In his high school years, the author heard about a man who had created a theory which was so abstract and difficult that there were only three people in the world who could understand it. Since no physics courses where taught in the local high school, only the supposed fact that the mass of an object increased with its velocity and that velocity distorted time was given. The commentator spent most of his time in praising the genius of a man who was so smart that he could out-think himself. My earliest impression was that the commentator did not know what he was talking about, and the theory had to be an error.

During my undergraduate years in college, I learned that there was a man who had generated a theory that was so abstract and difficult that here were only twelve people in the world who were smart enough to understand it. Since this was obviously an attempt to establish a new messiah of science with his twelve disciples, I felt that the thing was a hoax.

As time went on and the theory became more entrenched on the basis of newspaper publicity, I began to feel that the world had been sold a bill of goods as long as a Pennsylvania search warrant. In the final analysis it became apparent that experimental fact as a criterion for judgment had been replaced by relativity theory. The final straw came from the American Physical Society. They gave a news release: "We now accept the special theory of relativity as fact." I immediately resigned my membership.

Let us examine a few consequences of that theory. For a condition of relative motion, clocks run slower and rods are shortened with respect to those at rest. The shortening of the rods is proved to occur by Lorentz contraction theory as applied to the Michelson-Morley experiment. Since the results of the Michelson-Morely experiment are explained by the fact that the space of the earth translates with the earth as it moves, no contraction applies for that reason. We have found that contractions exist for electrons and positrons in the neutron structure, but these do not apply in the direction of motion only.

Since we are forced to abandon the concept that rods get shorter, we turn to the time transformation. This was supposedly proved to exist by the atomic clock. We find that the only physical meaning that can be given in this case depends on quantum theory. The internal energy of matter is reduced by the act of acceleration. Time is not involved.

The third requirement of special relativity is concerned with a mass increase with velocity. In the case of free fall, the equality of the field force with that of the inertial force requires that no net work is done. The total energy of the object in free fall is conserved. In this case the acceleration occurred with no mass increase.

In the case of a collapsing field which drives the falling object to a velocity in excess of that of free fall, a mass increase can occur. This effect is active in a particle accelerator and in the process of ß-decay of the neutron.

The worst blunder in the field of physics applies to the supposed requirement that an inertial force does no work. Then in the case of acceleration of an object by the action of an applied contact force, the energy of the object is increased by the acceleration so that a mass increase occurs.

This supposed mass increase with velocity is denied by the action of Newton's third law. Since action and reaction are equal and opposite, no net work occurs in the energy interchange. In this case, no mass increase occurs.

There is one more requirement of special relativity which needs to be discussed. This has to do with the velocity of propagation of light. This is taken to be an absolute constant with respect to all observers under all conditions of motion. The requirement is imposed that no mass object can ever exceed the velocity of light in space.

Since light is a physical phenomenon, there must exist in space a medium of sufficient intensity to impose the limit. In analogy with the Mach number in the atmosphere, we observe no such limit in the region between the stars. The only point of validity to be found in special relativity is that of the mass-energy form. This applies only to radiation and to positrons and electrons in the free state.

The extension of special relativity into general relativity requires a study of gravitational effects. The presence of the gravitational field imposes the necessity of a study of contractions. The first point of observation is that in the case of photons in the field, only that energy which appears in excess of the field background can be measured. It follows that the velocity of light as measured in the field is reduced from that which applies in space. Then we can define and calculate the value of an index of refraction.

In the case of the contraction of matter at rest in a gravitational space, the contraction is found to be in excess of that applying to the photon. This fact has a significance in the interpretation of an experiment that was performed at Harvard University in 1960. The contraction of mass at rest in a gravitational space must reflect the contraction of the space itself plus that of the radiation of the energy of free fall in coming to rest.

The experiment of Pound and Rebka has been used to support general relativity theory. According to this theory, a photon has its energy increased by the action of the field. Since the velocity of light is assumed constant, the manifestation of the energy increase must appear as a frequency increase in the photon as it falls to a lower level in the field. It follows that a photon emitted at one elevation and received at a lower elevation must have its frequency increased at the lower elevation.

The experiment depended upon the Mossbauer effect. Since an increase of the proper magnitude was observed, validity of the relativity theory was clearly established.

Now we must consider the "agonizing reappraisal." Contraction theory as applied to the field requires that the energy measured in excess of the field depends on elevation. This means that the measured frequency is reduced at the lower level instead of being increased. The question then becomes: How is it possible that a frequency increase was measured at the lower elevation in spite of the fact that a reduction applied?

In the experiment, no consideration was given to the fact that contractions must apply to transmitter and receiver as well as to the photon. Although the frequency of the photon was reduced at the lower level, the reduction was more extreme as applied to the receiver. Then a frequency increase was measured relative only to the greater reduction in the resonance frequency of the receiver at the lower level.

In the analysis of the photon in a gravitational field, the action of the field is conservative. In this case no increase in photon frequency can occur. The masking effect of the field reduces the measured frequency. We find the interpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment flawed by the failure of the investigators to consider the change in resonance frequency between the transmitter and receiver occasioned by the change in elevation.

We observe a fact. We have found that the action of the atomic clock is velocity dependent. The Pound-Rebka experiment now shows it to be dependent on elevation as well. It is difficult to imagine that in any world of reality, time is dependent on elevation. A change in elevation of a mass in the field changes its internal energy but has nothing to do with the passage of time.

Trying to pin down a concept in relativity theory is as futile as trying to nail jello to the wall. The time transformation pops up in the guise of the transverse doppler effect. H. E. Ives performed an experiment using ionized hydrogen as a frequency source. This was reported in 1938. Measurements were made with the emitting source moving directly toward the observer, and another set of measurements made with the source moving directly away. The two effects were superimposed and the results compared with calculation. An internal frequency reduction in matter equivalent to that found in the case of the atomic clock was measured. The interpretation as a transverse doppler effect has no meaning, but the reduction of the internal frequency of matter with velocity is experimentally confirmed. Again we find the interpretation of experimental fact flawed to conform to the requirements of relativity.

In the case of forming an orbit from a condition of free fall, one-half of the energy of free fall must be lost. This lost energy must then appear as radiation. In order to generalize, we state: an object accelerated in a field radiates when a deflection occurs. This is true even in the case of a photon. Then a photon deflected in a field loses radiant energy to the field.

The relativity theory is in error in the assumption that field forces are invariant with velocity. The fact that field forces cannot adjust at any rate in excess of the velocity of light in the field imposes a limit on the velocity to be attained. Since there is no mass increase in free fall, the accelerating force that the field can exert is reduced with velocity. It is found by calculation that the reduction in field force depends on the square of the contraction factor.

Now we turn our attention to the experiment used to prove the mass increase with velocity as applied to the electron. If we equate the centrifugal force to that caused by the deflection of charge in a magnetic field, we must use the reduced mass of the electron as given by the application of the contraction factor. If we then use the reduced magnetic field by the application of the squared contraction factor, we find a measured mass increase in the electron in spite of the fact that a reduced mass was used.

We must point out that the stated conclusion depends on the assumed invariance of the electronic charge. In the consideration of charge to mass ratio, two choices are presented. We may assume a mass increase which does not occur, or we may assume a reduced charge. We conclude that the only thing proved by the experiment is that the charge is reduced with the velocity of the electron. In this case we find that although the mass of the electron may actually increase, the experiment invoked does not prove the fact. We find instead that the assumption of an invariant charge on the electron is in error.

To this point we have found that all experiments purported to prove relativity theory were flawed in the interpretation in such a manner as to support the work of Einstein. There are other experiments which do not support the work. One fallacy of special relativity is that contractions apply only in the direction of motion. It follows that a parallel plate capacitor must have its capacitance changed by a change in orientation of the plates. If the motion is perpendicular to the plates, the capacitance must be changed when a motion parallel to the plates is imposed. No such difference was found. The resistance of an electrical conductor in the form of a long straight wire should be changed by changing the orientation of the imposed velocity from parallel to perpendicular. No such effect was measured. In terms of a block of material that conducts heat, a contraction in the direction of motion should impose a condition of anistrophy so that the velocity of heat transfer would depend on the direction of the imposed motion. None of these effects were found.

The present author is not entirely alone in his objection to relativity. We may quote Dr. Walther Rauschenberger in the book, One Hundred Authors Against Einstein (Leipzig, 1931): "The acceptance of the theory of relativity will go down in history as one of the most remarkable errors of the human mind."

We should consider Einstein's own words. In 1949 he wrote to a friend, Maurice Solovine, who had congratulated him on his seventieth birthday: "Now you think I am looking back at my work with calm satisfaction, but on a closer look, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I am not sure that I was on the right track after all."

There are three basic tests of general relativity. The first is the deflection of a photon past the sun; the second is the advance in the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury; and the third is the gravitational red shift in radiation originating on a heavy star.

Sir Isaac Newton deduced the gravitational law from measurements made by Kepler and others. The law is limited by the fact that it describes the action without explaining the cause of gravity. Since a photon has mass, the calculation of the deflection in the field of the sun can be made. This calculation amounts to about 87 seconds ar arc for a photon at grazing incidence.

Now here is the hooker. The Einstein gravitational law differs from that of Newton only by a few parts in a million. Then we must ask by what miracle of legerdemain is it possible for the Einstein calculation to yield a value of deflection exactly twice that provided by the Newtonian calculation.

Claims are made that the Einstein result is closer to the value of deflection as measured during a total eclipse than that of Newton. That may be so, but the effect of the highly kinetic material atmosphere of the sun is not known. It is easy enough to claim that the atmosphere has no effect, but the claim cannot be used as proof of the fact. The claim of agreement with experimental fact cannot be validated.

The source of the double value of deflection can be traced to Einstein's use of a constant value of the velocity of light in the space of the sun in conjunction with a contracted angular momentum. If the velocity of light is contracted and the contracted angular momentum equation is used, the Newtonian value of deflection is confirmed. We conclude that the Einstein value is in error by 100% of the correct value.

The measured value of the advance in the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury amounts to about 42 seconds of arc per century of time. The Einstein calculation confirmed this value. Then we must concede that he was correct at this point at least.

Not so, says R. H. Dicke of Princeton University. The sun is a rotating object and the effect of the rotation was not considered by Einstein. Dicke measured the oblateness of the sun and found a correction amounting to four seconds of arc. This left 38 seconds of arc to be assigned to the gravitational effect by default.

My own calculation indicated a value of 36 seconds of arc caused by the gravitational effect. The application of the spin potential of the sun to the problem produced an added correction amounting to about 6 seconds of arc. Since the combination of effects confirmed the measured value, it was necessary to conclude that Einstein was wrong even when he got the right answer. Life is truly a kettle of fish. We conclude that Einstein was in error by more than 16 percent.

To this point we have found the calculation of the deflection of the photon past the sun to be in error. Also in error is the calculation of the orbit of Mercury since a non-rotating sun was used. In the case of the gravitational red shift, no contraction for the nature of the space was applied. Since this is a masking effect only, the measurement of the gravitational red shift would reflect only that due to the energy of free fall. In this case the Einstein value is correct even if he used the wrong method to arrive at it. We give him a batting average in excess of 300 in the field of general relativity. Maybe he should have taken up baseball.

The concept of free energy in space is very popular at the present time. A Frenchman calculates the enormous energy in a vacuum and plans to tap into it. Electric motors that can tap into magnetic fields in space and operate at efficiencies well in excess of 150% are proposed. A veritable sea of tachyons with energies beyond human imagination exists in space waiting to be applied. All we need is a tachyon interceptor to make the energy available. All of these ideas reflect the human failing of expecting something for nothing. Impedance matching is needed to make the energy available.

In the process of tapping into a source of energy or delivering energy to a system, a condition of impedance matching is required. In the case of direct current supplied by a battery, the maximum power transfer occurs when the impedance of the load is matched to that of the source. In the case of radio reception, the frequency of the receiver is tuned to that of the transmitter. In the case of elastic impact, a small object is not very effective in transferring energy to a heavier object. As an example, the bouncing of an elastic ball indicates that the energy of impact was reflected back into the ball to reverse its momentum. In the case of perfectly elastic impact and no friction, a ball would, in theory, bounce as high as the position from which it dropped. No energy was delivered to the sidewalk since it was all reflected back into the ball.

The concept of impedance matching is seen to extend far beyond electrical theory. If a man is the size of a bantam rooster but has the ego of a bull, in doing a job of work, he will invariably choose a tool to fit his ego rather than the job at hand. He then wears himself out swinging the tool but accomplishing very little in the way of useful work.

A pile driver is not very effective in driving a carpet tack. Neither is a tack hammer recommended for driving a railroad spike. The philosophy which must be applied in the choice of a tool requires the simplest tool adequate for the job at hand should be chosen. In the final analysis it appears that Einstein had no understanding of the prime directive of science. The mathematical tools used in the development of relativity theory were much too complicated for the results delivered.

There are various names which can be used to describe this prime directive as applied to the field of physics. One is termed Occam's Razor. Another is the law of KISS. This translates into: Keep It Simple, Stupid! It appears that the high powered mathematical systems used in the development of relativity theory served as a smoke screen to obscure the fact that the theory itself was without foundation.

As a final note to close the present chapter and after fifty years of study, it is the opinion of the present author that the theory of relativity in all of its convolutions and ramifications must be abandoned if any understanding of the universe is to be developed.