By Prof. L. Kaliambos (Natural Philosopher in New Energy)

November 1, 2018

Writing in Google “Experiments rejecting Einstein” surprisingly we see that in this topic the articles are not
related with the real experiments of atomic and nuclear physics rejecting
Einstein's theories of relativity but with ideas influenced by the theory of relativity. For example among
a large number of articles written under the influence of relativity there are dominant articles written under the assumptions that both special and general relativity are valid theories. In the article " Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment-University of Pittsburgh" one sees that such a thought experiment is criticized under the assuption that the fallacious concept of ether is correct, because Einstein in the same year (1895) wrote an essay to his uncle Koch on "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields". Moreover In the article "The Four Bigest Mistakes of Einstein's Scientific Life- Forbes" one sees that the famous equation of Einstein is criticized under the assumption that the hypothesis of rest energy is correct, while this hypothesis did much to retard the progress of nuclear physics. Also in the article “Albert Einstein began by rejecting the ether theory”.one can see that the criticism is based on the wrong assumption that the concept of ether is correct..Under this crisis of physics for the correct experiments rejecting the theories of relativity here you can see my presentation of the experiments rejecting Einstein in NCSR “Democritos” (2002). Although
the experiments rejected the ether Einstein in 1915 in his invalid general relativity not only reintroduced such a fallacious medium but also introduced
the strange hypothesis of the curvature of space, which later (1938) was
revised by him. For example in his "The evolution of physics" (page 234) he wrote that light consists not of quanta of
fields without mass (1905) but of photons having mass m = hν/c^{2} similar to corpuscles of Newton, who
predicted the gravitational properties of light confirmed by Soldner in 1801. Nevertheless
today under the influence of the contradicting relativity theories many
physicists believe that the ether truly exists but it cannot be proven.
Especially in the above article we read: “However various kinds of experiments had been made,
among other was an experiment conducted by the American Scientists Michelson
and Morley 19th century, and all of those experiments failed to detect the
presence of luminiferous ether, so that the ether is deemed non-existent. There
is a possibility that luminiferous ether truly exists, but it cannot be
proven.”

Since
this article contains misconceptions I clear that the ether was overthrown not
only by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) but also by the experiments of
the Doppler effect. For example in the sound waves moving through a medium we
measure different results when the observer moves with respect to the source or
the source with respect to the observer. However since in the case of photons
the ether cannot exist we observe the same energy hν with the same frequency ν in both
cases, as in the case of the same energy in a collision of two particles no
matter which particle is moving. Under such inconsistencies of Einstein M.
Barone and F. Sellery organized the international conference “Frontiers of fundamental physics” (1993), in which I presented not only the
experiments of the American physicists French and Tessman (1963) who showed the
fallacy of Maxwell’s fields (invalid Maxwell’s equations) but also my discovery of dipolic photons having energy E = hν and mass m = hν/c^{2}
which invalidate Maxwell’s fields and Einstein’s relativity. Note that the
fields violate Newton's third law of simultaneous action and reaction confirmed
by the experiments of the Quantum Entanglement. (Quantum Entanglement rejects Einstein).

It is of interest to note that M. Barone and F. Selleri in the preface of the proceedings (1993) wrote:

“In relativity most people believe that the luminiferous ether of the XIXth century has been ruled out by Michelson-type experiments and by the development of the theory of special relativity. The situation is very different however, since Poincare and Lorentz were both defenders of the existence of ether, and Einstein himself, after 1916 radically modified his previously negative attitude. For example in 1924 he wrote that according to special relativity the ether remains still absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies.”

Also for the inconsistencies of Einstein about the ether in “MODERN PHYSICS” (page 9) we read: “When Michelson and Einstein met briefly in 1931, Michelson remarked that he regretted that his experiment might have been responsible for giving birth to such a monster - referring to the theory of special relativity.”

In nuclear physics, after my published paper “ Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism” (2003) based on nuclear experiments, today it is well- known that all experiments of atomic and nuclear physics reject
the theory of relativity and confirm Newton’s laws based on experiments. Actually today a number of physicists around
the world based on experiments of modern physics abandoned the theory of
relativity and apply the well-established laws of Newton, Coulomb, and Ampere,
with forces acting at a distance in accordance with Newton’s third law of
instantaneous action and reaction . Such unified forces of laws reject the
so-called strong and weak interactions which did much to retard the progress of
nuclear physics. In fact, the forces of laws and my discovery of the dipole
nature of photon based on laws and experiments (1993) solve all the problems including
the atomic and nuclear phenomena of non conservative forces. Note that the
great physicist Richard Feynman (Nobel prize 1965 ) wrote: “**Progress in science comes when experiments contradict theory**” (Richard Feynman on twitter).

Historically, before the development of
special relativity (1905) it had been found experimentally by W. Kaufmann
(1901) that the electron mass of high-speed electrons (β-rays) increases with increasing speed. According to the history of special relativity Kaufmann tried to explain his experiment by using the
hypothesis of electromagnetic mass introduced by J. J. Thomson and others. In
the same way Bucherer in 1909 found experimentally that the increasing
mass M at a speed u near the speed of light c of the β-rays with respect to the
constant inertial mass M_{o} of the Newtonian mechanics is given
by an equation which is similar to the equation of the theory of special
relativity. That is

M/M_{o} =
c/(c^{2}- u^{2})^{0.5}

Under this
condition he believed that he confirmed experimentally, not the hypothesis of
the electromagnetic mass, but the theory of special relativity, because Einstein
in his last paper of 1905 differentiating the above formula and applying
Newton’s second law (*PRINCIPIA* 1687) formulated
his famous equation E = mc^{2}. It is of interest to note that Newton’s
second law F = d(Mu)/dt contains the variable mass M, while for the constant
inertial mass M_{o }of the Newtonian mechanics of conservative forces
(without absorption or emission of particles having mass) is applied the
fundamental equation F = M_{o} (du/dt) formulized by the mathematician
Euler in 1750. (“INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPTS AND THEORIES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE”
page 118). Unfortunately in the absence of such a detailed knowledge Bucherer
in 1909 did not know that the increasing mass of the electron is due to
the absorption of the mass defect (like the electromagnetic mass) of the neutron,
which was discovered later (1932).

Today in “**MODERN PHYSICS**” (page 452) we read that the mass of neutron
(n) is equal to the mass of 1838.68 electrons, while the mass of proton (p) is
equal to the mass of 1836,15 electrons.
That is, when the neutron changes to proton we observe a mass defect Δm = mass of 2.53 electrons which gives the increasing
mass ΔΜ of the emitting electron, (because
the mass of the emitting antineutrino is negligible). So, after my
paper of 2003 which led to my discovery of the new structure of protons and neutrons based on the experiments of the magnetic moments in nucleons and
on the discovery of quarks by Gell-Mann (1964) one can describe the new
structures of nucleons as

n = [ 92(dud) + 4u + 8d ] = 288 quarks = mass of 1838.68 electrons

p = [ 93(dud) + 5d + 4u ] = 288 quarks = mass of 1836.15 electrons

Hence in the neutron decay under the conservation law of energy we also observe that the unstable quark triad (ddd) of neutron turns to the stable quark triad (dud) of proton under quark-quark interactions based on the applications of the well-established electromagnetic laws giving an energy Δw = 1.293 MeV which becomes the energy ΔΕ = 1.293 MeV of the emitting electron. Such an experiment led to my discovery of the law of energy and mass given by

Δw/Δm = ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c^{2}

This law is based
on the two conservation laws of energy and mass confirmed by Joule (1847) and
by Lavoisier (1789), while Einstein’s hypothesis of “mass –energy equivalence”
violate them. Thus Einstein’s hypothesis of the invalid rest energy was overthrown
by the experiments of atomic and nuclear physics . For example in the correct Bohr model the experiments of the ionization of energy showed that the energy Δw = 13.6 eV of the electron-proton interaction turns
to the energy hν = 13.6 eV of the photon (Nobel prize1922),
while the mass defect ΔΜ = ΔΕ/c^{2} becomes the mass m = hν/c^{2} of the same photon. In this case
the law of energy and mass is given by

Δw/Δm = hν/m = c^{2}

Today it is well
known that Einstein in his first paper (1905) for interpreting the absorption
of light by the electron under the influence of Maxwell’s fields violated not
only Newton’s third law of instantaneous action and reaction but also the two
conservation laws of mass. For example he believed that the photon absorption
contributes only to the increase of the electron energy ΔΕ, That is, he wrote that hν = ΔE in accordance with the conservation law of
energy while in the same year under his wrong interpretation of his equation E
= mc^{2} changed his ideas of the conservation law of energy by
introducing the wrong hypothesis that the mass turns to energy. That is,
Einstein in a short period introduced contradicting assumptions. Therefore in the “Introduction..science”
(page 503) we read: “ **The complete absence of contact with professional physicists during this period was perhaps a blessing in disguise, for it permitted Einstein to develop his rather unorthodox approach to the problems of physics**.” Whereas for the triumph of Newton’s PRINCIPIA in the same book (page
113) we read: “ **Its publication in 1687 established Newton at once as one of the greatest thinkers in history**.”

In fact, Einstein
not only believed that *PRINCIPIA* was
overthrown by his various hypotheses but also violated Newton’s laws based on
experiments. For example in the conclusions of his book in 1938 wrote that
science is not the collection of laws but of theories. Therefore under such
violations of laws I discovered the law of Photon-Matter Interaction given by

hν/m = ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c^{2}

According to this
law the photon of energy E = hν and mass m = hν/c^{2} contributes not only to the increase of
the electron energy ΔΕ but also to the
increase of the electron mass ΔΜ. (Correct explanation of photoelectric effect). The same situation we observe also in
the experiments of the Compton effect (Correct Compton effect), where the increase of the electron mass ΔΜ is due not to the relative motion (invalid theory of special relativity) but to the law of the absorption of photon (photon - matter interaction), in wich we observe a time dilation and
length contraction. (Discovery of length contraction). Finally after my paper “Spin-spin interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures" (2008) I showed that all experiments
of atomic and nuclear physics reject Einstein, because we observe absorption of
photons in the systems of non conservative forces. On the other hand in the
Newtonian Mechanics of conservative forces we observe always a constant
inertial mass, because the absorption of photons is absent. In other words the
fundamental laws of the Newtonian Mechanics cannot be ovethrown by the theories.

Nevertheless under the influence of the theory of relativity today it is a great difficulty for a large number of physicists to accept the experiments of the beta decay and the law of the absorption of photon, which invalidate relativity. For example in the “Criticism of the theory of relativity- Wikipedia” one reads : “Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community”.

On this point of
view in the preface of the proceedings of 1993 M. Barone and F. Selleri wrote:
“The Olympia conference **Frontiers of fundamental physics** was a
gathering of about hundred scientists who carry on their research in conceptual
important areas of physical science (they do fundamental physics). Most of them
were physicists but also historians and philosophers of science were well
represented. An important fraction of the participants could be considered heretical
because they disagreed with the validity of one or several fundamental
assumptions of modern physics”

It is indeed fortunate that after many years of research I have found that Einstein in the opening paragraph of his 1905 paper of special relativity was wrong, because he believed incorrectly that an observer measures the fallacious electric field E of Maxwell, when an observer is at rest with a conductor and the magnet is in motion. Note that the experiments of Faraday (1831) and of Neumann (1845) showed that the induced EMF is due always to the magnetic force because of the relative motion, no matter what is moving. Nevertheless in 1865 Maxwell in his electromagnetic theory introduced a fallacious electric field E. In fact according to the laws of Coulomb and Ampere also in the experiments of a rotating charged cylinder the observer always can measure magnetic forces.

Such an inconsistency of special relativity one can read in my paragraph of the proceedings of 1993 (page 421): “This inconsistency of special relativity in electromagnetism can be shown also in one experiment about the magnetic forces inside a rotating charged cylinder. If an observer is rotating with the cylinder (frame S’) he will measure only magnetic forces inside. Electric forces cannot appear, because the electrostatic equations say, there, will be no electric fields inside.”

To conclude I
emphasize that although all atomic and nuclear experiments reject relativity the
modern physics of the 21th century should include the theories of Einstein for historical
purposes, because the famous equation E = mc^{2} led to my discovery of
dipolic photons with energy E = hν and
mass m = hν/c^{2} which did much for the
progress of the quantum physics including the atomic and nuclear phenomena of
non conservative forces.