Started July 14, 1999
Many people are simultaneously coming to similar conclusions. They are often partly based on the false information that has been supported by the establishment for many decades now. In the circumstances, this cannot be helped. I should like to introduce here people who seem to have the right approach, that of asking new theories to explain rather than just predict, rejecting out of hand anything illogical. I count nonlocal effects in this latter class. I am also introducing a few people who, though perhaps thinking themselves to be logical, seem trapped into endlessly modifying old ideas without attempting to relate them to the real world.
I read an account (New Scientist, June5 1999, p35) of how honeybees reach a consensus on choosing a new home when they swarm. Many scouts go out, and they come back and "report", through details of their dance, the quality and location of the sites they find. The more scouts proclaim the merits of the same site, and the "louder" they shout them, the more other bees support them! Simple! Given enough bees, a good decision is reached, despite the total absence of any "discussion".
Perhaps, despite the fact we all think our pet theories unique and scarcely listen to each other, we too shall reach an effective consensus, becoming a pressure for change that diffuses over the entire globe!
The following are in alphabetical order.
Maurice Allais: Nobel prize in 1988 for Economics. Has investigated anomalous gravitational effects and the Miller-Einstein-Shankland question: aether drift experiments are not compatible with Einstein's Special Relativity. See also Thomas Goodey’s translation of the original Allais Eclipse Documents from French to English: http://www.flyingkettle.com/allais.htm and Pete Brown's transcription of his notes on the aether: http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_7.htm
Harold Aspden: fights Einstein's relativity theories. Believes electrodynmics and gravity linked, and looks to real experiments for enlightenment, but at present convinced potentials spread faster than c.
Bill Beaty: His native curiosity is in good shape! See his essays on "energy-sucking antennae", or polish up your ideas on waves. No photons in his world! New pages (July 2002): Ridiculed/vindicated science revolutionaries, quotations ...
Ben Best: a cheerful free thinker who has thought about the origins of the conceptual difficulties of QT and written a delightful essay or two. He's also collected some good quotes.
Pete Brown ("Mountain Man"): a man with ideas about our planet. He has produced an interesting selection of articles on Western Science, including annotated links on theories of the aether.
David Chalmers: (sadly deceased) was an expert in practical optics, and originator of the "accumulator" theory of light detection. This may be essential for realistic interpretation of many recent quantum optics results.
Daniel Crespin: shares my outrage QT, but perhaps does not break sufficiently cleanly from some of its preconceptions, and is too enamoured of maths for my taste. See his paper "Realism".
Bibhas De: Brilliant satirical criticism of current physics. Replacement ideas include a photon with mass, and other concepts I dispute. His teacher was Hannes Alfven ... perhaps they both could have learned from my Phi-Wave-Aether.
James DeMeo: real evidence for the aether emerges from rejection of Shankland's blatantly biased 1955 critique of Dayton Miller's critical 1933 paper re his Michelson-Morley-type experiments. He has frequently made inspirational contributions to the Gravitational Anomalies group, for example his March 23, 2005 posting.
Roland Dishington: This man has independently come to some of the same conclusions as myself re the aether and longitudinal waves. See my comments on his book.
Clarence Dulaney: re-evaluates old experimental evidence and constructs strange models of the atom and light, full of neutrinos, but at least everything is real! See his introductory letter.
Electric/Plasma Universe: My introduction to these ideas was Eric Lerner's book, The Big Bang Never Happened. The theory has now been extended by him and others and is supported by many beautiful pictures that do seem best interpreted as evidence of electrical activity on objects ranging from comets and the Sun to nebulae. There are several relevant sites, including www.holoscience.com, http://www.electric-cosmos.org and http://www.theuniverse.ws/ .
David Elm: Used to have a site that gave a pile of references on EPR and the Bell tests, though not including any by the realists. His paper, "Quantum Reality and the Bell Inequality" includes some useful facts and concludes that the experiments don't rule out local realism, but, unfortunately, has many of the usual errors. He has not studied the actual experiments.
Tom Van Flandern: knows a lot about the the synchronisation of GPS satellites, but I fear we have serious disagreements over things such as the speed of gravity. See for example our correspondence, May 2001: emails May 18, May 19, May 20.
Robert Fritzius: is currently (August, 2005) trying to re-open the "Great Debate" of the 1920's re the true nature of and distances to spiral nebulae. He has resurrected observations on their internal motions that were used by Adriaan van Maanen to argue that they must be relatively close. It's high time the observations were checked!
Glird (alias DuGabriel): an original thinker with a model of the universe built entirely of a continuous fluid compressible aether. New site includes well-organised useful links.
Bruce Harvey: an ex physics teacher who rebelled. He's sorted out Einstein for himself, created his own theory of gravity and might solve the riddle of the universe given access to the right facts!
Werner Hofer: has a foot in both camps. He's an expert on the conventional theory behind the scanning tunnelling microscope, but maybe at heart he's a dissident.
John Kierein: makes a very good case for the cosmological red shift being a "Compton effect". I don't quite agree - I'd rather think in terms of continuous damping - but he has other very good ideas.
Gabriel LaFrenière: shares many of my ideas about the nature of matter and light, illustrating them with animated graphics. I don't think they are all true models of Nature, but they provide insights into such matters as how a set of longitudinal waves can produce transverse ones.
Eric Lerner: is a plasma physicist and prominent opponent of the Big Bang theory. His book, "The Big Bang Never Happened", has influenced many besides myself.
Steven Lewis: an expert on "semantics", Lewis' site represents a valiant attempt to get the world thinking more rationally. Also, it is flattering to find myself rubbing shoulders with Hannes Alfven and Ben Best in his list of links!
Henry Lindner: a physician with a philosophy and a view of mathematics with which I very much empathise!
Paul Marmet: a man with a world view much like mine, who has investigated matters from the red shift to quantum entanglement. I dispute his ideas on interference, though. He has suffered for his views, as he told me back in 1999.
Trevor Marshall: is involved in the theory Stochastic Electrodynamics. He has recently updated and much improved his web site, though his discussion of the Bell tests is, I think, wrong, based on analysis of adjusted instead of raw data.
Brian
Martin: has battled for the unfettered
dissemination of science for many years now. There are several references
to my "Tangled
Methods" paper (though with out-of-date URL) in his article, "Suppression
of dissent".
Carver Mead: gave a brilliant interview for the American Spectator a few years ago. I fear I was disappointed with his book on electrodynamics (see amazon.com) but do read his forthright and informed opinions on modern physics in his interview.
Dennis McCarthy: a brilliant young follower of Steve Rado, perhaps the man who will succeed some day in modifying the basic theory to overcome problems over magnetism ...
Bill Mitchell: has accumulated a wealth of information against the Big Bang theory, and written books on the subject.
Robert O'Keeffe: Here's someone who knows a lot more chemistry and me and has ideas about the structure of matter that should not be ignored. [He's working on a more concise paper.]
Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA): publicises the faults of Einstein's relativity theories. Horizons now widening to include cold fusion, problems with quantum theory etc.. See also report on their conference, June 2000.
LeRoy Pea: try LeRoy for email addresses of "dissidents". His site is under construction ...
David Pratt: Starting from a book by Pari Spolter, 'Gravitational Force of the Sun', David has amassed some possibly very important controversial information relating to gravity. As I have long suspected, the force may not be proportional to mass!
Steven Rado: the brave builder of a logical universe built out of "aethrons", moving at speed c. He has re-evaluated the evidence for fundamental concepts. We disagree over magnetism ...
Eric Reiter: See his actual experiments proving gamma-rays are not "photons", and his wave-based theory of the photoelectric effect -- see the end of his gamma ray paper. Brilliant!
Christian Ricordeau: creator of a universe that is purely waves and is evolving, increasing in complexity. A beautiful vision, but he's an architect, not a physicist! (Mostly in French, BTW.)
James Siepmann: "I ran across your website and I swear we must have been twins separated at birth". This, unfortunately, has turned out to be a delusion.
Theo Theocharis: a dissident of long standing, who wrote a quite well-known article in Nature back in 1987 on the "Science Wars". Einstein's reputation is largely a myth; quantum theory is little use!
Ray Tomes: Whilst I am not so sure about some of his key ideas, Ray fully deserves his reputation as the "genius of the Southern Hemisphere" and his views may well complement my own. For his latest ideas (January 2004) see his brilliant contributions to discussion in the Wave-Structure-Matter Yahoo group.
Gertrude Walton: provides a very valuable list of dissident physics sites.
Jim Wright: presents revisions (August, 2002) of his theory challenging the idea of cosmological expansion, with new ideas linking them to lab experiments. He would welcome feedback. [Please note that I disclaim all connection with his work.]