A good page is the "Shade Tree Physics" page by Robert Fritzius, who has translated some of Ritz's papers and has some papers written on stars and such like: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/
Another Ritzian theorist is Tony Hollick. He has a large text file, not segmented into HTML bits, at : http://www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/relmech.txt
Here's a site by Ekkehard Friebe. It has a lot of German content, but has some bits in English. I think Ekkehard is a bit harsh about contemporary electromagnetism - its a useful engineering approximation, but not anything with theoretical basis. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ekkehard_Friebe/homepage.htm An older reference, but important one, is the book "Electromagnetic Theory : A Critical Examination of the Fundamentals" by Alfred O'Rahily. This book is full to the brim with formulas, and the formulas are expressed in an archaic "component" form rather than the usual "vector" form which people brought up with modern electromagnetics will be familiar with.
More recently, Alfred Waldron has written a good deal on Ritzian theory, with a book "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light". He has also had some article published in Speculations in Science and Technology.
Waldron is definitely on the right track. However, his interpretation of experimental data is that particles do routinely travel at faster than the speed of light, and this has been interpreted as particles travelling closer and closer to the speed of light.
However, this is where I feel Waldron is in error. To my way of thinking, Synchro-Cyclotrons provide real unambiguous evidence that particles are travelling at less than the speed of light and odd things are happening to them.
The Ritzian perspective has been developed by Domina Spencer, who has been active for many years, and has published a review of the Ritzian approach in the American Journal of Physics. Dr. Spencer is a mathematician, but embraces the idea that there is an alternative to Relativity. One article by herself and her then partner is :
P.M. & D.E.S., Electromagnetism without Magnetism : An Historical Scetch, American Journal of Physics, *22*, 120-124, 1954.
This has a few formulas, but is a more general introduction to Ritzian style electromagnetism.
Bryan G Wallace is another worker, who has concentrated on the fact that radar reflections from planets in the solar system indicate that the speed of light is not strictly constant. I have not been able to give his ideas a critical review, but they certainly sound reasonable. It could be a piece of scientific evidence in favour of a variable speed of light.
Bryan, needs to get a grip on all the experimental evidence for constancy or otherwise in the speed of light, and make a side by side comparison. This is something I am working towards.
Assuming that radar reflection did provide objective evidence for the variable speed of light, and the mainstream scientific community conceded this, they would then review * all * the scientific evidence. Of course, there's a big * if * here.
I concede that the experimental evidence that Bryan puts forth may have merit. Nevertheless, his own perspective focuses around an "ether"; this is one area where our two perspectives differ. Ritzian theory does not explicitly require an ether.
He has put together a document, "The Farce of Physics", which is a little too verbose for my liking - no slur intended on his motives, however !!!
Bill Owen has been a contributor to the alt.sci.physics.new-theories newsgroup (one of a number, of course). His own perspective focuses on the idea that relativity has a few conceptual problems, and that the idea of an unchanging speed of light requires revision. But he does try to operate in a mostly relativistic context.
One of things he has identified could be an inconsistent expositions by Einstein. However, it may be possible to "fix" Relativity without significant implications. It is also possible that he is onto something with significant enough implications to cause some upheaval in the theory.
Mr. Owen has underlined that Einstein himself said that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light may require revision. Playing devil's advocate here, Einstein could simply have been wrong here, without there being a problem with relativity. Certainly, it is an interesting statement, and I plan to look at the context in which it was expressed.
And, of course, there's Zigmas Budrikis, who has had some papers and commentaries published in Speculations in Science and Technology :
Z.L.B., Ritz's Electrodynamics as a basis for Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetism, Proc. IREE Aust, *29*, 343-358, 1968.
This is quite fierce on the maths, but worth reading if you have some familiarity with Maxwell's equations.
Z.L.B, Might electrical earthing affect convection of light, Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 4 or 5.
This is quite specific paper, but may nevertheless be of interest.
Tom Phipps has written a book "Heretical Verities", and is the source of a non-Ritzian alternative electrodynamic theory. To my way of thinking he is all too readily dismissive of Ritzian theory. His approach was to assume the reality of time dilation and work things out from there, while I assume there is no time dilation, and the changes in the lifetime of particles is the result of a different environment when they are travelling at high speeds. Essentially, Phipps tries to develop a Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations.
According to Phipps, in Maxwell's equations the reference frame enters through the partial derivatives which are necessary for the description of the fields. The position of the field sources is apparent, as is their motion, through the parameter of current density.
But the motion of the field detectors is not present in the Maxwellian description. Maxwell's field are defined only for the situation where the field detectors are at rest with respect to the reference frame.
If we take one of Maxwell's equations and subject it to a Gallilean transformation, and find it to be form invariant. He then tries to incorporate a parameter representing motion of the field detector into this equation, and apply a Gallilean transformation to it. Eventually, a formula is found which incorporates a term which reflects motion of the field detector, and in Gallilean invariant.
With some modification, this formula then becomes a more simple one and incoporates a total time derivative, where the motion of the receiver is incorporated into the total time derivative. We then have a set of formulas which are Gallilean invariant.
Tom Phipps also considers some mathematical subtleties to do with the quantum nature of light, mostly by considering light reflected through the interior of an ellipse.