Improved the first part of ‘Propagation of Radiation,’ including a more accurate translation of the excerpt from Albert Einstein's address at Leiden University in 1920. Removed the section ‘Conjecture: The Universe Tree’ along with all other mentions of black holes. The former version of May 17th 2017 is available for comparison.

Improved formulations in ‘Gravitation-acceleration equivalence’ and, in ‘Atomic Clocks vs. Time’, left out heat consideration in footnote describing dynamics of atomic clocks, considering it irrelevant, and improved formulation of the challenge of translating time measurements between contexts in the same section. Left out the section ‘Particle Acceleration.’ The former version of September 26th 2015 is available for comparison.

Modified treatment, exchanging the introduced ‘gravitation space’ with aether, thus reviving the latter from its illegitimate abandonment, the necessity of which Einstein himself admitted to:

 

[…] To sum up: According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense an aether does exist. According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable, for not only would there be no propagation of light in such space, it would also be impossible for measuring rods and clocks to exist; hence there would be no space-time distances in the physical sense. But this aether must not be thought to possess the qualities characteristic of objects, to consist of parts that can be traced through time; the concept of motion must not be applied to it.

—Translation of excerpt from Albert Einstein's address at Leiden University, 1920

Einstein's reinstallment of the aether, however, escaped the physics community in general—but then, the message would have been somewhat clearer had he admitted that doing away with the aether in the first place, in his special theory of relativity, was in error. Alas, Einstein was was invited to Leiden University as an honored guest to be celebrated, so an outright admission to a flaw in his theory might well have spoiled the mood, whereas an implied admission could be disregarded with focus invited instead on the evolution of his theory.

 

In any case, the point—though made—did not get through, and the warp of time remained although reinstallment of the aether made obsolete any need for such.

 

With this change to the treatment, though little more than a substitution of terms—‘gravitation space’ is still employed to denote a local configuration of aether density variation, but no longer the medium itself—the official site too is changed from relativity.ordr.org to aether.ordr.org, the former address still working, both pointing to this site. The former version of November 4th 2013 is available for comparison.

Added to ‘Examination of four-dimensional space-time’ a consideration detailing the conceptual distinction between space and time. Included suggestions of various alternate types of clocks (hourglass, pendulum-clock, sundial) in ‘Atomic Clocks vs. Time,’ which clocks are affected differently by changes in gravitational density, leading to different conclusions about whether time goes at a faster (atomic clocks), slower (hourglass and pendulum-clock) or the same rate (sundial) in less medium density. The former version of October 11th is available for comparison.

Made some formulation adjustments in ‘On Refutations’ and ‘The Symmetrical Twin Paradox variation,’ as it came to attention that the previous formulations could easily offend physicist readers. Such jabs and quips, never mind how they were intended, can only deteriorate communication. I apologize.

The speculation in ‘Considerations of the Universe,’ that a black hole collapse may continue through the zero-dimension into the birth of a new universe, has been expanded somewhat into the section ‘Conjecture: The Universe Tree,’ due to the possibility that there may be a flux of medium between source universe and subuniverse, in which case an event horizon of a black hole would be defined as the sphere inside which medium flux exceeds radiation speed relative to the zero-dimension of the black hole. If this conjectured possibility is true, it would mean that gravity of black holes is essentially different from the gravitation of smaller (non-collapsed) masses, and it would invalidate the claim of the revision of September 7th that black holes have no event horizon. The former version of September 7th is available for comparison.

Major revision, due to the treatment's flaw of considering radiation to be attracted by gravitation, rather than consistently retain the interpretation employed when explaining stellar aberration (got stuck with an aspect of Einstein's gravitation theory). Changes have been made in the treatment of the twentieth, twentysecond and twentyninth sections of the popular exposition, and in the subsection dealing with Feynman's treatment of gravitation-acceleration equivalence. This requires abandonment of the gravitation-acceleration equivalence, and also does away with the hypothesized event horizon of black holes. Radiation is merely slowed through increased medium density, passing through the same amount in each time interval, which, together with quantum electrodynamics, explains stellar aberration and starlight curving around the Sun etc. The former version of September 3rd is available for comparison.

Included Einstein's own formulation, from his address at Leiden University in 1920, of the necessity of a propagation medium, in the footnote to the quote heading the section ‘Propagation of Radiation.’ Also made a few formulation improvements here and there. The former version of August 29th is available for comparison.

Made a few non-essential edits to the introductory chapter. The former version of August 26th is available for comparison.

Added introductory chapter ‘On Refutations.’ The former version of August 24th is available for comparison.

Modified a footnote to more accurately describe the hypothesized effect upon radiation propagation velocity (aether wind) relative to Earth's surface, which would result if Earth were moving through a stationary aether (stationary with respect to the Sun, somewhat arbitrarily). The former version of August 23rd is available for comparison.

Added the paradox of ultimate symmetry and simplicity, namely that of twins traveling away from each other, starting in empty space, so there is no way around Special Relativity predicting that they will be younger than each other when they rendezvous! The former version of August 18th is available for comparison.

Improved table of contents and various section titles, added additional explicitation in pinpointing Einstein's original misstep in the train-and-embankment thought experiment in ‘Examination of the abandonment of absolute time,’ as well as an extra consideration in the Triplet Paradox. The former version of August 15th is available for comparison.

Added the ‘triplet paradox’ as symmetrical variant of the twin paradox (two travel symmetrically in opposite directions while the third stays home). Re-included the section ‘Quotes and Interpretations.’ Edited confession of false judgment under ‘On Pride.’ The former version of July 27th is available for comparison.

Made a few non-essential edits, such as using the proper term anisotropy rather than ‘non-isotropy’ to denote the effect that can be experienced with movement relative to the propagation medium. The former version of July 9th is available for comparison.

Improved logical clarity of the key refutation in ‘Abandoning absolute time.’ The former version of July 2nd is available for comparison.

Modified the section on Feynman's scenario for illustrating relativity of simultaneity to include explicit acknowledgement that his scenario—as opposed to Einstein's—consistently honors both radiation isotropy and the principle of relativity (but it deals only with consequent appearances). Additionally, some minor formulation modifications has been made here and there in the treatment. The former version of June 5th is available for comparison.

• A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., featuring a good overview of the theory's lack of solid foundation (contrary to popular belief), references to scientists who have spoken out against Relativity Theory and experiments commonly held to support it, and touching upon some of the logical inconsistencies that are identified and traced to their origin in the treatment available on this page.
• Newton Physics, site of Paul Marmet, Ph.D., featuring explanations of many physical phenomena, among them alternative interpretations of phenomena commonly attributed to Relativity Theory. Relevant topics are the links numbered from 16 through 27 on that page, the first of which links to the book Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, while the remainder are links to papers on various aspects of Relativity Theory and associated experiments.