Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.

© Paulo N. Correa & Alexandra N. Correa, 2001, 2007, 2008

All rights reserved

ISBN 1-894840-47-X

Published in Canada by
AKRONOS Publishing @ Aetherometry.com

2
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

AETHEROMETRIC THEORY OF SYNCHRONICITY (AToS)

VOLUME I
Interferometric Aetherometry (4) -

A TEST OF AETHEROMETRY vs

RELATIVITY, SPECIAL AND LARMOR-LORENTZ:

THE 1938 IVES-STILWELL EXPERIMENT

AETHEROMETRY VS. RELATIVITY (2)

By

Paulo N. Correa,1 Alexandra N. Correa,1 Malgosia Askanas,1 Gene Gryziecki,1 Jordi Sola-Soler2
1 Aurora Biophysics Research Institute, Vaughan, Ontario, Canada,
2 Biomedical Engineering Research Center, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

ABRI Monograph Series AS3-I.4

© Correa & Correa 2007, 2008

All rights reserved.

3
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

Aetherom Theory of Synchron 1, 4: 1-28 (2008)

A test of Aetherometry vs Relativity, Special and Larmor-Lorentz:

the 1938 Ives-Stilwell experiment.
Aetherometry vs Relativity (2)

Paulo N. Correa,1 Alexandra N. Correa,1 Malgosia Askanas,1 Gene Gryziecki,1 Jordi Sola-Soler2
1 Aurora Biophysics Research Institute, Vaughan, Ontario, Canada, 2 Biomedical Engineering Research Center,

Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT
An alternative physical theory (“Aetherometry”, AToS) that explicitly addresses electrical
collisions, but does not employ LF-transformations, is proposed to predict charged particle velocities
and transverse Dopplers in the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment. Predictions nearly match observed
results, precluding time-dilation. For particle velocity: AToS within 3.9% of observed; SR/LLR with-
in 9.7%. For transverse Doppler: AToS within 4% of observed; SR/LLR within 8.4%.

PACS Category 10: The Physics of Elementary Particles and Fields

PACS Category 30: Atomic and Molecular Physics
PACS Category 50: Physics of Gases, Plasmas, and Electric Discharges;

Keywords: Aetherometry, Larmor-Lorentz Relativity, Special Relativity, transverse Doppler shift,

Balmer line, hydrogen emission

4
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

1. Introduction
In 1938, Ives and Stilwell published the results of an experiment designed to test whether a
transverse, second-order Doppler effect applied to the linear 'transmission' of light, by measuring the
light emitted forward and backward (direct and reflected Doppler lines) from canal-rays accelerated
through a potential drop of 8-43 kV [1]. The experiment was billed as a test of time-dilation, and its
results variously interpreted as either confirmatory of Special Relativity (SR), or confirmatory instead
of Larmor-Lorentz Relativity (LLR). What is particularly elegant and simple about the design of the
Ives and Stilwell experiment is that it avoided the difficulties introduced by trying to observe light
emitted transversely to the direction of motion of the atoms, and focused solely on the light emitted
forward or backward with respect to the direction of motion of the canal-rays. For a schematic of the
experiment see Fig. 1.
Hydrogen gas was used in a diode tube as a source of canal-rays thought to be composed of
single-charge molecular hydrogen ions, H2+ and H3+. Free protons did not appear to form a signifi-
cant fraction of the canal rays. The somewhat obscure physics of the process is described by French
in the following manner: "These ions, after acceleration through an accurately defined voltage, could
(by neutralization plus dissociation) produce neutral but still excited hydrogen atoms. (...) These

100 V 30 kV To spectrograph

Ion Mirror 1 v
2 v

υ2'
Hot
υ1'
Filament
Hydrogen Acceleration
arc region region

(a)

∆υ1 ∆υ2

(b)

Figure 1. Graphic representation of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell apparatus after
Halliday et al [5]. (a) schematic of the canal-ray tube; (b) illustration of the Doppler shifts
measured by the Ives and Stilwell experiment.

5
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

atoms then emitted the characteristic Balmer lines of atomic hydrogen" [2]. Specifically, the photon
emission line studied was the second line of the Balmer series, Hβ, with conventional frequency of
6.167*1014 sec-1. Ives and Stilwell produced photographic plates of this line emitted from resting
atoms, together with the blue and red Doppler shifts for light emitted in diametrically opposite direc-
tions. The observed results were then compared to the relativistic predictions.
In the present paper we introduce a novel nonrelativistic approach (Aetherometry, AToS),
physical and analytical, to the determination of both the velocity of the charged particles in the canal
rays of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment, and the magnitude of the observed transverse Doppler
shift for the main Balmer emission of hydrogen. Based upon a novel description of the collisional
particle dynamics involved, we report that the “aetherometric” predictions nearly match the results
reported by Ives and Stilwell for both particle velocity and second order Doppler effects, without
taking recourse to Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations. The aetherometric predictions are also
substantially closer to the observed results than either the predictions of Special Relativity or of
Larmor-Lorentz Relativity.

2. The results of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment

2.1. The role of protons and atomic hydrogen in the Ives and Stilwell experiment
Right away we would like to undo a confusion which French's presentation of the Ives and
Stilwell experiment only accentuates, rather than dissipates. It is clear or beyond dispute that the
Balmer line, and the entire series, is an emission characteristic of atomic hydrogen - not an emission
characteristic of molecular hydrogen, H2, or the molecular hydrogen ions detected as composing the
canal rays. Now, no atomic hydrogen or free protons appeared to enter into the composition of the
Ives and Stilwell canal rays ("No H1 particles were found in this work" [1], p. 220). For us, this
emphasizes the fact that the Balmer line is observed only when atomic hydrogen is formed, precisely
as a marker of its formation, and this process necessarily requires a proton to capture an electron.
Thus, as we shall shortly see, the proton is invariably at the center of the physical interaction.
Effectively, the plasma discharge does not ionize most of the hydrogen gas. At least, in the Ives
and Stilwell scenario, one must venture that, whether by inelastic collision or still other processes,
protons accelerating towards the perforated cathode must latch on to atomic hydrogen to form H2+
canal rays, and on to neutral hydrogen gas to form H3+ canal rays. Thus, only upon subsequent
collision with electrons, will these protons dissociate from hydrogen gas or atomic hydrogen, to
re-form, in turn, atomic hydrogen.
As we shall see in the slightly different aetherometric scenario, neglecting to pay close atten-
tion to the physics of the processes involved is suggested to be the chief cause of the failure of

6
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

Einstein's SR and Ives' own explanation to account for the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment [3-4].

2.2. The results of the Ives and Stilwell experiment

The fundamental quantity measured by the Ives and Stilwell experiment, and given by

∆υ/υ = (∆υ2 - ∆υ1)/υ (1)

reflected the extent to which the emission of the resting atomic hydrogen failed to fall half-way
between the blueshifted frequency υ2 of the light emitted in the same forward direction of motion of
the canal rays, and the redshifted frequency υ1 of the light emitted in the opposite direction and
reflected from a mirror at the back of the cathode. Thus,

∆υ2 = υ2 - υ (2a)
and
∆υ1 = υ - υ1 (2b)

At high ion velocities, the value of ∆υ/υ predicted by first-order classical Doppler theory could be
readily distinguished from the predictions of Relativity (of either theory of Relativity, SR or LLR),
and that was the main test of the experiment.
Table 1 presents the first series of results of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment [1]. Column
1 gives the reported and accurately measured applied voltage, column 2 the postulated hydrogen
emitter of the Balmer line of interest, Hβ, as identified by Ives and Stilwell. Column 3 shows the
expected ∆λ as computed from a first-order effect (these are the values presented by Ives and Stilwell
in column 4 of their Table I), and column 4 the predicted hydrogen ion speed (for both H2+ and H3+
ions) - as per

v = c ∆λ/λo (3)

and according to where one places the emission of the same line by the "resting" atomic hydrogen.
Ives and Stilwell experimentally determined the resting position of this emission to lie at λo = 4849.3Å
([1] p. 219), but employed the conventional location of this line at λo = 4861Å in their analysis (and
so does the present paper). The observed, combined direct and reflected Doppler shift reported by
Ives and Stilwell is shown in column 5, Table 1 (and this corresponds to column 5 in their Table I).
A typical presentation of the Ives and Stilwell data for the Doppler shift of light leaves no
room for doubting the superiority of Special Relativity over the classical theory, as shown in Table 2
[5]. Thus, the experiment was billed by French - under a rubric entitled "Doppler effect and Time-

7
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

1 2 3 4 5 6
Applied Postulated ∆λ computed v determined ∆λ observed v determined
Potential Source from ∆λ , from
of the computed observed ∆λ
Hβ line

(volts) (10-9 m) (105m/sec) (10-9m) (105m/sec)

7,780 H2 1.404 8.68 1.402 8.647

9,187 H2 1.530 9.46 1.540 9.498

10,574 H2 1.634 10.10 1.649 10.170

13,560 H2 1.850 11.44 1.867 11.514

18,350 H2 2.155 13.32 2.137 13.179

6.788 H3 1.062 6.56 1.035 6.383

11,566 H3 1.388 8.58 1.407 8.677

13,560 H3 1.505 9.30 1.514 9.337

Table 1. Hydrogen ion velocity results for observed ∆λ in the 1938 Ives and
Stilwell experiment. Column 2 is the conventional assumption. Column 3 gives ∆λ com-
puted from ∆λ=λo(v/c), first-order, by Ives and Stilwell (see [1] Table I). Data in columns
4 and 6 were obtained using ∆λ= 4849.3 and ∆λ= 4861 angstroms, respectively.

∆υ/υ, 10-5 Speed of molecular hydrogen, 106 m sec-1

0.865 1.01 1.15 1.33

Classical Theory 1.67 2.26 2.90 3.94

Special Relativity 0.838 1.13 1.45 1.97
I&S Results 0.762 1.10 1.42 1.90

Table 2. Classical theory vs Special Relativity predictions with respect to the results
of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment.

8
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

dilation" ([2] pp. 144-146) - as one that decided between two very different versions of kinematics,
and confirmed that clocks run slower the faster they move. However, the resolution of the experiment
was not good enough to decide whether SR or instead LLR was the more appropriate model.

3. The aetherometric analysis of the physics in the Ives and Stilwell experiment

3.1. New methodological principles

Aetherometry has discovered that any molecular mass m has an equivalent wavelength λn
given by the following equation

λn = m NA 10-2 (4)

where the mass is expressed in grams, the wavelength in m, and NA is Avogadro’s number. This has
led to the expression of all physical quantities in a simplified meter-second system of units formally
equivalent to the conventional kilogram-meter-second system. For example the fundamental charge
e is aetherometrically equivalent to 13.97017 m2 sec-1 (indicated as e=∫=13.97017 m2 sec-1) and the
volt is equivalent to a wavespeed of 1V=∫=69,065.87 m sec-1 [6].
Aetherometry proposes that the linear speed v of a massbound charge is a geometric mean
function of the electric wavespeed Wv and the magnetic field wave Wmag characteristic of each charge
carrier:

v = βc = √(Wmag Wv) (5)

with an associated electrokinetic energy (modally) given by:

EK = λn (Wmag Wv) (6)

For electrons, Wmag is a constant written as Wk=2.547*106 m sec-1. For as long as the linear veloci-
ty v of the charged particle is less than ~0.85c, the voltage of the kinetic energy of the charge
accelerated by the applied field – which in Aetherometry corresponds to the electric wavespeed Wv –
directly corresponds to the voltage of the applied field [7]. This qualified correspondence is generical-
ly expressed as VA=∫= Wv.
Aetherometry also proposes that photon emission requires the deceleration of charge carriers,
and that the emission reflects – in an exact way – their kinetic energy, including their linear speed, at
the time of emission. If the voltage of that kinetic energy corresponds to the modal maximum of the

9
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

potential of the accelerating field, the photon quantum modally produced (discharged) by a given
kinetic or electrokinetic state of a charge carrier has energy given by:

h Wmag Wv/e = hυ (7)

(where h is Planck's constant and e the fundamental charge) [8]. Thus, the photon quantum
frequency of emitted light is directly a function of the carrier's kinetic energy, and specifically of its
linear speed:

υ = (Wk Wv)/e = v2/e (8)

Using the aetherometric meter-second system, this relationship can be easily computed and checked.
In other words, knowing the particles (or charge carriers) involved, one can check the velocity of the
particles obtained as a function of the applied voltage against the velocity determined from the
Doppler-shifted line spectra. Conversely, knowing the modal carrier velocity one can just as easily
compute the electric wavespeed of the kinetic energy and the corresponding voltage of the accelerat-
ing field.

3.2. The physics of the kinematics of the Ives and Stilwell experiment
The energy relation of equation #6 can be directly expressed (eg in eV or m3 sec-2) as a func-
tion of the fundamental electric charge, as

EK = λn (Wmag Wv) = e Wv (9)

With the result that

e = λn Wmag (10)

Accordingly, Wmag is characteristic of a charge carrier and varies with the mass of the ion. The pro-
ton (p or H+) Wmag (written as Wu) is 1.387*103 m sec-1, and Wmag for ionized molecular hydro-
gen, H2+, is half that, 6.935*102 m sec-1. These are the relevant values for single-charge carriers, and
they mean that, for the same linear velocity, the kinetic energy of H2+ will have to be double that of
H+, and thus its electric wavespeed – and the corresponding accelerating potential – will also have to
be double when compared to H+. In what follows, our argument will focus on the H2+ ions, since
Ives and Stilwell did not provide sufficient data for analysis of H3+ ions. Specifically, we will propose
that it is ionized molecular hydrogen, H2+ (and not H2), that is formed at the time the Balmer line

10
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I. Characteristics from applied potential: II. From observed ∆λ (see Table 1): III. From computed ∆λ:

Accelerated Applied Corresponding * Corresponding * Ion Velocity Corresponding Corresponding Ion Velocity Corresponding Corresponding
ion Potential * Potential *
Potential Field Ion Velocity vB, † Wavespeed of vC, ‡ Wavespeed of
Wavespeed vA, Kinetic Energy * Kinetic Energy *
WvA, WvB, WvC,
(volts) (108 m/sec) (105 m/sec) (105 m/sec) (108 m/sec) (volts) (105 m/sec) (108m/sec) (volts)

H 2+ 7,780 5.373 6.104 8.647 10.780 15,609 8.679 10.863 15,729

H 2+ 9,187 6.345 6.634 9.498 13.007 18,833 9.459 12.900 18,678

H 2+ 10,574 7.303 7.117 10.170 14.913 21,593 10.106 14.714 21,304

H 2+ 13,560 9.365 8.059 11.514 19.117 27,679 11.437 18.861 27,309

H 2+ 18,350 12.674 9.375 13.179 25.046 36,264 13.323 25.593 37,055

H 1+ 7,780 5.373 8.633 8.647 5.390 7,804 8.679 5.432 7,864

H 1+ 9,187 6.345 9.381 9.498 6.503 9,416 9.459 6.450 9,339

H 1+ 10,574 7.303 10.064 10.170 7.457 10,796 10.106 7.357 10,652

H 1+ 13,560 9.365 11.397 11.514 9.558 13,839 11.437 9.430 13,654

H 1+ 18,350 12.674 13.259 13.179 12.523 18,132 13.323 12.796 18,528

* Aetherometric determination
† corresponds to column 6, Table 1
‡ corresponds to column 4, Table 1

Table 3. Aetherometric correspondences between potentials in volts, ion velocities

and electric wavespeed of kinetic energy as derived from either the applied potential, the
observed ∆λ, or the computed ∆λ.

of interest is emitted, and that it is formed from proton doublets, which we can write as 2H+=H2++.
These are dual-charge carriers. When we think of a proton doublet as forming a doubly ionized mol-
ecular hydrogen ion, we have to treat its overall Wmag as being twice the value of H2+, ie identical to
that of the proton [9].
With aetherometric methods (equation #5), we can check what ion velocities we should
obtain from the applied potential and, in reverse, compute the voltages constitutive of the kinetic
energy of the moving particles based on their speeds, and compare these voltages with the reported
applied potentials. The results are shown in Table 3 for H2+ hydrogen ions in the upper part of the
table, and for protons in the lower part, for purposes of reference and comparison (which, as we shall
shortly see, will be rather relevant to the physics of the interaction that leads to the emission under

11
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

study). Columns 3 and 4 (Table 3) provide the applied field wavespeed WvA and the hydrogen ion
linear speed vA predicted by Aetherometry on the basis of their correspondence to the applied volt-
ages. Columns 5, 6 and 7 (Table 3) provide the ion velocity vB from the observed ∆λ (from column
6 of Table 1), and the aetherometrically corresponding electric wavespeed WvB of the kinetic energy
and voltage potential VB. Finally, columns 8, 9 and 10 provide the ion velocity vC predicted by SR
(within the displayed resolution, please note that these are the same results as those predicted by LLR)
from the expected ∆λ (from column 3 of Table 1), and the aetherometrically corresponding electric
wavespeed WvC of the kinetic energy and voltage potential VC.
It is readily apparent from a comparison of the top and bottom parts of columns 2, 7 and 10
in Table 3 that the applied potentials cannot accelerate H2+ ions to the velocities based on the
observed ∆λ; whereas the proton velocity and kinetic voltage parameters correspond closely to the
values of the applied field. This inconsistency is further exposed in Table 4, where a comparison of
the voltage values for protons H1+, proton doublets H2++ and molecular H2+ ions is carried out, on
the basis of the ion velocities observed in the Ives and Stilwell experiment. The applied field voltages
(column 3, Table 4) are compared to the voltages predicted as being required by SR (column 5) and
by Aetherometry (AToS, column 4). It is apparent that, according to Aetherometry, only protons or
proton doublets can be accelerated to the reported velocities with the voltages applied by Ives and
Stilwell. Also note that SR, in 2 out of 3 times, predicts the wrong ion voltages - for both protons and
H2+ ions (compare columns 4 and 5, Table 4).
From the aetherometric vantage point, the conclusion of this comparison is inescapable: irre-
spective of the λo value chosen, the canal ray particles cannot be molecular H2+ ions; and since Ives
and Stilwell formally showed they were not protons [1], one is forced to conclude that they are
proton-doublets, 2H+=H2++. These can be accelerated by the reported field potentials, but carry twice
the kinetic energy of the single proton. If, as shown in column 4 of Table 4, the observed velocities
belonged to molecular H2+ ions, the required field potentials would have to be double those which
were applied. Evidently, there is something wrong with the physics as described by Ives and Stilwell
(and French, etc). The error is easily repaired, however, by realizing that the particles accelerated
towards the cathode are, in fact protons (proton doublets, to be exact), not singly-ionized diatomic
molecular hydrogen ions. The fact that no protons are found past the cathode in the composition of
canal rays then indicates that protons traveling in the same direction (and forced together by passing
through holes in the cathode) can develop non-covalent-like forces that permit them to form
doublets. Apparently, the process of compacting the hydrogen discharge into canal rays generates
proton doublets. In other words, the ions are not molecular per se, not H2+, but H2++, ie (2H1+);
each member of the doublet carries an identical quantity of kinetic energy, whose electric potential
corresponds to the applied voltage. Thus, the particle velocities obtained by Ives and Stilwell under
the rubric of H2+ are in fact proton velocities, and thus also proton doublet velocities [9].

12
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6
VB VA VB (AToS) VB (SR)

H Ion Observed H Ion Applied Voltage Predicted from Voltage Attributed and
Velocity, Potential Observed Ion Velocity, by Computed by I&S
vB
* AToS SR *
(105 m/sec) (volts) (volts) (volts) (volts)

H2+ 8.647 * 7,780 15,609 7,760 7,859

H2+ 9.498 * 9,187 18,833 9,363 ND

H2+ 10.170 * 10,574 21,593 10,736 ND

H2+ 11.514 * 13,560 27,679 13,762 13,702

H2+ 13.179 * 18,350 36,264 18,030 20,755

H1+ 8.647 7,780 7,804 3,880

H1+ 9.498 9,187 9,416 4,681

H1+ 10.170 10,574 10,796 5,368

H1+ 11.514 13,560 13,840 6,881 Where the I&S Results

Belong:
H1+ 13.179 18,350 18,132 9,015 (volts)

2H1+ = H2++ 8.647 7,780 7,804 7,760 7,859

2H1+ = H2++ 9.498 9,187 9,416 9,363 ND

2H1+ = H2++ 10.170 10,574 10,796 10,736 ND

2H1+ = H2++ 11.514 13,560 13,840 13,762 13,702

2H1+ = H2++ 13,179 18,350 18,132 18,030 20,755

+
* According to AToS, these applied potentials cannot accelerate H2 to the reported/observed ion
velocities. Compare columns 3 & 4 for H2+ and 2H1+.
* Ratio mp/me employed is aetherometric whole number 1836, not the conventional value of 1836.16.
SR formula: V = 300 moc {[1 - (v2/c2)]-0.5 -1}/e

Table 4. Comparison of voltage values for ionized molecular hydrogen H2+, protons
(H+) and proton doublets (H2++): applied voltages vs voltages corresponding to observed
ion velocities, as computed by Ives and Stilwell (column 6), SR (column 5; equation
written in the cgs system) and AToS (column 4).

3.3. The physics of photon emission in the Ives and Stilwell experiment
This immediately brings to the forefront the problem with the physics of emission that have
been accepted both by SR and Ives and Stilwell. It is assumed that the emissions are in all cases made
by atomic hydrogen that becomes excited, so that the emitter already exists as atomic hydrogen before
the emission occurs: "the assumption in every case is that of a single excited hydrogen atom, to which
all particles must be assumed to revert before emitting light" ([1] p. 222).
Now, Aetherometry does not view the physics in this way. The Balmer line of interest is pre-

13
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

sent upon formation of atomic hydrogen, be it in the transition of a proton doublet to ionized
molecular hydrogen. Its emission can be said to be an emission from atomic hydrogen only to the
extent the latter is formed at the moment of the emission, but it is an emission sourced directly in an
electron (see below) in the process of becoming so-to-speak 'satellized' in the formed atomic
hydrogen. Moreover - as already noted above for Aetherometry - the energy of the emitted photons
(and their frequency) depends upon the kinetic energy of the massbound charges, and their emission
only occurs when these charges discharge that energy (in pars or in toto), ie when they decelerate.
Now, with the aetherometric method of analysis (equation #7), it is apparent that in the Ives and
Stilwell experiment neither protons, nor their doublets, even for the highest applied voltage, have
sufficient kinetic energy (or electric potential) to generate blackbody photons at the Balmer line.
This fact is brought forth in Table 5 by the aetherometric derivation of the modal-maximum
blackbody frequencies that canal-ray protons or proton doublets can emit as a function of their lin-
ear velocities (and thus kinetic energy) determined either from the applied voltage (columns 2, 3 &
4) or from ∆λ (columns 5, 6 & 7). The maximum frequency (υA or υB) of the blackbody photon
radiation emitted by the accelerated protons (in the interelectrode region) and the canal-ray proton
doublets in the Ives and Stilwell experiment could not go beyond the microwave region. This under-
lies the fact that the actual Balmer line emitter is the electron, in the process of being captured by one
proton of a doublet.
But, for the electron alone, production of the Balmer line of interest requires acceleration by
a field with a potential of no less than ~49kV (see ahead). That, too, exceeds the applied potential.
So what is going on? Very simply, proton/electron collision - or proton-doublet/electron collision - is
what is taking place; and the Hβ emission by the captured electron occurs upon their joint formation
of, respectively, atomic hydrogen or, eventually and nearly always, ionized molecular hydrogen.
Protons, or rather their canal-ray doublets, capture electrons likely shooting from the glass-overlaying
cathode sheath of the canal-ray environment (thus the electrons have an opposing velocity vector).
Collision with a proton would generate atomic hydrogen, but collision with a doublet would even-
tually produce precisely H2+. This is of particular interest, given that when the kinetic energy of these
doublets together with the kinetic energy of the captured electron reach the threshold aetherometri-
cally required to produce Balmer emission, the line of interest is produced.
In other words, according to Aetherometry, the actual emitter is the electron, and its
displacement rate must also enter into the formulation of the linear Doppler shift, as it is central to
the physical process of photon emission. The kinetic energy of one of the protons, together with the
kinetic energy of the electron, must account for the Balmer line (by the aetherometric law of kinetic
and photon energy proportionality, see equations #7 and #9), but the collision decelerates the dou-
blet and therefore decreases the magnitude of both direct and reflected Doppler shifts - besides
decelerating the electron enough that it is captured upon emission.

14
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
H Ion From Applied Potential: From observed ∆λ:
Voltage vA υA = vA2/e Voltage vB υB = vB2/e

(volts) (105 m/sec) (1010 Hz) (volts) (105 m/sec) (1010 Hz)

H1+ 7,780 8.633 5.335 7,804 8.647 5.352

H1+ 9,187 9.381 6.300 9,416 9.498 6.457

H1+ 10,574 10.064 7.251 10,796 10.170 7.403

H1+ 13,560 11.397 9.298 13,839 11.514 9.490

H1+ 18,350 13.258 12.583 18,132 13.179 12.433

2H1+ 7,780 8.633 5.335 7,804 8.647 5.352

2H1+ 9,187 9.381 6.300 9,416 9.498 6.457

2H1+ 10,574 10.064 7.251 10,796 10.170 7.403

2H1+ 13,560 11.397 9.298 13,839 11.514 9.490

2H1+ 18,350 13.258 12.583 18,132 13.179 12.433

Table 5. Maximum photon frequencies that, according to Aetherometry, may be

emitted by protons or their doublets as a function of their velocity determined either
from the applied electric potential or observed ∆λ.

So, let's recapitulate. The linear Doppler shift ∆υ/υ, direct and reflected, referenced to the
‘resting’ proton doublets, applies independently of the frequency of the emission; but as a function of
their kinetic energy, the maximum photon frequency their kinetic energy would permit them to emit
is not sufficient for Hβ emission. However, at these frequencies - which are shown in Table 6
(columns 2 and 5) - the full value of the Doppler shifts already applies. Note, therefore, that columns
4, 5 & 6 of Table 6 relate directly to the aetherometric treatment of proton doublets in canal-rays,
and the ∆υB/υB linear Doppler ratio based on the observed ∆λ applies to potential emission from
these doublets before collision, ie before any potential formation of H2+ ions and, thus, before any
possible Hβ emission from a captured electron. Note, furthermore, that the ∆υC/υC values (columns
7, 8 & 9 of Table 6) essentially predicted by both SR and LLR are close to, though different from,
the ∆υB/υB values, but are supposed to apply, instead, to H2+ ions.
We said above that the emission under study comes from electrons in the process of becom-
ing 'satellized' or captured by proton doublets. If the emission came from electrons decelerating in
vacuo, the resulting electron kinetic characteristics required by Aetherometry and the linear Doppler
shift would be those given in Table 7: the electron would need 48.9 keV of kinetic energy before it

15
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

From Applied Potential: From Hydrogen Ion Velocities From Theoretical Velocity Predicted
Based on Observed ∆λ: by SR based on computed ∆λ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Voltage υA ∆υA/υA, Potential of υB ∆υB/υB, Kinetic υC ∆υC /υC ,
(Applied) Kinetic Energy Potential
(volts) (1010 Hz) 10-5 (volts) (1010 Hz) 10-5 (volts) (1010 Hz) 10-5

7,780 5.335 0.8293 7,804 5.352 0.8319 7,864 5.3928 0.8382

9,187 6.300 0.9792 9,416 6.457 1.0037 9.339 6.4040 0.9954

10,574 7.251 1.1271 10,796 7.403 1.1508 10,652 7.3044 1.1354

13,560 9.298 1.4453 13,839 9.490 1.4752 13,654 9.3631 1.4554

18,350 12.583 1.9559 18,132 12.433 1.9327 18,528 12.705 1.9749

Table 6. Linear Doppler shifts for photons with frequencies computed from Table
3 values (υA and υB are shown in Table 5), that may be emitted by protons or proton
doublets.

Hβ Frequency Hβ λ v= e υ Wv = v2/Wk V β ∆υHβ/υHβ

(Hz) (Å) (107 m/sec) (109 m/sec) (volts)

6.167 * 1014 4861 9.2819 3.3831 48,983.6 0.30961 0.10034

Table 7. Aetherometric characteristics of electron kinetics required to observe the

Hβ line upon deceleration.

could source the main Balmer emission under study. From the aetherometric determination of the
kinetic characteristics of protons (or proton doublets) summarized in Table 8 (shown in a way that
permits direct comparison to the electron characteristics in Table 7) for the canal-rays of the Ives and
Stilwell experiment, it is also apparent that the single or doublet protons do not have sufficient ener-
gy (or kinetic voltage) to generate by themselves the Hβ line; they can only generate photons of much
lower frequency υB (column 1, Table 8).
Since the Hβ line is emitted upon capture of the electron, it is apparent that both proton dou-
blets and colliding electrons together must contribute their energy for purposes of the emission; effec-
tively, the two protons will make a momentary contribution of kinetic energy to the emitting
electron. In the process, the electron will decelerate and become captured by the doublet to form an
atomic hydrogen and, subsequently, a H2+ ion, and the doublet will also decelerate in the process. In
other words, the emitter whose Doppler shift is being studied is an electron, but it emits upon inter-
action with another charge, a proton or proton doublet, and this emission can be used to ascertain
the states of motion of this other charge (the heavy ion) before and after the interaction; in the

16
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Max Linear Velocity WvB = vB2/Wu V =∫= WvB Applied Observed Kinetic Energy
∆υB/υB
Frequency of protons or Potential β = vB/c of Protons
of photon doublets (eV)
emission vB = e * υB
υB

(1010 Hz) (105 m/sec) (108 m/sec) (volts) (volts) (10-3) (10-5) singlet doublet
5.352 8.647 5.390 7,804 7,780 2.8842 0.8319 7,804 15,609
6.457 9.498 6.503 9,416 9,187 3.1681 1.0037 9,416 18,833
7.403 10.170 7.457 10,796 10,574 3.3923 1.1508 10,796 21,593
9.490 11.514 9.558 13,840 13,560 3.8408 1.4752 13,840 27,679
12.433 13.179 12.523 18,132 18,350 4.3962 1.9327 18,132 36,264

Table 8. Aetherometric characteristics of the proton kinetics observed in the Ives and
Stilwell experiment, that apply to single or doublet protons. Note that the values of
columns 8 and 9 are those in accordance with the aetherometric equation:
EK = e Wv = λn (Wmag Wv) =∫= mo (Wmag Wv) = mo v2
where e has the aetherometric value of 13.97017 m2 sec-1, and the sign ‘=∫=’ marks con-
version from the aetherometric meter-second system to the quantities of the traditional SI
system.

process, the heavy ion becomes the carrier of that electron (a carrier of a carrier), ultimately in the
form of an H2+ ion.

3.4. Collisional dynamics in the Ives and Stilwell experiment

Depending upon the field voltage applied to accelerate the protons in the interelectrode
region, the electron must make a varying minimal energy contribution to the Hβ line emission.
Indeed, the total energy (~49 keV) of the captured electron before emission must be the same as it
would need to be had the electron decelerated in the vacuum state and in the absence of any capture.
As shown in Table 9, this varying contribution (calculated against the aetherometric minimum of
48,983 eV) is substantially lower if the canal-rays are composed of doublets rather than protons.
The question arises, where do these sheath electrons acquire their minimum kinetic energy to
bombard the canal-rays? If they did not bombard the doublets (or doublets with an associated atom-
ic hydrogen, to generate H3+), these would not have enough energy to confer to a trapped electron
(and the same applies to any pre-existing atomic hydrogen) the energy needed to generate the Hβ line.
If we concentrate on the interaction with proton doublets (rows #1 to #5 of Table 9) - since it is the
interaction of interest - it becomes clear that the only way these electrons can acquire such kinetic

17
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
# Heavy Carrier Kinetic Energy Electric Potential of Light Carrier Kinetic Energy Minimum
of Heavy Ion Kinetic energy, of Electron ElectricPotential
per charge carried of Electron
by heavy ion Kinetic Energy
(eV) (volts) (eV) (volts)

1 2H1+ = H2++ 15,609 7,805 electron 33,374 33,374

2 2H1+ = H2++ 18,833 9,416 electron 30,150 30,150

3 2H1+ = H2++ 21,593 10,796 electron 27,390 27,390

4 2H1+ = H2++ 27,679 13,840 electron 21,304 21,304

5 2H1+ = H2++ 36,264 18, 132 electron 12,719 12,719

6 H1+ 7,804 7,805 electron 41,179 41,179

7 H1+ 9,416 9,416 electron 39,567 39,567

8 H1+ 10,796 10,796 electron 38,187 38,187

9 H1+ 13,840 13,840 electron 35,143 35,143

10 H1+ 18,132 18, 132 electron 30,851 30,851

Table 9. Voltage and kinetic energy (V*e) of electrons in collisions with proton
singlets and doublets, required for Hβ line emission. The minimum kinetic energy of the
electron is given by:
eV = (48,983eV) – (kinetic energy of heavy ion)

energies as in entries #1 to #4 is by means of elastic collisions (probably near the sheath present down-
stream from the cathode and adjacent the glass envelope). In entry #5, the electron kinetic energy can
be accounted for by the applied voltage, or the field energy, which exceed the required minimum
(18.1 keV field energy vs a required minimum of 12.7 keV electron kinetic energy). The fact that the
required electron kinetic energy and potential is even greater for collisions with single protons further
suggests that the main canal ray population is most likely composed of doublets.
Since both particles (or colliding charges) decelerate in the process of their collision and
subsequent electron capture with Balmer photon emission, both the direct and the reflected linear
Doppler shifts depend not just on the relative state of motion of proton doublets, or on the state of
motion of the actual emitters, the electrons, with respect to these doublets, but on the collision that
decelerates both to the final solidary velocity at the time of emission. Again, we underline the fact
that this is a strict aetherometric requirement - that blackbody photon emission requires a decelerat-
ing emitter.

18
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

Given the opposing velocity vectors of electrons (ve) and proton doublets (vpd), the resulting
velocity vH2+ of the formed H2+ ion - upon mutual deceleration and Hβ emission - is aetherometri-
cally given by:

vH2+ = vpd - [ve (me/2mp)] (11)

Table 10 shows the correct carriers, their kinetic energy and corresponding linear velocities, includ-
ing possible maximum modal photon emissions, before (columns #2 to #6) and after (columns #7 to
#11) proton-doublet/electron collision. Please note that photon frequencies in columns #6 and #11
are those directly predicted for electron-emitted photons by the aetherometric relation derived from
equation #7. The aetherometric prediction for the linear Doppler shift ratio ∆υ/υ from the formed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# Carriers Kinetic Linear β υmax Carriers Electron H2+ β of H2+ υHβ ∆υHβ/υHβ
Before Energy Velocity after Kinetic Linear
Collision Collision Energy Velocity
Before upon
Emission Deceleration
(eV) (m/sec) (Hz) (eV) (m/sec) (Hz) 10-5

1 doublet proton 15,609 8.647 * 105 0.00288 5.352 * 1010

2H1+ + e- = 48,983 8.438 * 105 0.00281 6.167 * 1014 0.792
(canal-rays)
=H + 2
electron 33,374 7.6615 * 107 0.25556 4.202 * 1014

2 doublet 18,833 9.498 * 105 0.00317 6.457 * 1010

H2+ 48,983 9.300 * 105 0.00310 6.167 * 1014 0.962
electron 30,150 7.282 * 107 0.2429 3.796 * 1014

3 doublet 21,593 10.170 * 105 0.00339 7.403 * 1010

H2+ 48,983 9.981 * 105 0.00333 6.167 * 1014 1.108
electron 27,390 6.941* 107 0.23152 3.448 * 1014

4 doublet 27,679 11.514 * 105 0.00384 9.490 * 1010

H2+ 48,983 11.347. * 105 0.003785 6.167 * 1014 1.433
electron 21,304 6.121 * 107 0.20418 2.682 * 1014

5 doublet 36,264 13.180* 105 0.00440 12.433 * 1010

H2+ 48,983 13.051. * 105 0.00435 6.167 * 1014 1.895
electron 12,719 4.730 * 107 0.15777 1.601 * 1014

Table 10. Aetherometric comparison of kinetic characteristics of carriers before

collision (doublets and electrons) and after collision (H2+), in the canal-ray region of the
Ives and Stilwell tube. Note that column 3 gives both the maximum kinetic energy of dou-
blets observed from ∆λ, and the minimum required kinetic energy of colliding electrons.
Column 4 gives the corresponding linear speeds. Also note that column 9 gives the linear
speed of H2+ upon collision and deceleration with Hβ emission, as per equation #11.

19
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

∆υ/υ, 10-5 Predictions: ∆υ/υ, 10-5

Applied Heavy Ion Heavy Ion Classical SR AToS Experimental
Potential Speed Before Speed After Theory Results
Before collision At emission upon
Collision collision (I&S, 1938)
(Proton doublets) deceleration (H2+)
(volts) (106 m sec-1) (106 m sec-1)
7,780 0.865 0.84 1.67 0.838 0.832 0.792 0.762
9,187 0.95 0.93 2.02 0.995 1.004 0.962 ND
10,574 1.02 1.00 2.26 1.135 1.151 1.108 1.10
13,560 1.15 1.135 2.90 1.455 1.475 1.433 1.42

18,350 1.32 1.31 3.94 1.975 1.933 1.895 1.90

Table 11. Linear Doppler shifts for light observed in the 1938 Ives and Stilwell
experiment (column #8) versus the predictions of Classical Theory (column #4), Special
Relativity (SR, column #5; see column #9 of Table 6), and Aetherometry (AToS, columns
#6 & #7). In accordance with the aetherometric model, columns #2 and #3 provide,
respectively, the speeds of heavy ions just before emission (see column #2 of Table 8) and
at the time of emission (see column #9 of Table 10).

H2+ ions in accordance with the entirety of the preceding aetherometric treatment is that shown in
column #12, Table 10.
We should mention, at this point, that the narrow dispersion of the centerline taken to cor-
respond to emission from so-called resting H2+ ions (the dispersion being less than the separation of
the components of the Hβ line) must be attributed to collisions of what are essentially non-modal
canal-rays, or very low-velocity protons or proton doublets. If we assume elastically accelerated elec-
trons with kinetic energy near the modal maximum of 49keV, they could, in a head-on collision,
bring to a stop protons – or their doublets - having only a diminutive 27eV of kinetic energy. That
must be the reason why, even below 3kV, the observed centerline frequency of the "resting ions" is
very narrow but still present. However, there is another process that could force the colliding charges
to cancel their states of motion and bring the formed H2+ ions to a near-complete stop. In essence,
the electron would have to intercalate between the two protons of the doublet (or two free protons),
forcing them to collide with each other or to transfer their energy to the electron in the process of a
near-collision. Since, at higher applied voltages, the required electron kinetic energy would decrease,
the faster moving protons would also have a better chance of capturing a bombarding electron by the
intercalation process, with the result that the center or resting line would broaden and increase in

20
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

intensity. Is there any evidence we can adduce for this argument? In fact, Ives and Stilwell report that
"the center, undisplaced line is very weak, relative to the displaced lines, at voltages below 3,000", and
that, "at voltages of 10,000 and over the center line becomes diffuse but with a sharp central core,
and is much more intense than the displaced lines" ( [1] p. 222).

3.5.Comparison of Aetherometry with Special Relativity and Larmor-Lorentz Relativity

Through this strictly aetherometric analysis, we come at last to the comparison of Special
Relativity (SR) (see column #5 of Table 11) with aetherometric theory (AToS) (see columns #6 and
#7 of Table 11) in light of the results of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment (see column #8 of
Table 11). The Ives and Stilwell experiment permits one to 'rule out' classical Doppler theory (see
column #4 of Table 11, and how it compares unfavourably with the experimental results of column
#8), but not 'rule in' which Relativity theory is correct, whether SR or Larmor-Lorentz Relativity
(LLR), since they give basically the same result at this level of resolution. However, the Ives and
Stilwell results leave no doubt about which is more accurate - Relativity in either of its forms or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Applied ∆'λ: ∆'λ: ∆'λ: ∆'λ: ∆'λ: Observed
voltage Computed from applied voltage VA: Computed from Computed from Computed from by I&S in
LLR (I&S, 1938) AToS for H1+ observed ∆λ * observed ∆λ ‡ observed ∆λ ‡ final experiments
†
*
(volts) or H2++ * LLR SR AToS ⊗
7,780 0.0203 0.0202 0.0202 0.0202 0.0192 0.0185

9,187 0.0238 0.0238 0.0243 0.0244 0.0234 0.0225

10,574 0.0275 0.0275 0.0280 0.0280 0.0270 0.0270

13,564 0.0352 0.0351 0.0360 0.0359 0.0348 0.0345

18,350 0.0478 0.0477 0.0469 0.0470 0.0461 0.0470

* Data from Ives & Stilwell, Table III, column 4.

* Calculated with the aetherometric method.
* According to the LLR formula: ∆'λ = 0.5 λo(v2/c2). Data from Ives & Stilwell, Table III, column 5.
‡ According to the SR and aetherometric formula: ∆'λ = {λo/[1 - (v/c)2]0.5} - λo.
Please note that these values are very close to those obtained by AToS for the proton doublets before the collisions that produce H2+.
⊗ Computed from observed ∆λ for the aetherometric velocities of molecular hydrogen (see Table 10, column 9) at the time
of emission.
† Data from Ives & Stilwell, Table III, column 6.

Table 12. Proposed second-order ∆’λ shifts: (1) computed from the applied volt-
age (columns #2 and #3); (2) predicted by LLR (column #4), by SR (column #5) and
AToS (column #6); and (3) reported by Ives and Stilwell [1] for their final experiments.
All values are in angstroms.

21
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

Aetherometry: it suffices to compare columns #7 and #8 of Table 11 to realize that the aetheromet-
ric ∆υ/υ prediction practically coincides with the results reported by Ives and Stilwell [1]. It is worth
noting how close the predicted ∆υ/υ values of SR (column #5 of Table 11) are to the aetherometric
values for the proton doublets before collision (column #6 of Table 11), and thus before emission. Once
more, this is an example that illustrates the importance of an adequate grasp of the physical
processes embedded in the reported observations.

0.05

0.045

0.04
∆'λ in angstroms

0.035

0.03

0.025

I&S Results
0.02 ATOS

SR

0.015
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

∆λ in angstroms

Figure 2. Computed and observed second-order shifts plotted against first-order

shifts. The observed second-order shifts (small closed squares) are those reported by Ives
and Stilwell ([1] Table III) and listed in column #7 of Table 12. The second-order shifts
predicted by SR (large closed squares, see column #5 of Table 12) deviate from the results
of Ives and Stilwell by, respectively, 8.4%, 7.4%, 3.5%, 4.3% and 0.2%. The second-order
shifts predicted by Aetherometry (closed circles, see column #6 of Table 12), deviate
much less from the results of Ives and Stilwell by, respectively, 3.8%, 4%, 0%, 0.9%,
1.4%.

22
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

Finally, let us carry out a comparison of the theories of Relativity (SR and LLR) with
Aetherometry with respect to the second-order effect. In Aetherometry, the second-order effect of the
linear Doppler is a mere phenomenological consequence of the law of the geometric mean composi-
tion of velocities, and does not entail, ontologically or phenomenologically, any recourse to the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations. For reference, Table 12 presents the computed ∆'λ from the
applied voltage in columns #2 (as calculated by Ives and Stilwell) and #3 (as calculated by
Aetherometry). The comparison between Aetherometry and Relativity comes next: the LLR ∆'λ
prediction is shown in column #4; the SR ∆'λ prediction in column #5; and the aetherometric ∆'λ
prediction in column #6, calculated on the basis of the velocities of charged molecular hydrogen at
the time of emission, as per column #9, Table 10. It is apparent that, in 4 of the 5 cases, the aethero-
metric results (column #6, Table 12) match most closely the final results (column #7) reported by
Ives and Stilwell. The differences between SR and Aetherometry shown in Table 12 are illustrated
graphically in Fig. 2.
We should note that the results of Tables 11 and 12 were arrived at by a strict account of the
collisional dynamics between charge-carriers of different masses (proton doublets and electrons), and
by a derivation of the ion velocities (before and after collision) and corresponding blackbody
frequency emissions with their Doppler shifts - including the Hβ line and its Doppler shift - by strict
application of the law of the geometric mean composition of velocities. This alone proves how super-
fluous is the hypothesis of a "constitutive" or "ontological" second-order effect, thereby disproving
what the Ives and Stilwell experiment has to this day been consensually believed to prove: that there is
time-dilation, reciprocal to the Lorentzian length-contraction. From our presentation, it would now
appear that the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment proves the interpretation of time-dilation to be
superfluous, and thus denies the necessity of the physical basis on which rest Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity and the Larmor-Lorentz versions of Relativity, including Ives' own [3-4].

23
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

4. Conclusions

We suggest that the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment confirms Aetherometry's contention
that SR is inconsistent in its application of the law of velocity composition, and in error when it
comes to the determination of the voltages corresponding to the velocities of massbound charges (it
confirms, therefore, the values presented in Table 4, column 4, and the fact that the main heavy ions
involved prior to emission are proton doublets).
Ives and Stilwell did not prove that a second-order effect existed; they only showed that the
second-order effect models of LLR and SR were much, much closer to predicting the observed linear
Doppler shift of light than was classical theory (see Table 2). By the same token, their experiment
now appears to confirm that the correct linear Doppler shift is that predicted by Aetherometry for
emission from colliding and decelerating charges without any invocation of LF transforms (cp. Table
2 to Table 11).
In closing, a word is in order regarding Ives and Stilwell's own conclusions from their exper-
iment. The scientific epoch - and the 'ideology' of Official Science - viewed this experiment as a
confirmation of Einstein's Special Relativity, but not so Ives and Stilwell, who claimed that the exper-
iment, being the necessary optical complement to the Michelson-Morley experiment, proved the
existence, along and across the direction of motion, of contractions of the apparatus ("conspiring
compensations" - they wrote - composed of "contractions of dimensions [lengths] and of clock rates"
([1] p. 226) that accorded with LLR and explained the null result of the Michelson-Morley experi-
ment. Since they interpreted their results as being positive evidence for these LF transforms (whereas
the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with other explanations), they
saw their results as evidence for changing clock rates. For all relativists, SR or LLR - including Ives
and Stilwell - this was the critical point: that time-dilation appeared to be established. In fact, as we
have now shown, a phenomenological coincidence of the relativistic second order effect with the
solution of the linear Doppler of light (and, for Aetherometry, the law of the geometric composition
of velocities validates, in appearance but not in essence, SR's version of the second-order effect, rather
than the LLR version) does not warrant the assumption that time-dilation exists. Proper application
of the law of the geometric mean composition of velocities - along with what Aetherometry consid-
ers to be proper treatment of the relationship between field energy, kinetic energy and photon
emission - then proves that, with the data of the 1938 Ives and Stilwell experiment and without
prejudice to the Michelson-Morley experiment having a null result, better predictions can be made
with a theoretical model (Aetherometry) that does not invoke time-dilation or any LF transforms.
It is curious that Ives and Stilwell were aware that they had neglected the physics of collision, but
effectively hoped that "collision processes" would not just "happen to follow exactly the relation
expected from the Larmor-Lorentz theory from velocity changes alone" ([1] p. 226). Yet, when prop-

24
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

erly taken into account, collision processes and velocity changes alone are sufficient to explain the
observed Doppler shifts with far more exactitude than either LLR or SR can, and employing solely
the law of composition of velocities. Correct application of the geometric mean law of composition
of velocities to the correct collision scenario should have been sufficient to predict the exact values of
the observed shifts. We should note that, from the perspective of the aetherometric treatment, the Ives
and Stilwell experiment demonstrates how the decelerated velocities of formed H2+ ions change with
respect to the original velocities of the proton doublets in the canal-rays (though less frequently, the
same would be expected for H3+ ions with respect to H3++ ions). Yet the basic physics of the inter-
action was entirely missed by all physicists, with the result that the pre-collisional velocities of the
proton-doublets have, to this day, been incorrectly attributed to the H2+ ions that result, rather, from
the collisions of doublets with electrons.
These results and conclusions strongly indicate that, while on one hand there is no stationary
Aether required for the concatenation of light photons, on the other hand the Ives and Stilwell exper-
iment provides no physical evidence, either, for LF transforms - or evidence that proves that
relativistic changes in clock rates exist or intensify with relative speed of motion. On the contrary, a
proper understanding of field velocities and their difference from the wavespeeds and linear velocities
corresponding to the kinetic energy of massbound charges, together with a novel understanding of
the physics of photon emission and the physics of electric collision, suffices to accurately predict the
observed linear Doppler shifts without any recourse to relativistic considerations.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Aetherometry Study Group at the International Society of the Friends of
Aetherometry (ISFA) for stimulating discussions. Particular thanks go to David Pratt.

25
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

REFERENCES

1. Ives, H & Stilwell, G (1938) J Opt Soc of America, 28:215.

2. French, AP (1966) "Special Relativity", WW Norton, NY, NY, p.145.
3. Ives, H (1944) J Opt Soc of America, 36:392.
4. Ives, H (1952) Scientific Proc R Dublin Soc, 26:9.
5. After Halliday, D et al (1992) "Physics", Vol. II, J. Wiley & Sons, NY, NY, p. 895.
6. Correa, PN & Correa, AN (2003) "The volt and the electron-volt" in: "Experimental
Aetherometry", Vol. 2A, Akronos Publishing, Concord, Ontario, Canada, p.149.
7. Correa, PN & Correa, AN (2003) "On the wave structure of energy: fundamental dif-
ferences between de Broglie’s theory of matter-waves and the aetherometric theory of wave super-
imposition" , Akronos Publishing, Concord, Ontario, Canada, monograph AS2-31.
8. Correa, PN & Correa, AN (2003) "Experimental Aetherometry", Vol. 2B, Akronos
Publishing, Concord, Ontario, Canada, p. 172.
9. We can formally write this equivalence in Aetherometry as:

v = √[(e V)/mp] = √(Wu Wv) = √[(2e V)/mH2++] = √[(2e V)/2 mp] = √(WmagH2++ Wv)

26
Interferometric Aetherometry I (4) Correa&Correa, 2008

APPENDIX 1 - The reactions in the I&S vessel

Let us briefly explore the reactions involved in the Ives-Stilwell experiment that belong to
diatomic molecular hydrogen.
The first problem one is confronted with is the double assumption made by I&S in their
paper, that the emission is from an hydrogen atom (the free radical H•) to which the emitter "reverts"
(their choice of words). Let's call this reaction A, which we can write with traditional notation as:
REACTION A
Hβ emission
H• ––––––––––> H•

The second problem is that I&S do not tell us how the singly-ionized hydrogen atoms H2+
which they assume composed the canal rays in the postcathodic space (PCS) were obtained from the
ionization of hydrogen gas introduced into the interelectrode space (IES). Putting these terms into
the reaction, we are obliged to write as follows - while identifying the unexplained transitions with
question marks:

REACTION B
? ? Hβ emission
H2 ––––––> H2+ ––––––> p + H• –––––––––––––> H• + p
IES PCS

What is wrong with this is that Ives and Stilwell claimed to have found no "H1 particles"
in their vessel! That means neither protons (p), nor atomic hydrogens (H•)! Obviously
neither reaction A nor reaction B can actually account for what is going on inside the I&S vessel.
Now, enter Aetherometry:
First, according to the aetherometric argument - which our paper claims to demonstrate - that
the kinetic energy of the hydrogen ions which move at the correct (ie measured) speed is not
sufficient to source the Hβ emission without collision with an energetic sheath electron, we would
have, at the very least, to write this last reaction very differently as reaction C:

REACTION C
? 1e- input –> Hβ emission
H2 ––––––> H2 ––––––––––––––––––> 2H•
+
IES PCS

Thus, if I&S were correct about the chemical nature of their diatomic canal rays, the real product -

27
Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. I AS3-I.4

from the aetherometric perspective - would have to be two atomic hydrogens (2H•). Yet, Ives and
Stilwell found no atomic hydrogen!
Furthermore, our paper also contends that the kinetic energy of H2+ ions is also not sufficient
to account for the observed speeds of diatomic hydrogen (see page 12: "according to Aetherometry,
only protons or proton doublets can be accelerated to the reported velocities with the voltages applied
by Ives and Stilwell"). Thus we contend that the canal rays are proton doublets, because, according
to Aetherometry, (1) the observed speeds of the canal rays can only be those of doublets or singlets,
and (2) no singlets were detected as being present. Consequently, the reaction proposed by Aetherometry
is quite different from reaction C: ionization of hydrogen in the IES generates protons that are stacked
by passing through the perforated cathode; these protons form canal ray doublets that ultimately gen-
erate singly-ionized diatomic hydrogen by collision with sheath-emitted electrons. The aetherometric
reaction discussed in our paper then must be written as reaction D:

REACTION D
(loss of 2e-) 1e- input –> Hβ emission
H2 ––––––––––> (2p = H2 ) –––––––––––––––––––> (H• + p) ––> H2+
++
IES PCS

According to Aetherometry, the final product would be either an atomic hydrogen plus a proton (still
in association and thus placed above in parentheses), or a singly-ionized diatomic hydrogen molecule
- that is, as that quote from page 10 of our paper indicates, "H2+ (and not H2)". Note that the final
transition will always be favoured by the fact that formation of molecular hydrogen will release ener-
gy from the higher energy states of the free radical and associated proton.
Similar reactions with an identical rationale can be written for the triatomic molecules.
There is, therefore, in none of the above any disagreement with the view proposed in our
paper that, upon emission of the Balmer line, an atomic hydrogen is transiently produced. What we
suggest happens further after the emission is the formation of a singly ionized diatomic (or tri-
atomic) molecule.

28