User:DavidBryanWallace

I, David Bryan Wallace, wallacedavidb@gmail.com, website: http://physicsfixes.elementfx.com/index1.html, am a retired mathematics instructor living in Cape Coral, Florida, USA. My thoughts on relativity physics have evolved by considering the implications of the experiments and theories of others. I acknowledge the influence of Karl Popper and of Thomas S. Kuhn whose book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions I read in 1963 when it was a newly published book and I was a student at Carleton College.

Many people have low regard for writings that include alternative theories, but the scientific process requires consideration of alternatives. The person who is too closed-minded to consider challenges is not honoring scientific method. Presenting an alternative theoretical model does not imply an exclusive claim to being "right". More than one theory can be consistent with all known empirical evidence.

Theories are supposed to meet certain requirements: usefulness, testability, logical self-consistency. These are the appropriate criteria for judging theories, not the criterion of consistency with some standard theory. Regarding testability, a theory is called into question by contrary empirical evidence, not by inconsistency with another theory. In some instances it appears that the physics community ignores empirical falsification of a favored familiar theory. Perhaps due to my mathematical training, I find a theory's lack of consistency very difficult to accept.

In particular, the tests of relativity physics do not all confirm Einstein’s theory. I challenge the systematic dismissal of unwelcome evidence.