conspiracyoflight.com: Ives's own papers (2026-10-07)

Site: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/ (a site critical of special relativity; operator gives contact dm88dm@gmail.com on its Historical Papers page). The /Ives/ directory listing is 403; files were found by Google site:conspiracyoflight.com Ives (pages 1-2) and by trying file names. Chrome for search; files fetched with curl.

Found (scanned JSTOR-style page images with no text layer, read by OCR; the 1937-1947 papers were saved to research/files/; the 1952-53 papers are in copyright and cited by reference only)

Not found by filename probing (HerbertIves{1937..1953}{,a-e}.pdf): the 1941 Part II, the 1945 Phil. Mag. paper, 1948 gravitation and one-way light papers, 1949 rod-and-clock paper, 1951 papers.

What the papers say (read from OCR text and page images, [web] via the URLs above)

• 1938 experiment, numbers now available. Table III (p.223/225, OCR checked against page images for p.226 only): eight plate measurements at 6,788 to 18,350 V on H2 and H3 canal-ray lines; second-order shift of centre of gravity computed from voltage vs observed, e.g. plate 177, 18,350 V: computed 0.0478 / 0.0469 A, observed 0.047 A; plate 169, 6,788 V: 0.0116 / 0.0109, observed 0.011 A. First-order Doppler displacements agree with voltage-computed values "to within about 1 percent" (Table I). Table II: plates with the discharge pointing N, S, E, W give observed shifts 0.045-0.052 A, mean 0.0468 A vs computed 0.0472 A, i.e. no orientation (earth-motion) effect seen. [web: OCR of JOSA 28 pp.218-225]
• Ives and Stilwell's own caveat: "Probably the least satisfactory feature is that the displacements of center of gravity ... are in every case less than the known separation of the components of the H-beta line" (doublet 0.09 A), so part of the shift could come from varying intensity of the components; voltages at least twice as high would exclude this. [web: JOSA 28 p.225-226 OCR]
• Their conclusion: "the change of frequency of a moving light source predicted by the Larmor-Lorentz theory is verified." Significance section (p.226, read on page image): the experiment "forms the necessary optical complement" to Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike; it fixes the clock rate as nu = nu0 (1 - V^2/c^2)^(1/2), "nu0 the frequency of the clock when stationary in the ether"; combined with Kennedy-Thorndike, the moving apparatus is contracted by (1 - V^2/c^2)^(1/2) along the motion and unaffected across it. Null results alone "could ... be equally well explained—and more simply—by assuming an ether entrained by the earth, or a ballistic character of light emission"; a positive result "may hence be claimed to give more decisive evidence for the Larmor-Lorentz theory". [read: page image JOSA 28 p.226]
• 1947 Historical Note: the Michelson-Morley null result fixes only the ratio of contractions; each choice of Lorentz's factor l gives a different clock rate (Voigt 1887: T/(1-v^2/c^2); Lorentz l=1: T/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2); equal-volume spheroid; and a contraction with no clock-rate change). Ives plots all four against the canal-ray data and says the data "decide unequivocally for l=1". This is Ives's clearest statement of what the experiment discriminates. [web: OCR JOSA 37 pp.810-811]
• 1952 Derivation of the mass-energy relation: discusses Planck's 1907 objection; ends "The relation E = m0c^2 was not derived by Einstein." 1953 Note replies to Riseman and Young (JOSA 43:618, 1953): "To derive the exact mass-energy relation, something must be added ... from valid physical considerations, not by assumption." [web: OCR]
• 1953 Genesis of "Is there an ether?": written as a reply to Dirac, "Is there an aether?", Nature 168:906 (1951); argues neither Michelson-Morley nor Poincare's relativity principle denied the ether; "abolition of the ether" stems from Einstein 1905; cites Sagnac and Michelson-Gale as "positive first-order results exactly in conformity with the idea that the light signals travel in a fixed ether"; cites further Ives, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 95:125 (1951) and Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. 26:9 (1952). [web: OCR]

Bearing on claims

Closes much of the claims.md "Source gap" for claim 1 and 2 (primary 1938 text and numbers now in hand) and claim 5 (the 1952 paper itself). The 1947 note states Ives's principle in his own terms (claim 3). Dirac 1951 and Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. 1952 are new leads.