Sir, Over the past few weeks, correspondents have written in your columns on this topic.
(1) Drs O'Raifeartaigh and Hanlon of the Physics Departments of TCD and UCD (March 4th) want to await the publication of my theory in an "internationally recognised journal" before commenting. Perhaps, because "they are Irish, they would make an exception and study the paper published by the Institution of, Engineers of Ireland. I sent my 1995 paper to such an international journal, only to receive the reply that the editorial policy of the journal was not to consider any paper purporting to show a potential flaw in relatively theory. John Maddox, the editor of Nature, wrote an editorial in August 1995, saying that even Isaac Newton would probably not get his Principia published in such a journal today!
(2) I already replied to Dr Nash and three others (March 7th) who implied that there was something unspecified wrong with my theory.
(3) Mr K. Holland of MIT, USA (March 13th) commented without the benefit of reading my paper. I have sent him a copy, where he will read of the many very detailed and accurate tests done (and all published in the "reputable journals") which underpin my theory. His considered opinion at that stage should be of interest.
(4) Messrs Sen and Sexton of TCD (March 18th) say that my arguments are incorrect. They state that the Sagnac effect "involves the comparison of speed of light measurements by two observers who rotate relative to each other". That is not correct. The effect is measured solely by a measuring device which rotates with the disc and records the fact that light takes different times to go around the spinning disc clock wise and anticlockwise. It has nothing whatever to do with where any observer is placed indeed the effect is exactly the same, when there is no observer present! They continue that "the analysis needed is quite subtle" and that "with proper calculation care" the observed features are in exact agreement with special relativity. It would be interesting to see their "subtle" derivation published (the editor of the Engineers Journal welcomes such correspondence).
They seem to have accepted that the standard proof in the university physics textbooks, that moving macroscopic clocks run slow, has been disproved in my paper. This supposed proof was the difference in the time recorded on atomic clocks sent around the earth in opposite directions in 1972. However, they refer to a 1921 review article by Pauli, who repeated the then extant view that the Sagnac effect had to be explicable by the special theory. The 1942 tests by Defour & Prunier put paid to that idea. In 1993 Hasselbach & Nicklaus published 21 attempted explanations of the effect; there was no satisfactory answer before my 1995 paper was published. Messrs Sen and Sexton express "considerable regret" that my theory contains no mystery to excite their interest. They need not be so sad; their analysis is incorrect.
(5) Several correspondents referred to the special theory of relativity as a cornerstone, of modern physics. My theory is in agreement with that part of the special theory which has experimental support; the equivalence of mass and energy E = Mc2 stands. The portion that I dispute is the more philosophical aspect where time is supposed to run slow and distances to measure less, aboard moving objects. The difference between my theory and most previous controversies concerning the special theory is that I depend solely on experimental evidence off great accuracy, whereas previous writers depended upon theoretical mathematical analysis. Einstein's theory fitted all the tests done to the date of its publication (1905); several of the key tests used by me were done in the last 20 years.
(6) W. H. P. Browne (March 15th) and J. Cooney (March 20th) challenged the correspondents to say precisely what they think is wrong with my theory. I support that challenge and in my letter of March 13th I spelled out the three test results to be explained other than by my theory. No correspondent referred to the variation in the measured speed of light in an east west direction as compared with a north south direction; nor did they refer to the fact that electromagnetic signals travel faster westward than eastward around the earth.
(7) I must give the final word to Dr A. Quinn of TCD who started all this correspondence (February 26th) by asking, in relation to the lack of reaction from the defenders of modern physics, "are we, to interpret the silence as grudging acceptance that Einstein was, indeed, wrong". I can be forgiven for, assuming that, if nobody points out a specific flaw in my theory or in the derivation of it, I am indeed correct. I am prepared to repeat the lecture to any collection of scientists who are interested in debating the theory in more detail. Yours, etc.,
Simmons Court,
Dublin 4.