« Economy - Earlier articles | Main | Real Physics - The Universe is Mechanical »

PrintPrinter-friendly version

Einstein's Contribution to Physics in Understanding Nature

In response to Relativity Fraud: The Complicity of Historians and Philosophers, Paramahamsa Tewari from India, inventor of what is termed the Space Power Generator, has sent a short piece on Einstein's contribution to physics in understanding nature.


Image credit: Paramahamsa Tewari

Tewari confirms the limit of light waves' propagation velocity and the invariance of that velocity for moving observers, saying that Einstein got the right result, but for the wrong reasons.

Tewari is also the originator of the Space Vortex Theory, which I reported on in a previous article.

Here is Tewari's short essay:

- - -

Einstein's contribution to physics in understanding nature

Einstein in his Special Theory of Relativity (STR) postulated that Galilean relativity, as per which the laws of motion were not affected by uniform movement, applies to all physical laws including electromagnetism and optics too. He also postulated that the light velocity is invariant to all inertial systems with a defined reflection procedure to measure the velocity. These postulates, though apparently contradictory, lead to some profound laws of physics (of which Einstein would not have been aware) when analyzed with a new concept of light-- the light produced following annihilation of an electron and a positron (discussed in detail elsewhere), provided space is postulated to be a mass less, nonmaterial fluid medium (ether) with respect to which light is transmitted, unlike STR's presupposition of empty and inert space without assigning a velocity vector to any point of space (STR).

In a ray of light, conventionally, all points constituting the ray are considered luminous. Reflection of a light-point in a ray when it meets a stationary or moving mirror is accepted as instantaneous. Similarly, the center of a photon moving at the speed of light with respect to its source strikes a mirror and is believed to have instantaneous reflection, whether the mirror is stationary or moving relative to the source. Now consider a wave motion of a single spherical shell of light with wavelength λ (radial width of the shell) in fluid space medium (ether), transmitting symmetrically around the source at speed c relative to the medium. On meeting a stationary mirror, the wave front of the light-shell will be reflected instantaneously at an instant say t1 while the wave tail will be reflected at a different instant t2. That is, unlike the instantaneous reflections from a mirror in the cases of a ray of light or a photon, a shell of light has a duration t1 - t2 required for reflection, but this aspect is generally overlooked. This mistake is the root cause for misinterpretation of Sagnac's experiments in which the speed of light is shown to be non invariant (explained later) in different frames of reference.


Suppose S is a source of light that produces spherical shells of light of constant wave length λ successively without any time gap between the tail- end of one shell and the front of the next shell (Fig. 1). (This suggests that light has a discrete structure where discreteness arises due to independent successive light shells rather than corpuscular or photon like structure.) An observer O (believing in the applicability of universal time for all) standing on the ground will receive say f nos. of shells in one second which he defines as the frequency of the light. Let him measure the two instants t1 and t2 at which the front and the tail end of a single shell interact with his eyes. He will compute speed of light within the wave length relative to the fluid-space as: c = λ / (t1- t2). In unit time, O will receive 1 / (t1 - t2) nos. of shells which is the frequency f and with these he writes the equation: c = f λ where c is the velocity at which light effect (shell of light) transmits in space and relative to it--the fundamental property of fluid space medium.

Now, if O moves at velocity v towards S, his velocity relative to the wave front of the shell will be c + v and this is also the velocity of the shell's front passing over him, opposite to his direction of motion. The whole wavelength λ will now pass over him in a shorter time duration λ / (c + v) compared to λ / c when he was standing and was stationary in space. Since he has measured the velocity of light transmission in space, which being the fundamental property of space is independent of the observer's motion, during the time λ / (c + v) the shell will transmit in space up to a length [λ / (c + v)] c, that is, λ c / (c + v) which, as per O, is the new wave length (explained further pictorially). Also, the inverse of the time λ / (c + v) is (c + v) / λ that is the nos. of shells passed over O in unit time, which is the frequency of light now. The observer O notices that the product of the new wave length and the new frequency: [λ c / (c + v)] x (c + v) / λ] is still c. Thus, for a moving observer towards a light source, frequency is increased and wavelength is proportionately decreased such that their product still remains c. Similarly an observer moving away from a source will find decrease in frequency and increase in wavelength and their product will still be c, the same for a stationary observer.


In Fig. 2, the observer's position at the time t1 coinciding with the position of the wave front of the light-shell is shown. If O remains standing, as said before, the whole wavelength λ will pass over him during time λ / c. But since O is moving at velocity v in the direction opposite to the shell, when he reaches the wave tail of the shell at time t2, only the length L2 of the wavelength has passed over to the right of the observer's position t1, as shown in the figure by the position of the light shell shown at the time t2. The observer starts his time measuring device at position t1 and stops it at position t2 and during this period the full wavelength λ does not have time enough to transmit to the left of the position t1. The observer thus finds, as concluded earlier, increased frequency and proportionate decrease in the wavelength when he moves opposite to the light shell.

In the well known Sagnac experiment a light beam is split into two halves and reflected through mirrors, travels around closed identical paths in opposite directions. The split beams are combined again in a detector to examine interference patterns. When the apparatus is rotated it produces shift in interference fringes as a function of the angular velocity of rotation and thereby leading to the conclusion that the velocities of light in the two paths are different. What is not taken note of is that the reflecting mirrors that are in rotation change the wavelength and frequency of the light beams as discussed above and consequently shift in fringes appear.

The conclusion is that the velocity of light relative to the fluid space medium is the same for moving as well as stationary observers when the most fundamental nature of light is recognized and used for analysis. That being the case it is concluded that both, length-contraction and time-dilation of STR are certainly erroneous concepts.

Einstein, in his postulates, has been unwittingly led to the true behavior of the most fundamental nature of light.

The limitation imposed on the material motion in space only up to the speed of light (STR) led to the writer to adopt a more generalized postulate that the medium of mass less fluid space itself breaks down in its flow at a limiting angular rotation (fluid-space circulation) and using this spatial property, electron's creation and matter in general have been explained, and basic equations on mass and charge have been theoretically derived. Explanations to all the properties and observed behavior of electron, derivation of the known universal constants and fields, discovering new spatial fields in nuclear/ atomic structure and also around cosmic bodies, give authenticity to the space vortex structure of electron.

To conclude:

Einstein is right that no material motion can exceed the speed of light with the qualification that light transmits in fluid space and its speed is taken relative to space.

Einstein's concept is erroneous in "time-dilation" and in ignoring the existence and interaction with fluid-ether in space.

Light speed is the highest speed and will be found to be invariant in all the reference frames provided the speed within a single wavelength is theoretically analyzed and experiments like Sagnac's are repeated for confirmation on the changes to wavelength and frequency by reflection from the rotating mirrors.

Einstein's explanation on photoelectric effect which led to the photon-nature of light is also erroneous as explained in detail in writer's works [1, 2].


1. Universal Principles of Space and Matter ---A Call for Conceptual reorientation, 2002, Crest Publishing House/ Indiana Publishing House, 2 / 13, Arya Samaj Street, New Delhi ---110002.

2. What is the Electron? Edited by Volodimir Simulik, Apeiron, Montreal, Canada.

- - -

Paramahamsa Tewari's theory papers are available from his site.

There are also some previous articles discussing Einstein on my other site:

Beyond Einstein's Relativity: Cosmology Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd

New Physics: Debating Einstein, Matter, Time and Space

PrintPrintable Version


From: bert schreiber
Subject: Response to Tewari

Dear Dr. Tewari:

This is in response to your essay on Einstein's Understanding etc.

Unfortunately, you have distorted Einstein's contributions in many ways, only a few of which follow. For brevity I am not going to give all the references, but will furnish on request.

#1: He discarded any wave front nature for light. He specifically wrote (1905) RAY, does not diverge etc. Therefore, your usage of same is a falsity to start with.

#2: Light is a RAY that has a finite creation time and wavelength depending on its source.

#3: He formulated the equation for the production/creation time for line spectra(QUANTUM electron jumps!!!!)that shows they have a finite creation time and hence, a finite wavetrain length. Proved by experiments.

This was known (before Einstein borrowed it) and measured the last decade of 1800 using the Michelson interferometer for precise measurements. Others, Leichtenecker, Marx, et al and later by Lawrence and Beams etc. determined it from other means.

The following is not Einstein.

#4: Light reflecting from moving (linear or rotating) mirrors is Doppler shifted and nothing more or less.

#5: The Sagnac effect is a mechanical effect (move instrument or move the carrier) and has nothing to do with Relativity or anything else. R. Wang et al showed this for moving the carrier.

All motion is relative and is and was known for over 3000 years. Unfortunately, the CMB provides a practical (parts per million) point of absolute rest to the Universe so that measurements made as its reference point give the absolute speed an direction of any mass (our Earth-Sun-Milky Way) as the example measured long ago by Silvertooth and Marinov inside a closed room with no outside observations.

R. Muller et al in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN May 1978 - - New Aether Drift showed this using the CMB. It has been updated since then, but the end result (NO Theory of Relativity!) of the TRUTH is kept quiet by NASA et al.

#7: The measurement of the speed of light depends on the kind/type of light used as the source and its EMISSION TIME, i.e., pulse, wavetrain (line spectra) etc. When this is used, the measured speed is no longer constant and the movement of the apparatus must be factored in and/or its movement through space that permits the IN TOTO absolute speed and direction through the Universe to be determined to a high degree of accuracy.

Einstein never said, wrote, or spoke that: Mass increases with speed. He wrote: The APPARENT MEASURED mass increases with velocity. Furthermore he borrowed this from W. Kaufmann who first proposed and proved it by experiment back in 1901. (Long before Lorentz, Fitz Gerald et al.)

#8: There is no proof or even any finite parameters and properties of any Aether and never will be. If so, where is it?

Lastly, VELOCITY is not SPEED.

The velocity of light can be from greater than zero to near twice the speed of light (c).

Bert Schreiber

Paramahamsa Tewari has replied to Bert Schreiber as follows:

Download reply

Tewari: "Thus, for a moving observer towards a light source, frequency is increased and wavelength is proportionately decreased such that their product still remains c."

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of Einstein's cult:

The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, Oh Albert, Oh Giant of Science,
Oh Creature Divine with an infinite power.

Of course both zombies and hypnotists know the formula F=V/L, where F is the frequency, V is the speed and L is the wavelength. This is the most horrible formula in the world: on seeing it, both zombies and hypnotists look for sand, bury their heads, expose other extremities and remain so until the danger is over. Why the horror? Pound and Rebka found that the receiver on the ground will receive the light with frequency F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo where Fo is the original frequency. The application of the horrible formula F=V/L unequivocally leads to the result

V = c + v

where V is the speed of light as measured by the receiver and v>0 is the speed of the receiver (or the light source) in an equivalent setup where the tower is replaced by an accelerated rocket. So after taking their heads out of the sand both zombies and hypnotists perform a special voodoo ritual designed to disconnect the two formulas, F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo and F=V/L, in the mind of any possible human being. So far the ritual has proved extremely efficient.

Yet from time to time a human being combines the two formulas and then a contradiction between zombies and hypnotists becomes evident. Hypnotists know that the truth of Newton's c+v principle and the falsehood of Einstein's c principle are the only reasonable conclusions:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Zombies know nothing, look desperately at the two formulas and postulate in the end: If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly but the speed of light remains constant. The speed of light is constant. Constant is the speed of light. The speed of light does not vary. Velocity may vary (Divine Albert said so in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity") but the speed never etc.

However hypnotists are not happy. They know how silly this "If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly" is.

Pentcho Valev

This refers to Penlcho Valev's comments on the formula for light transmission used in my paper:

c = wavlength x frequency.

Here c is the velocity of transmission of light-effect relative to the space-medium, "space" has been postulated as a mass-less fluid (and it is not relevant here to say whether in the past such a postulate giving a specific property of "mass-less-ness" to space has been made).

In the postulated medium of fluid-space, light (shells of energy) transmission velocity relative to space is similar to the sound transmission relative to air where the above formula holds good. 
Above definition of mass-less-ness to space is unavoidable, because with this as the main postulate, "mass" and "charge" of electron have been derived through two basic equations that, hitherto, have not been discovered in contemporary physics. 

If no differentiation is made between 'absolute vacuum' 'empty space', 'void' , 'nothingness', the fundamental nature of light can not be explained without lenthy discussions.

To postulate 'space' as a void is to close the door for understanding of the most fundamental properties of matter (mass, charge, gravity, light, inertia, universal constants) for all the time and this can be authorititatively stated here.

Light effect is produced due to  time varying gravitational potentials of the oscillating atoms of the source, and transmitted in space as spherical shells (ideally) at c relative to the fluid space. 

Response to Tewari

Equivocation is unavoidable but some development is possible if everybody refers to an authoritative source. Consider the scenario discussed on pp. 3-4 in


Since "we can always pick a new instantaneous rest frame of the rocket", let us pick one different from S, the inertial frame S'. In S' the receiver, which has just received the pulse and has a speed v relative to S, is momentarily at rest.

Relative to S', both S and the light source at the moment of emitting the pulse (only one pulse is emitted) have a speed v. In other words, a light source with speed v (relative to S') emits a single flash of light towards the receiver which is momentarily at rest in S' at the moment of receiving the light.

What is the relative speed of the pulse, one one hand, and S' and the accelerated receiver (observer), on the other, at the moment of receiving the light? Does this relative speed depend on the speed v of the light source? Two quotations by Einstein:

"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm ch. 4
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Pentcho Valev

It will be convenient to reply to Valev's comments by explaining through sketches for which I need his email address.

paramahamsa tewari

Tewari: "It will be convenient to reply to Valev's comments by explaining through sketches for which I need his email address."

pvalev@yahoo.com ; valevp@bas.bg

Please note that there are two possible solutions to the discussed problem. When the top of the tower emits light, the receiver on the ground receives this light with a frequency

(1+phi/c^2)Fo = (c+v)/KLo

where Fo and Lo are the initial frequency and wavelength respectively and c+v is the speed of the light as measured by the receiver (c=300000km/s). The couple

(1) v > 0 ; K = 1

is the first possible solution whereas the couple

(2) v = 0 ; K = 1/(1+phi/c^2)

is the second solution. Clearly (1) is the correct answer: it disproves relativity whereas (2) is too absurd - see


But you may disagree so please give an unambiguous answer:

(1): Yes? No?

(2): Yes? No?

Pentcho Valev

Paramahamsa Tewari replies to Pentcho Valev by email:

Mr. Valev,

First I give my comments on the quotations by Einstein that you earlier placed at the web site:

As per the space vortex theory (SVT) the velocity of light transmits in absolute vacuum (mass less fluid with all non material properties) at a definite velocity c relative to it and is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.  Also , speed of light is not affected by the motion of the light source as per SVT too. The difference between SVT and Einstein' s quotations is in the basic definition of the absolute vacuum.

Before I show as to why the SVT's conclusion on the light speed is what has been given above , let us see some more quotations from Einstein in his paper "On the generalized Theory of Gravitation , by A. Einstein, Scientific American, April 1950 Vol. 188 No. 4 pp. 13-17, which have some relevence in our discussions, specially , on the need of this new theory .

Einstein said, "Since the field exists in vacuum, should one conceive of the field as a state of a carrier or should it rather be endowed with an independent existence not reducible to any thing else. In other words, is there an ether which carries the fields, ....Because one can not dispense with the field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties." Einstein has believed fields to be the most fundamental entity , not reducuble to any thing more basic. In SVT, creation of all the known fields and also some more fundamental new fields  are derived showing that SVT starts with more basic considerations than in relativity theories and field is not the most fundamental concept.

To read the rest of the response, download here...

José Ledesma comments by email:

Thank you for your letter. I send you my correspondence with Tewari. I made an analysis of his paper that is in your site.

Kind regards,

Jose Ledesma,

Its has been very interesting discussions with you. Please see my comments below:

As already said in my paper, with ray-concept or photon nature of light, an observer can compare his velocity relative to light at any instant of light 's motion, but when a single shell of light, transmitting relative to space is considered for analysis, then the velocity of the observer O (refer Fig.2 in my paper) can be compared only when he is interacting with the front or the tail of the shell, or when he is within the wave length of the shell.

Fig.2 shows two positions of the same shell. The observer O has moved the distance L1 within the wavelength while travelling at v relative to space and c+v relative to the front and the tail of the shell. He starts his clock at position t1 and stops at position t2 and measures time (universal time) as wavelength/c+v.

After meeting the shell-tail which has gone past him and can make no further interaction with him and is infact non existent for him, his motion relative to space ceases at this instant. He plots the two positions of the shell based on the fact that the shell-front as well as the shell-tail have trasmitted at c+v relative to him. He notices that due to his velocity at v, the shell-tail has passed over him by L3-L1, that is L2 , and the front too has gone behind him by L2 during his measured time: Wavelength / c+v. Since L2 as plotted is: (Wavelengtxc)/ c+v , the ratio of this length and the measured time is c -- the postulate that within a shell of light, light-effect trasmits at c relative to space.

Please corret me if I am wrong.

Paramahamsa Tewari says:

"I have written another very short article to pin point fallacy in time-dialation and non-simultaneity (as the outcome of special relativity), explaining the same with fundamental nature of light.  It will further explain the principles of space vortex theory in simple terminology, involving no mathematics."

On time-dilation and non simultaneity of events

Reply to Tewari:

Time dilation is a direct corollary of the principle of constancy of the speed of light - see p. 7 in


So you cannot claim the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the emitting body) and refute time dilation at the same time. If I were you, I would advance no new theory in this era of Postscientism when rationality in science simply does not exist and people discuss whether the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length. Advancing a new theory nowadays is tantamount to trying to create a new political party in Stalin's Russia.

Pentcho Valev

I have said that velocity of light is constatant WITH RESPECT TO space (Non material fluid)and independent of the motion of the source.



Reply to valev:

Further comments: I have seen page 7 of the reference. The following are erroneous statements in the text book you referred.

Para 3 of Time dilation: "Since the horizontal component of the light velocity is v". Also, foot note 9: "Since both of these (meaning the source and the mirror) move horizontally at speed v".

When space as a mass-less fluid is postulated, light transmits at c relative to it as the very property (postulated) of space, and does not carry velocity of the source at emission or thereafter.

Reply to Valev:

In the second paragraph, above, full sentence of the foot note 9 should have been given: "Since both of these (meaning the source and the mirror) move horizontally at speed v, the light does also".

Paramahamsa Tewari

Irrotational fluid flow constitutes radial flow into a sink, or out of a source, and it can be identified with Coulomb's law of electrostatics. Rotational fluid flow occurs when we introduce a tangential component of fluid motion, hence rendering the sink into a swirling spiral vortex. If the fluid field velocity is A, then the tangential (angular) acceleration is ∂A/∂t, where curl A is equal to the vorticity B.

It is the ∂A/∂t acceleration of the Lorentz force that is involved in the electromagnetic wave equation. This means that electromagnetic waves are propagations of rotations in an aethereal fluid. In order for this to be possible, the luminiferous medium must constitute a sea of aether vortices. The aether alone is not sufficient to act as the luminiferous medium.

The only way that a sea of aether vortices can come into existence is if the vortices are caused and maintained by rotating electron positron dipoles.

I have heard it suggested that an electron is a vortex. An electron is certainly a sink, but in order for it to become a vortex as well, it must be engaged in a Keplerian orbit with a positron. The aether would emerge from the positron, cross over and sink into the electron. The overall rotational motion would render both the electron and the positron into spiral vortices, and it would render the composite dipole into a vortex as well.

It is the rotating electron positron dipole that is the fundamental unit of electromagnetism, and which is responsible for all vortex and spin related phenomena. The electron alone is insufficient to provide this role.

The vortex within the rotating electron positron dipole provides the rotating frame of reference needed to invoke the Coriolis F = vXB force which, along with the ∂A/∂t force, constitutes one of the two forces of electromagnetic induction.

The luminiferous medium is therefore a sea of rotating electron positron dipoles, whereas the aether is a more fundamental entity lurking between these electrons and positrons and giving rise to the fundamental forces.

See 'The Unification of Electricity and Magnetism' at,


Yours sincerely, David Tombe

Here is a quote from ET Whittaker's history of aethers.

"All space, according to the young [John] Bernoulli, is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the Aether appears to possess, and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools; for, owing to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate,and so presses against the neighbouring whirlpools."

It would appear that this is exactly the starting point in part I of Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'.


Part I of Maxwell's historical paper is the hydrodynamical part, and it contains Dan Bernoulli's famous equation. I strongly suspect that the reference above to John Bernoulli should really refer to Dan Bernoulli.

Aether hydrodynamics unequivocally points us to a picture of mutually attracting sinks in line with the theory of gravity.

Does the Bernoulli sea of whirlpools and the Maxwell sea of molecular vortices not tell us that an Aether alone is insufficient to account for the forces of electromagnetism? Does it not tell us that we actually need a sea of aether vortices? The vortices are critical for electromagnetic theory. Any aether theory that does not involve aether vortices cannot explain electromagnetism.

Maxwell went further than Bernoulli and demonstrated how a sea of vortices could not possibly exist unless there were idle wheels between the vortices. These idle wheels are the electrical particles that are associated with electric current.

In other words we need both an 'Aether' and an 'Electric Sea' in order to complete the picture. The aether leads to gravity and mutual attraction, whereas the electric sea shapes the aether into vortices and accounts for how that mutual attraction can be reversed into a mutual repulsion. The reversal is obtained by a combination of the Coriolis force aligning the vortices solenoidally, and a centrifugal pressure acting between the vortices in their equatorial plane.

An aether alone cannot explain anything beyond gravity. We need the electric sea as well, to account for electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation. The elastic constants of the electric sea are critical for determining the speed of light. For more information see,


Yours sincerely, David Tombe

In the above article, there is an issue of semantics over the statement that the aether alone can't explain anything beyond gravity. It can explain electrostatics. However the question then arises as to whether electrostatics is a special case of gravity or whether gravity is a special case of electrostatics. This issue is discussed in more detail on the section entitled 'Electrostatics' in 'The Aether and the Electric Sea' at, http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe12.pdf

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

Bernoulli and Maxwell both suggested that space is filled with tiny vortices. In his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' part I, Maxwell hydrodynamically modelled this sea of tiny vortices and showed how centrifugal repulsion between these vortices accounts for some aspects of magnetism.

Centrifugal repulsion occurs between any two objects which possess mutual tangential velocity. It physically manifests itself when the two particles are constrained from moving apart.

The question then arises as to why we do not notice this centrifugal repulsion between spinning objects on the large scale.

The answer is that two large gyroscopes are immersed in a sea of tiny vortices. As such the tiny vortices absorb the centrifugal pressure being exerted by the large gyroscopes, and they disperse this pressure throughout the vortex sea according to the path of least resistance.

See 'The Epicycle Theory of the Atom' at http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe7.pdf

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

Leave a comment


Receive updates

Email updates for new articles

Enter your Email

Recent Comments