perfidy

Aretae linked to this fascinating post by Falkenblog, on the dubiousness of Eddington's experimental proof of Einstein's theory of relativity.

I've gone down the rabbit hole on modern science - I am extremely dubious of anything outside the really hard sciences, the stuff that results in hardware.  What started with a big WTF on dark matter, has extended to lots more and relativity is one of them.  The fact that Eddington fudged his numbers is one more nail waiting for a coffin.

There's been some research, here and there, pointing in the direction of a rework of relativity in light of classical mechanics.  Three books that are on my list to read cover this idea:

• Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation, Oleg D. Jefimenk:A strikingly new exploration of the fundamentals of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's theory of gravitation. Starting from an analysis of the principles of causality, Jefimenko develops the argument that, contrary to the generally accepted view, time-varying electric and magnetic fields cannot cause each other; rather, the true, simultaneous source of both lies in time-varying charges and currents. These causal dependencies are expressed as solutions to Maxwell's equations in the form of retarded electric and magnetic field integrals, which turn out to be related to momentum conservation and result in an extension of conventional gravitational concepts. In particular, a second, "cogravitational" field (first predicted by Heavyside) is implied, relating to the gravitational field proper in a way similar to that in which the magnetic field relates to the electric field. This leads to a gravitational relationship in which the forces depend not only on the masses and separations of the interacting bodies but also on their velocities and accelerations. Generalizing Newtonian gravitation to time-varying systems gives a causal formulation that can reproduce many features commonly held to be unique to General Relativity, inviting one to wonder if the abandonment of Newton's theory in favor of GR might, perhaps, have been too hasty. Mathematically demanding, but great food for thought for anyone with an interest in the foundations of physics. Oleg Jefimenko is Professor of Physics at the University of West Virginia.
• Newtonian Electrodynamics, Peter and Neal Graneau:A detailed technical account of how the 19th century electromagnetics developed by Coulomb, Ampère, Neumann, and Kirchoff explains and enables analysis of experiments with exploding wires, railguns, and arc dynamics that cannot be accounted for satisfactorily by the relativistic field theory of Maxwell, Lorentz, and Einstein.The authors suggest that in the rush to produce a unified description of physics, the solidly observation-based Newtonian electrodynamics was swept out of sight and written out of textbooks in an unduly hasty manner that has left gaping holes in the comprehension of such basic elements of electrical engineering as motors and generators.
• Einstein Plus Two, Petr Beckman:

Presents Dr. Beckmann's theory that effects conventionally attributed to Einsteinian Relativity can be explained more simply. This theory, derived from electromagnetic principles, states that velocity with respect to the dominant local energy field, rather than veolcity with respect to the observer, is what matters. From this it is seen that the normal charge distribution law becomes inaccurate at high speeds which, in effect, is what the Lorentz transformations compensate for.

Where Einstein is obliged to distort space and time, Beckmann leaves them as being what they always were and rearranges the charge configuration of moving objects. The result is a theory that satisfies the relativity principle, is equally compatible with all the experimental results cited as "proving" Relativity, and more powerful predictively in being able to derive the quantization of electron orbits, the Titius series of planetary spacings, and the Schrödinger equation.

Delightfully thought-provoking, but not for the mathematically squeamish

(Descriptions of books from James Hogan, and recommended by him.) The common denominator is the idea that classical mechanics - Maxwell - can be used to explain relativistic phenomena without recourse to the bizarre side effects imposed by Einstein's relativity.  If Maxwell's equations, which seem pretty solid, and don't make your mind all twisty, can be used to explain more simply these things, then it seems to me that Occam's razor would insist that we drop Einstein into the dustbin of scientific history.

[wik] some more links I haven't had time to sort through:

• Salon article on relativity deniers.
• Rethinking Relativity, Tom Bethel.
• Beckman information from wiki, pdf.