... will be proven. Then skeptical scientists like Hayden and Beckmann, will rest easier. But suppose the east and west velocities of light are different? Then Special Relativity would collapse. Hayden and Beckmann do not dread this at all. In fact, they (and others) point out that some of the vaunted experimental "proofs" of Special Relativity can be explained in other ways. For example: (1 ) The bending of starlight passing close to the sun can easily be accounted for using Fermat's Law; and (2 ) The advance of Mercury's perihelion was explained by P. Gerber, 17 years before Einstein's 1915 paper on the subject, using classical physics and the now accepted assumption that gravity propagates at the speed of light. As for the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, Michelson (an unbeliever in Relativity) believed that he and Morley failed to detect ether drift because the ether was entrained with the earth as it orbited the sun. It is rarely mentioned that Michelson and H.G . Gale repeated the experiment in 1925 to see if ether drift could be detected as the earth rotated on its axis. They did! And Einstein was sorely tried explaining the result. A 1979 repeat of the experiment at the University of Colorado, using la-sers found "unexpected perturbations," which were blamed on "other causes." (After all, Relativity and Einstein are sacrosanct!) The gist of all this is that Hayden and Beckmann suspect that Special Relativity is founded upon quicksand. The reader should not be surprised to learn ...

... Frontiers ONLINE No. 22: Jul-Aug 1982 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects Herbert Ives And The Ether Herbert Ives was a top scientist at Bell Laboratories who performed some largely forgotten experiments on relativity and space-time a few decades ago. His experimental prowess and reputation were so good that his work on relativity was published in great detail in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. Ives would have had a more difficult time getting his results published today, for he showed quite clearly that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity did not correspond to lab results. At the time, such results were not so shocking. Indeed, some philosophers had shown that Special Relativity led to undesirable paradoxes, and experiments by Sagnac and Michelson/Gale had cast additional doubt on this aspect of Relativity. Such experiments by Ives and other key scientists suggested that an ether actually did exist and that it could serve as an absolute reference frame. Another implication was that time was an independent entity unaffected by motion and that the infamous Twin Paradox was a fiction. Ives himself believed his work proved that so-called relativistic effects could be easily explained by phenomena appealing more to the common sense, such as the change of a light source's frequency with motion (over and above the Doppler Effect), rather than revamping space-time concepts. In short, Ives thought he had proved Special Relativity untenable experimentally and an un-necessary distortion of science's worldview. (Barnes, Thomas G., and Ramirez, ...