Updated in November 2005

The articles that follow were presented for the first time on the occasion of International Conferences and were published in the volumes of proceedings of these meetings, in particular:

- The P.I.R.T MEETING (Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory) held every two years at the Imperial College of London, sponsored by the British Society for the Philosophy of Science, Michael C. Duffy Chairman.
- Geometrization of Physics meeting, held every two years in Kazan State University, Russia, Victor Bashkov Chairman
- Meetings organized by Franco Selleri and published in collective books:
        - Advances in Fundamental Physics
        - Open Questions in Relativistic Physics

The articles are directly available by the buttons placed below.
The main ideas of these manuscripts were registered at the French Society of authors.
The versions presented in this web site were slightly modified in regard to the original ones, by taking account of new theoretical or experimental data. But the guiding line remains unchanged. (Most of the references quoted in the bibliography of our articles are present in this web site in updated form.)
The ideas developed in these texts rest on theoretical and experimental bases. They call into question some dogmas and lead to really new concepts in Physics. The basic concepts are presented in a synthetic form in a book entitled "From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond", published by Apeiron. Email Apeiron@vif.com, web site http://redshift.vif.com. For further information click here The book can be ordered at the publisher's adress, or at the adresses of the great distributors (Amazon, Blackwell, Garner, etc).

- Let us first bear in mind some of the principles considered as basic in conventional physics that will be called into question and criticized subsequently.

1- Special relativity assumes the existence of "inertial" frames. All these frames are therefore considered equivalent for the description of the physical laws (Relativity Principle).We will endeavour to verify if the structure of the physical world enables the existence of frames really inertial (which implies the nonexistence of an aether drift)*
From 1905 to 1916, the aether was considered as inexistent by most relativists, but from 1916 Einstein reconsidered his initial position and formulated a new concept of aether (required by General Relativity). According to him, “this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it”. We will verify if this new concept of aether is compatible with other well founded data
2- According to special relativity, the kinetic energy is assumed to take the form in all "inertial" frames. It reduces to in all cases when V<<C.
3- The real one way speed of light is considered as identical and equal to C in all directions of space (isotropic) and independent of the "inertial" frame in which it is measured. The methods of measurement of C are not called into question.
4- The simultaneity of two events is viewed as relative to the observer.
5- The interval of time between two instantaneous distant events is considered as relative and dependent on the speed of the observer who measures it.
6- The space-time transformations which connect any two "inertial" frames are assumed to take the form of the Lorentz-Poincaré transformations in all cases.
7- According to conventional relativity the contraction of moving bodies is observational and reciprocal, (which implies that there is no real contraction).
8- Speeds are considered only relative: there is no absolute velocity.
9- The rest mass of a body is assumed to be the same in all "inertial" frames. Thus, the law applies identically from all of them.
10- The method of slow clock transport is supposed to enable exact synchronization of clocks.

- Criticism of the above-mentioned principles.

Most of these statements follow from measurement distortions.
In effect when we measure the length and the time, we make systematic errors because we use contracted meter sticks and retarded clocks. In addition, as we will see, we make systematic errors in synchronizing the clocks.
The simultaneity of two distant events is also falsely estimated.
In answer to the10 above mentioned statements we will demonstrate that:
1. Several experimental and theoretical arguments speak in favour of the existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest (cosmic substratum) which is not compatible with the strict application of the relativity principle.
The new concept of aether published by Einstein after 1916 is demonstrated to be at variance with the experimental facts.
See the articles “Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame” chapters I and III, “Extended space-time transformations for a fundamental aether theory ” and “Is the relativity principle an unquestionable concept of physics”.
2. The conventional expression of the kinetic energy is completely exact exclusively when it is measured from the aether frame.
See the article “Extended space time transformations for a fundamental aether theory” Chapter IV (conclusion).
3. The speed of light is isotropic and equal to C exclusively in the aether frame. But because of the systematic measurement distortions due to length contraction, clock retardation and unreliable clock synchronization, it is found equal to C in any "inertial" frame.
See the article “How the apparent speed of light invariance follows from Lorentz contraction” , and "Extended space-time transformations for a fundamental aether theory ”.
4. The simultaneity of two distant events is absolute. It only seems to be relative because we make a confusion between the instantaneous events as such and the light signals issued from them Consult “Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame” chapter II and “Is simultaneity relative or absolute”.
5. Clocks in motion are slowed down with respect to clocks at rest in the aether frame. The real interval of time between two events does not depend on the speed of the observer, but as a result of clock retardation it seems to be modified when this speed is changed.
(In effect suppose that an event is simultaneous with the indication of a clock showing 8^h and that another is simultaneous with a clock showing 10^h, both clocks being at rest in the aether frame. As far as the simultaneity is absolute the real time of the events will be 8^h and 10^h for all observers, at rest or in motion with respect to the aether frame. So the real interval of time appears to be absolute).
Consult “Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame” chapter II and “Is simultaneity relative or absolute”.
6. The space-time transformations connecting two "inertial" frames take the form of those of Lorentz-Poincaré exclusively when one of them is at rest in the cosmic substratum. In all other cases they take a different form.
The space-time transformations conceal hidden variables which are nothing other than the Galilean transformations. Consult the papers “Extended space-time transformations for a fundamental aether theory” and “Hidden variables in Lorentz transformations”.   For more detailed explanations consult “Relativity and Cosmic substratum”.
7. As we have already seen, the real value of the speed of light is equal to C exclusively in the aether frame. Contrary to what is often believed, this is confirmed by a number of experimental facts. In all other frames it is equal to (where is the speed of the frame with respect to the cosmic substratum).
Assuming this result and the equality of the two way transit time of light along the two arms of Michelson's interferometer, (a fact more and more confirmed by the modern versions of Michelson’s experiment) we demonstrate that length contraction, real and non reciprocal becomes an unquestionable fact.
Consult the article “How the apparent speed of light invariance follows from Lorentz contraction”.
8. The existence of an absolute aether frame implies the existence of absolute speeds.
See the articles “Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame” , chapter III and “Is the relativity principle an unquestionable concept of physics”.
9. The rest mass of a body is different in the different "inertial" frames. The law is completely exact exclusively when the observer makes the measurement from the aether frame. From all other "inertial" frames, it takes a different form.
Since the Earth frame moves at low speed with respect to the aether frame , the law appears approximatively exact in the Earth frame.
The mass depends not only on the quantity of matter but also on the relation of matter and aether.
Consult “Mass and energy in the fundamental theory of space and time”. and “Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame”
10. The method of slow clock transport does not allow exact synchronization of clocks. It is equivalent to the Einstein-Poincaré procedure which makes use of light signals. Both methods, when they are used to measure the speed of light, give (erroneously) the values C in all inertial frames.
Consult “Synchronization procedures and light velocity”.

For more detailed explanations the reader can consult “Some important questions regarding Lorentz-Poincaré’s theory and Einstein’s relativity I and “Some important questions regarding Lorentz-Poincaré’s theory and Einstein’s relativity II”.

* In all the articles presented in this web site, we call "inertial" the frames in which a body at rest is not submitted to perceptible external forces, a term sanctionned by use.Yet, we must be aware that, insofar as an aether drift exists, real frames cannot be perfectly inertial, which means that the relativity principle does not strictly apply. The implications for fundamental physics are shown to be far-reaching.

Important note

Some of the papers presented in this web site have been slightly modified in regard to the originals, (in particular those published before 1988); in effect at that time we had not yet found the decisive arguments calling into question the application of the relativity principle. So we could suppose that the law (which is usually derived from this principle) was at variance with the other postulates of Lorentz (aether, length contraction). This result (if confirmed) appeared at first sight, as an important objection against the postulates of Lorentz.
But since then, we have found a number of arguments demonstrating that the relativity principle is not an unquestionable concept of physics (since it does not strictly apply in the physical world) and that the law can be derived without its help provided that be the rest mass in the fundamental frame and not in any inertial frame. In consequence of which the law does no longer appear in disagreement with the other postulates of Lorentz.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the colleagues who have supported a part or the whole of our work, in particular
Pr V. Bashkov, Chairman of the International conference Geometrization of physics, Kazan State University, Russia.
Dr M-C Duffy, Chairman of the International Conference, Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT), Imperial College London.
Pr B. Grossetete, Head of the Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and high Energy, Universities of Paris VI and Paris VII.
Pr P. Marmet, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Pr F. Selleri, University of Bari Italy, Organizer of several International Conferences dealing with Relativity and Quantum physics.
Pr J.P. Vigier, Laboratory of Relativist Gravitation and Cosmology University of Paris VI, who, as a referee of our book, gave complete support to the essentials of our work.
Pr H. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, Texas, USA. Pr M. Jammer, Bar Illan University, Israel. Pr R.M. Santilli, Institut for Basic Research, Palm Harbor, USA. Dr W. Cantrell, "Infinite Energy" (Bimonthly Magazine of the New Energy Foundation), Concord, USA, for the review of our book " From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond" he has written in this journal.

We would like to also thank the colleagues who have sent us letters of encouragement on the occasion of one or several of our publications, in particular: Dr R. Hock, Institut Laüe Langevin, Grenoble, Dr P. Huber, University of Heidelberg, Germany, M.B. Guy, Ecole des Mines St Etienne, France, M. V. Makarov, Paris, France, Dr G. Margalhaes Sao Paulo, Brazil, Pr A. Peres, Israël Institute of Technology (Technion), Haïfa, Pr T. E Phipps Jr, USA, or with whom we had interesting exchanges of views, such as Pr H. Hayden, University of Connecticut USA, Dr Y. Pierseaux, University of Bruxelles, Belgium, Pr M. Sachs, University of New-York at Buffalo, Pr J. P Wesley, Blumberg, Germany. We are grateful to late Pr S. Prokhovnik, University of New south Wales, Australia with whom we have kept up a regular correspondence during more than two years.