Daily News


November 5, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

For a while, as many of you know, I've been fascinated with the reports from Europe's CERN recording - apparently - faster-than-light travel of neutrinos, an experimental fact which, if verified, would challenge one of the major assumptions of modern physics, namely, that the velocity of light is constant for all observers in any frame of reference, a crucial plank of Einstein's Special relativity. In a previous blog I mentioned that this experiment, if it could be duplicated, may set off what, in my opinion, is a much-needed discussion within the physics community.  As most of my readers know, I am one of those who thinks that there is some evidence, albeit sketchy and ad hoc, that there is in fact a "public consumption" physics, dominated by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms and their role in Einstein's Special Relativity, and an "off-the-books" physics, indicated by obscure references from engineers involved in the black projects of America and other nations, among whom we must, of course, number former Lockheed Skunk Works chief Ben Rich. Rich maintained that there was "an error" in "the equations," never specifying what equations he was referring to, nor where the error was.

But it would be a mistake to assume that relativity has not been without its critics. Nikola Tesla weighed in early, as did Bell Laboratories engineer Herbert Ives, though their criticisms tend nowadays to be dismissed, or, in Ives' case, integrated into explanations favoring relativity. But there are other dissident voices, more recent ones, and for the sake of completion, it is best to point you to a review of some of the types of data, and the people observing it, that some believe to be significant contra-indications of relativity. One of the very best reviews of the matter I found in the late Dr. Eugene Mallove's magazine Infinite Energy, a review written by Dr. William Cantrell:

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory

I want to draw your attention to these paragraphs:

"That the speed of light is not constant in interplanetary space was first suspected by the late Bryan G. Wallace. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, MIT Lincoln Laboratory operated a series of high-power radio transmitters spread across the United States. Technically, these sites held a SECRET classification during the height of the Cold War and the Space-Race, even though the researchers were doing pure science. (Perhaps they also played a role in the study of ionospheric disruption effects caused by thermonuclear test shots in the Pacific, and the magnetic-conjugate excitation studies using high-altitude nuclear detonations in the Southern Atlantic.) At one site near El Campo, Texas, the transmitter was extremely high power, 500 kilowatts, operating in the low VHF range (38.25 MHz). Enormous water-cooled vacuum tubes were used to generate the RF energy. An 8 by 128 array of 1,024 dipole antennas boosted the gain so that the effective radiated power, focused into the main lobe, was in excess of 1,300 megawatts (yes, 1.3 gigawatts).

"Personnel at the site activated warning sirens and red flashing lights prior to "keying" the transmitter. This was done to make certain that no one was caught by surprise out in the antenna array, which covered over nine acres. Sometimes the "cooked" remains of rabbits and possums were found by maintenance personnel after a data gathering session, and this served as a somber demonstration of what could happen. It was possible to place a fluorescent bulb anywhere in the transmitter building where illumination was needed—it would glow by itself while the transmitter was "on." Site personnel quickly learned not to prop their feet up on the control console, as this would cause their shoes to heat-up. These powerful beacons made it possible to conduct radar studies of Venus, Mars, and also the Sun’s corona.

"During this time Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere.27

"To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims28 that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times. He also claimed that, despite his repeated requests, MIT Lincoln Lab refused to share the raw data from the Venus radar studies with him—that they were part of a government conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark about the true nature of the speed of light! He said that, what little data he did get, had been deliberately chosen to make it impossible for him to do the necessary computations. He also published a book describing his experiences, available on the web29 at no charge. Wallace was a colorful figure and a champion of a noble cause. It is well worth the time invested to read about his incredible story."

If correct, Wallace would again be signalling that non-relativistic effects were being noticed and used secretly while the theory itself was still being championed openly.  The advantage of Cantrell's article here is that he reviews the data, and unlike so many, is open enough to review it at all, and open enough also to know that relativity shouldn't just be thrown away because some scientists have "noticed things" or some results have challenged assumptions. But Wallace's observations hover over the article, a reminder that, if there is an off-the-books physics, it is being protected because of its enormous implications. His observations - heretical to the relativity priesthood though they may be - give an interesting perspective to Ben Rich's comments that "there was an error in the equations." If so, then the error was fundamental.

Such a view may reinforce those who have argued in typical conspiracy theory fashion that The Powers That Be were in fact behind the Heaviside alterations of Maxwell's original equations, and as well behind the Lorentz transforms - so crucial to Special Relativity - themselves. Time will tell, but Cantrell's mention of Wallace should give one pause, for at the minimum, Wallace is one of those cases that indicates that something more may be at stake than "pure science".

One final note: let's recall one sentence from the paragraphs cited above: "These powerful beacons made it possible to conduct radar studies of Venus, Mars, and also the Sun’s corona." A mere 1.3 gigawatts is a popgun when compared to the prodigious output of the Sun, barely enough to "tickle it." But imagine if those beams were in harmonic resonance with the Sun... effects could then be engineered... so perhaps the suppression of Wallace's article had less to do with relativity, and more to do with effects that no one wanted to discuss, at least, not openly...