In 1948, when I was 14 years, my father gave me a book to read. It was written by physicist George Gamow, and entitled: “One, Two, Three…Infinity.” Gamow’s book described many wondrous facts, speculations and paradoxes of science and the cosmos…including a brief section on Einstein’s relativity. I did not understand nor agree with everything I read, but it greatly broadened my horizons and stimulated my curiosity.
Over the next four and one-half decades I continued to be fascinated with the revelations of science and, in particular, with the mysteries and paradoxes of physics, astronomical observations, and the theories of cosmology. Like millions of others, I was glued to the television set when Carl Sagan presented the visual version of his book, “Cosmos.” So I owe a special debt of early inspiration to my father, George Gamow, and Carl Sagan, the latter who I had the pleasure of briefly meeting shortly before his untimely death.
In 1992, I serendipitously stumbled upon a book entitled, “The Big Bang Never Happened.” I remember commenting at the time, “I agree with that.” I spent the next five years researching and writing a treatise critiquing the theories of the Expanding Universe, the spherical universe and the Big Bang. This treatise remains in the final editing process and hopefully will be published in the near future.
During the process of writing that as yet unpublished manuscript, I realized the theories of the cosmos were to a great extent dependent upon Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and to a lesser extent on his Special Theory of Relativity. Therefore, I decided to explore both Special Relativity and General Relativity. I was so surprised by my initial research, analysis, and conclusions that I spent the next few years writing two more treatises: one on General Relativity and this treatise on Special Relativity. Thus, after about 17 years of one breakthrough and one fascinating revelation after another, I am only now in the position to begin publishing. For reasons of chronology, I have decided to finalize and publish “The Relativity of Light” first.
During the critical years of my above-described endeavors, I was very fortunate to have an extraordinarily competent and dedicated assistant, Shirley Sinkewitsch. She deciphered each of my often hopelessly confusing hand-written drafts and made attractive and understandable each of my crude hand-drawn illustrations. I wish to thank the Stanford University Physics Library and the other sources of my research. I am also indebted to those who read and critiqued various segments and versions of my drafts, including Stanford physics graduate Elizabeth Williams, scientist Jack Sliwa, Scott Jacobs, Tito Torres, Charles Jacobs, Kathryn Francis, and others.
This treatise (“The Relativity of Light”) contains a multitude of well known and little-known factual data, authoritative observations, and revolutionary concepts. It challenges and directly contradicts many of the most revered conjectures, postulates, assertions, and conclusions of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. The author does not anticipate rave reviews from many relativistic physicists, relativistic mathematicians, and the like…especially those whose livelihood and reputation depends upon the theoretical status quo. It undoubtedly will be ignored by some and will outrage others.
For these reasons the targeted audience also includes a much broader, more neutral and more open-minded forum…the curious and intelligent general public at large. The chapters are written in plain English which any educated and intelligent person can understand and evaluate. Technical terms are defined in simple language, and mathematical equations are kept to a bare minimum. Wherever possible, original documents and primary sources have been quoted or cited, rather than secondary authorities. Data and concepts are clearly explained by well over 200 illustrations, charts and memos. There are some repetitions of certain concepts and statements, for purposes of clarity, understanding and emphasis. Some chapters may require a second reading in order to achieve a full understanding.
The contents of this treatise was almost entirely researched and written by the author over more than an eight-year period, despite numerous unsuccessful attempts to recruit the assistance of others.
It appears that solitude is the price one must pay for conceiving concepts that are completely "outside the box," and for advocating non-mainstream ideas. The fact that the author does not hold a Ph.D. in physics or in mathematics, and is not an established authority in the field, also does not help. It was for these reasons that he chose to initially self-publish this manuscript for limited distribution on the Internet, rather than suffer the anticipated rejections of mainstream scientific journals and publishing houses.
The subject matter of this treatise was at first approached with a very narrow focus. Gradually this focus continued to widen as one sacred concept of Special Relativity after another was found to be flawed or empirically invalid. Along the way it was difficult to fathom how so many false premises, misconceptions and unfounded conjectures could have been made by Einstein and his relativistic followers. Who but a skeptical, open-minded, and non-professional student of physics and Special Relativity, with no scientific reputation to protect, might have the gall to scrutinize and challenge the theories and conclusions of a scientific icon?
Nevertheless, the extraordinary contradictions, misanalysis, absurdities and answers to paradoxes which have been discovered during thousands of hours of research, analysis, and draft after draft of explanations and illustrations should prove fascinating to all readers…even if not welcome to some. We all want to be informed about the reality of the universe in which we live. The author sincerely believes that this treatise is a step in that direction.
The author also faced a dilemma as this paragraph was being written. Should he take another year or two to rewrite, edit and polish the manuscript, cross all the t’s, dot all the i’s, make everything consistent, consolidate redundancies, continue to research, improve sources, discover more revelations, reflect upon and develop concepts, correct all of the minor errors and smooth out all of the rough edges? Or should he elect to publish this manuscript in its present imperfect form, risk criticism for having done so, study the critiques and suggested revisions of readers, continue researching, developing concepts, editing, re-writing, and then re-publish a more polished document as a revised edition? The decision was made to do the latter.