put forward by R.T Cahill


With reference to the archive article link below.



This is not a history less but It needs to be understood from the outset that relativity in all its forms goes back to The Galilean transformation being problematically at odds with Maxwell's findings and this was the problem---

If Maxwell's fields propagated at 'c' then for any hyper velocity particles the situation was, that their fields would become 'dragged' and that simply wouldn't work for electrons in atoms. Thus we had the birth of relativity which fixed the field dragging problem by time adjustment proportional to velocity.

That's how we ended up with---

1/ the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction type of relativity

Next we find that Einstein et al could see the same problem for all objects travelling at speed through space; in that they could only keep the requirements of the Galilean transformation -simultaneity of action, or in other words the maintenance of the laws of physics in every reference frame of constant motion by the same sort of reasoning so with the help of the Michelson Morley experiment (MMX) he invented STR.

Then scientists began looking for a propagation medium for light and to see if there was an aether, and therefore light speed would be found to be anisotropic. In other words:- a different speed relative to individual motional -inertial reference frames- IRFs. In other words if the Earth is travelling through space with speed, then that speed should be measurable as plus or minus the speed of light in the relative motion parallel directions.

Michelson Morley attempted to measure that difference and discover an aether for light to propagate through and in so doing determine what was fully expected regarding the speed of light and that was; that light wasn't Isotropic; in that it's propagation speed would be seen to be changed with full proportionality to the direction of travel of the emitting object/body through the universe with relevance -at the time- to any arbitrary reference frame of the universal state; in our case the Earth.

The MM experiment actually failed to show the expected anisotropy and because 'speed of light measurements on earth' were found to be independent of direction, isotropy became fully accepted by the consensus. I.e. the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames of motion. Einstein latched on to this and to solve the obvious dilemma he noticed that the only possible changeling in the equations if 'c' was held as a constant was time itself! So rather than question the status quo, he came up with the irrational general relativity STR which was also very Lorentzian in flavour so it was eagerly devoured by the 'intelligencia' and he was hailed as a physics god by now.

This foray moving as it did into the macro universe of gravity led to general relativity (GTR) which evolved further to the GTR fields and cosmological constant debacle at a later date but that's another story which is also addressed herein but it must be listed here because it is used as supporting evidence by the relativists who always stoop to proving one relativity by the existence of the others.  GTR utilizes Newton's big G in Einstein's field equations. So now we have both---

2/ Special theory of relativity STR

3/ General theory of relativity gravitational theory GTR

Unfortunately the Sagnac experiment actually showed light anisotropy* and later experiments have proven emr to actually be speed anisotropic and because of the need to support both Lorentzian relativity and GTR theories it was determined by a simple but flawed rationale that STR must still be valid; so even though STR can't possibly apply to objects and bodies in accelerating frames of reference -which orbits and spinning apparatus are- a 'logical' argument has been presented by Mr Cahill et all to make allowance for all that and permit STR to allow anisotropy even though that makes a complete non-sequitur of that paradigm.

*This is a real phenomenon which is used in ring laser gyroscopes use to control aircraft.


Enter the--- If A then B doesn't prevent the truth of B even if not A is true argument. WTH??

The other more convoluted way of saying that is to be found in the following logical argument which is taken verbatim from the Flinder's University archive article. Circa page 76.

"For an if statement, that if A then B does not imply the truth of A if B is found to be true; only an If and only if statement has that property and Einstein didn't construct such an argument"--- (bold type and underscore mine)

I find fault with this argument because it is entered into completely out of context, and that's because Einstein didn't see the need to construct such an argument at all in the first place. Why should he?  In his mind A was always going to be true but B was the experimental result. Only in hindsight has such an argument been constructed -for damage control purposes only- but it won't work.

That argument is also specious for another reason: That's because of the following fact--- without B being true then A cannot reasonably be declared to be true without other supporting evidence. This means that if there is no proof, there can be no truth. Right everyone? Agreed?

In that case, B being declared to be the case ad hoc would be a derivation of STR right out of thin air. That's in spite of Lorentz having already developed his relativity of the micro. That's because, without the historical but falsely interpreted MMX nul result nobody -including Einstein- would have seen any requirement to fall back and utilize any Lorentzian thought for the macro world at all. In other words If anyone had arrived at the idea of B without A  (STR without first observing isotropy) they would have been laughed out of the academy. So naturally the logic supposedly went like--- 'The experiment will show anisotropy and indicate an aether. Woops it showed a nul result so we have no aether. I will come up with a fanciful solution called STR but if an aether is proved to exist some day then the fact that the anisotropy exists won't get in the way of my new theory. I just declare that as luck would have it a failed experiment led to the true theory but any future success will not refute the theory.'

Having said that; please notice that the dogmatic relativist -without realizing that he simply has a mathematical reverse of the truth- will naturally appeal to Lorentz- and -even more stupidly to STR- as support for both itself and the whole relativistic paradigm or -as we will soon see- they will inadvertently refute one in support of the other. These sorts of irrationalities and convoluted arguments always surround highly debatable theories such as these.

Therefore in light of that, I have pre-empted that position by firstly destroying Lorentzian relativity by proving Maxwell wrong in his field propagation assumptions-as well as that there is also the Dirac, Lorentz invariance problem- and if you can accept that; then there can be no--- 1/.

Now if there is no 1/ or 2/ then it stands to reason that there can be no 3/ either.

However reason doesn't appear to be every relativist's strong-suit so I have taken the liberty of destroying Newton's big G gravitational constant which was utilized by Einstein in 3/ as well. Therefore; no big G then no GTR--- so no 1/,2/ or 3/!



The STR theory itself completely disallows the idea of anisotropy. There is no room for compatibility. It is either A or B and not both. (Refer to the Sagnac effect on the homepage 2 technical tab) How can 'they' have made a "relativistic" calibration to the instruments? In other words they stupidly declare that Lorentzian contraction adjusts the length of one motion-parallel apparatus independent of the IRF of the 'whole' apparatus. What gobbledegook is that? That's proving relativity by itself by attempting to use time adjustment. (gamma) simultaneously with length contraction. That is a non sequitur.

For those who need a little help understanding the excuse they are proposing. I will explain. The arms of the MMX experimental device are NOT moving through space so the only thing that is moving is the light beam being used in the experiment. Unfortunately Lorentzian relativity requires the experiment to be moving for there to be any length contraction. In STR and LTR; the moving light is 'c' locked to all the reference frames. You can assume either a time 'gamma' or a length adjustment but not both simultaneously. That is what is required if the experiment isn't moving and there will be no fringe shift observed for other reasons beside LTR.

The other problem with the Lorentzian explanation -if we ignore gamma and just suppose Lorentzian length adjustment- is that because we understand that the Earth is travelling at a velocity and so the only way the experiment can give the nul result that it does is to rely on the relativistic solution.

Unfortunately for the length idea in the standard sense of STR it means that if there is a constant beam then the length must be contracting in one direction and simultaneously be expected to be expanding in the opposite direction. That is inherent destruction of LTR and STR right there.  

In the end they were obviously made to understand this problem so to continue to enable this feat of imaginative fraud they now propose that the four dimensional space is allowed to be seen as a dynamical three space with a quite separated fourth dimension for time. This inadvertently destroys STR because then we have an involute geodesic and the time must remain relative to the actual URF or 'absolute motion' as the case may be and no longer relative to the IRFs.

So now having seen this problem also; this is where the further appeal to dynamical four-space -whatever that is- theory comes in?!



 They have understood this problem, so then; note the--- 'absolute motion' description---

From what I can understand, what they are suggesting is that the universe is travelling through absolute space itself and that there is a preferred motion which will upset the experimental results such that a nul result now becomes a real result supporting relativity*. Oh what an imaginative web we weave!? All their equations begin with the assumption that mirrors reflect at 'c' in all directions. So in effect here we have dogmatic relativists once more proving relativity by itself. The underpinnings of Lorentz and GTR -being circularly auto supportive- are gone, so STR is now hanging by a thread, so let's cut that through.

*Hang on a minute: A real result proves anisotropy doesn't it? How can that possibly be seen as supporting relativity? Wait it’s coming.


If a preferred frame is a reality which is to become consensually acceptable then that idea would in turn become the factual explanation for the nul result and there would no longer be any need for STR whatsoever. Similar to the G theory hypothesis - wherein that preferred frame of gravity is actually the aether being sought for- such an idea as a preferred reference frame of nothingness is just a hypothesis as well but an STR destroying one also.



Mind experiment to disprove the postulation made above and to theoretically support the traditional Lorentzian explanation so that we can return to the land of magic and leave the land of magical magic behind.


Can the differential Lorentzian contractions between the arms of the MMX apparatus account for the nul result? This all appears to be proving relativity by relativity or A=B because B=A yet it’s proponents declare that LTR masks the possible existence of any aether anyway. However ANY OF THAT flies in the face of the MMX and Sagnac results –because they actually differ- and because of the emr speed anisotropy observed in a coaxial cable -and there can’t be a relativistic explanation- the relativist scientists have been forced to move to that new D4S solution which is just taking the science further into pseudoscientific la la land---

Their assertion from the above: 'There is a preferred reference frame because of the motion of the universe through the greater space' and therefore what remains unspoken is that there is no aether or emr/light speed anisotropy at all.

Rhetorical question. Why are there several various and uniquely unsupportive experimental results which have led you to this confusing situation?

Refutation: To support your case you have just taken the various proved experiments into the intestable regions of postulation and hypothesis. That is attempting to prove magic by another magic which is actually pseudoscience. So while such a declaration appears to be absolutely irrefutable on the face of it, there happen to be many other refutations of the relativities -as you well know- which make such a hypothesis rationally untenable. I.e. It becomes an unsupported hypothesis.

Postulating an unknown object or phenomenon in support of any theory if there is any better solution on offer is irrational should the proposed solution not be examined. In light of that I am presenting to you a proposed solution which removes these dilemmas as well as a host of others--- G-theory!





 Gas cavity resonance interferometers operating in the vacuum mode show nul results for fringe shifts and this is stated to be really a support for relativity*. This is just a typical MM experiment with much shorter mirrors. It does give a fringe shift in the gas mode and that is likely because of Fresnel drag; or by G-theory--- the Fresnel drag including--- the reflecting gas affecting the re-emission speed of the light.

*So here they fall back to Einstein's original conclusion. Which is it to be? The big problem they have is the unrecognized -and if we bamboozle you with enough science, mathematics and logical arguments etc you might forget it's even there- What's there? Why the elephant in the room of course--- and that is the noted -and profoundly problematic for relativity- the observed speed anisotropy of emr in a coaxial cable as well as the Sagnac effect.


NB. I have devised an experiment to test for light speed anisotropy on Earth. This will not use mirrors and will be aligned such that the directions of the experiment will be reversed after six months. If you like… grab a couple of atomic clocks and a splitter, receivers etc and go figure. Otherwise are there any takers for the experiment?



Light speed anisotropy doesn't show up in light fibres under conditions in which it should be expected while emr speed anisotropy does. Please explain that relativists! That actual result however is fully predicted by G-theory light reflection mechanics. It has nothing to do with STR.




There is strong evidence for emr speed anisotropy per se; so in that case a true physical aether must exist and relativity is denied a platform which supports any formalism at all. The only true conclusion is that the universal reference frame is the intuitive straight invariant space and invariable time, and that reflection mechanics must include the probability that mirrors don't reflect by the simplistic mechanics that we thought, they must actually reflect emr by absorption/ re-emission mechanics* at URF 'c' regardless of any preferred URF motion. In consideration of the direction of modern thought towards particle activity at the level of the atom such a proposed mechanics of reflection is not at all remarkable. It's probably time we left the old idea of aethers, hard mirrors and relativity behind and progressed to more refined thought.

The reason that the Sagnac affect does show LSA is because the light is not being reflected back in the opposite direction in the specific unidirectional IRF. This provides further support for ag theory light reflection mechanics.

Maxwell/Lorentz and Newton/Einstein are addressed elsewhere on this website but perhaps the Newton's bad day needs to be understood first.


There is another theory which doesn't require relativity of any description! G theory

*…with a probable delay and loss.





 Now after suggesting we should leave 'space wind' type aethers behind, it still stands that there is some sort of preferred motion or 'space wind' but not necessarily a propagatory type aether similar to air in the air-sound analogy as pertaining to wave propagation but not wave front propagation and there is a marked difference but that's another subject. This reasoning is mainly because of the Sagnac experiment and multiple experiments with coaxial cables which definitively show anisotropy. Such measured anisotropy has variations which are not all associated with the motions of the bodies -Earth/Solar system- and these relate well to the type of short and long period gravitational waves that G-theory predicts ---gravitational noise actually. Experiments on emr have shown a differential of 400km.s +- 30km.s. My space drag calculations show that to be a reasonable result for the speed of the Earth through space.

G theory proposes that the true preferred frame is within the universe and which is a kind of aether; being gravitational flux itself, to be recognised as a quantum field through which both light and emr propagate in a -mutually with gravity- perturbatively interactive manner, as explained in the thesis on this web site.

The cringeworthy arguments that have been put forward in the article being refuted herein is being done for the following reasons---

1/ There is emr speed anisotropy plainly evident in coaxial cables.

2/ There was no anisotropy showing for light in either a vacuum, most mediums or---

3/ a light fibre.

4/ There is still an MMX nul result.

I have thrown another experiment in here---

5/ The Sagnac experiment demonstrates light speed anisotropy.

We have two positive results for LSA. That enigma results in a serious problem for relativity and that is this: If that were to be permitted to stand without an explanation then some other theory like G-theory would seem to be the operative phenomenology because in the case of G-theory it actually predicts those three observances. It also predicts that light reflection mechanics in a gas will cause some anisotropy to actually show up because now the light is not being emitted to vacuum but rather to a gas which is atomic matter and that in turn changes the re-emission statistics. The fact that a light fibre doesn't show any anisotropy either is also predicted by G-theory because of the similar reflection mechanics. You can find that prediction in one proposed experiment to test for light speed anisotropy, which I have in my possession. Anyone want to carry it out?

So what those devious scientists have done to try to 'relativise'’ the ESA is to FORCE the Michelson Morley experiments to show fictitious LSA which then concurs with the coaxial cable result which they can then try and explain away all at once as being relativistic. It's really great when relativity prevents relativity isn't it? However in order to achieve that MMX faux result they utilize fraudulent methods of relativistic calibrations to do so. This is achieved by taking - what they actually admit in that paper to being a purely mathematical formalism- of Lorentzian relativity and applying Its supposed length contraction phenomenon to the instrument such that the arm in the away from the direction of motion is less contracted than the other arm because the LORENTZ Contraction being a purely mathematical construct doesn't conform to any URF preferred motion reference frame baseline. The Light speed is invariant between all the RFs.

That doesn't make any sense, because if that's the case and Lorenz is independent of observer or preferred frame then both arms would contract similarly and that would just give an overall incorrect value for 'c'. Mmm that's novel?! You’ll have to re-invent relativity. So you see it's all just tiddlywinks being engaged in to try and solve a serious problem for relativity but what they have really discovered is -as I have concurred with in the G-theory thesis. There is indeed a real Euclidean three space with an unrelated time dimension which is just the measurement of the duration of events as we all friggin' well know. Without Maxwell mistakenly concluding that a charge can be instantaneously applied to a plate, then we would have no LTR and no STR and no GTR and by now we would have figured G-theory to be the true model.

A further conclusion is that there is indeed light and emr speed anisotropy; the first of which can't be measured with mirrors or fibres. Notice that Mr Miller et al are still befuddled by the isotropic light fibre problem. That's got 'em good--- LMAO. I predicted that with G-theory but when they solve that with the same solution as I have, I'll be all ears.

But for now I'll go with G-theory any day. Refer to the Light; the great achiever and  the Light; wave, particle or duality? tabs.



 Also from the thesis:

Earlier experiments (circa 1980) -even prior to the arguable OPERA collaboration- have shown neutrino speeds to be about 370km/s faster than light. Whether this is anisotropic-ally related to direction is yet to be determined. If this is found to be the case then it can be shown that if light speed had been determined without the use of mirrors, the speed of light in the same direction would be ditto. Refer to Wikipedia--- neutrino.

  Note: Gamma and other particles are noted to be reference frame anisotropic.


Also: Recent Cherenkov radiation analysis in water tanks have show certain particles that travel well over the speed of light. Duh!

The cat is getting out of the bag folks.