. 14 - 23.
28. Relativity and GPS, Part I. Hatch, Ronald R. 3, 1995, Galilean Electrodynamic, Vol. 6, pp. 51-57.
29. Relativity and GPS, Part II. Hatch, Ronald R. 4, 1995, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 6, pp. 73-78.
30. Frey, Raymond E. LIGO: Status and Recent Results. [Online] July 27, 2007. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/P/P070079-01.pdf
31. The Aether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth. Miller, Dayton C. July 1933, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 5, pp. 203-241.
32. Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light. P. Marmet, C. Couture. 1, 1999, Physics Essays, Vol. 12, pp. 162-173.
33. Anomalies in the History of Relativity. McCausland, Ian. 2 , 1999, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13.
34. Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space. A. Brillet, J.L. Hall. 9, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 42, pp. 549-552.
35. Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators. H. Müller, S. Herrmann, C. Braxmaier, S. Schiller, A. Peters. 2 , July 11, 2003, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91.
36. New Analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller. Shankland, Robert S. 2, April 1955, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 27, pp. 167-178.
37. DeMeo, James. Dayton Miller's Aether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look. Infinite Energy. 2001, Vol. 7, 38, pp. 72 - 82.
38. Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Reginald T. Cahill, Kirsty Kitto. 2, April 2003, Apeiron, Vol. 10.
39. From classical to modern aether-drift experiments: the narrow window for a preferred frame. M. Consoli, E. Costanzo. 5-6, December 13, 2004, Physics Letters A, Vol. 333, pp. 355-363.
40. Marcus Chown. Catching the cosmic wind. New Scientist. April 2, 2005, 2493.
41. Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space. Wallace, Bryan G. 361, 1969, Spectroscopic Letters, Vol. 2.
42. Letter to the Editor. Wallace, Bryan G. 8 , 1981, Physics Today, Vol. 34.
43. —. Wallace, Bryan G. 1 , 1983, Physics Today, Vol. 36.
44. The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Aether. Wallace, Bryan G. 3, 1973, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 3, pp. 381-388.
45. Wallace, Bryan G. The Farce of Physics. s.l. : Self-published online, 1994.
46. The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang. Flandern, T. Van. 2, 2002, Apeiron, Vol. 9.
47. A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies. H. Arp, D. Russell. March 10, 2001, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 549, pp. 802-819.
48. Arp, H. Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 1989.
49. —. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science. s.l. : Apeiron Press, 1998.
50. Burbidge, G. Quasi-Steady State Cosmology. arXiv.org E-Print Archive. [Online] August 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108051
51. A Possibility Of Gravitational Force Shielding By Bulk YBa2Cu3O7?X Superconductor. E. Podkletnov, R. Nieminen. 3-4, December 10 1992, Physica C, Vol. 203, pp. 441-444.
52. C. Platt. Breaking the Law of Gravity. Wired. March 1998, Vol. 6, 03.
53. Matthews, R. Antigravity machine weighed down by controversy. New Scientist. September 21, 1996, p. 77.
54. Holden, C. NASA's fling with Anti-Gravity. Science. October 11, 1996, Vol. 274, p. 183.
55. Cook, N. Boeing challenges the laws of physics. London Financial Times. July 29, 2002.
56. Park, Robert L. What's New. [Online] August 2, 2002 . http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn080202.html
57. A Solid-State Maxwell Demon. D.P. Sheehan, A.R. Putnam, J.H. Wright. 10, October 2002, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 32.
58. Maxwell's demon: Slamming the door. Maddox, John. June 27, 2002, Nature, Vol. 417, p. 903.
59. Horgan, J. The End of Science. s.l. : Little Brown & Company, 1997.
60. The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 Reginald T. Cahill January 11, 2005, http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501051.pdf
