WOW. I've been looking for this for 50 years. Pretty strong evidence that Relativity is most likely bunk. This is not Crackpot. It is very sound logic supported by physical evidence of precise tests by qualifed enities. It seems MMI actually found evidence of an ether in 1921 but it went ignored since Relativity had taken over post failure of the MMX earlier to detect the ether. But far more importantly in 1998 it was also detected in a well thought out and quality experiment. Ether detected 1998 http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1998-12/msg0013719.html The book on De Witte Ether Detection (164 pages) http://pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf I have only finished the first 12 pages but WOW what a presentation. He has already provided the proper (in my view) explanations for my 3 Clock Paradox, the speed of light and "Apparent" time dilation vs actual time and discloses the errors of K&K be they willful fraud in support of Relativity or outright incompetence. He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart. Good ridance. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius. I can't recommend to strongly that you read all about the demise of the worst theory to every penetrate science. Relativity.
Originally posted by MacM But far more importantly in 1998 it was also detected in a well thought out and quality experiment. Did you read the note? There are many things which could have caused this besides 'ether'. And these problems were pointed out in the messages attached. The most likely is tidal effects. He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart. Good ridance. I fail to see any tearing. As soon as you start talking about a 'bubble of aether around earth' to try and explain MM theory, you cancel all the results aether would have. You are right back at relativity. I can't recommend to strongly that you read all about the demise of the worst theory to every penetrate science. Relativity. Nice to say that... but the theory you just linked to still relies on relativity to explain reality.
Correct View Persol, I also read the disclaimer but that is just being prudent. You would do better to read the material rather than assume you know what it says. And I almost hate to mention it here but I think it is appropriate under the circumstance. That is UniKEF is not devoid relavistic principles either but they are based on factors that have a physical underpinning and are not mere mathematical extrapolations. Why am I not surprised that you were the first to respond and actually I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your response. It is more appropriate even if it isn't anchored in concrete as you would want others to accept. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
He makes assumption after assumption. I see no evidence to back him up. Also his three ship thought experiment is flawed because he uses a classical approcach and fails to explain WHY the speed of light would not be constant. "The postulates of Special Relativity are assumptions, not laws. The MTLs are laws. We must give priority to laws that are proven, rather than to assumptions which are not proven." That's a very bold statement; that everything in the universe acts to simple laws known to work at low speeds.
Re: Correct View Originally posted by MacM I also read the disclaimer but that is just being prudent. It isn't just being prudent. There are many other reasons that this would happen. It falls in league with your gravity testing. There are just to many unaccounted for variable. You would do better to read the material rather than assume you know what it says. I read all the posts you linked to, the overview chapter, and the chapter on the experiment. This is far more then the 12 pages you have read. I have no need to assume, as the material is sitting right there. And I almost hate to mention it here but I think it is appropriate under the circumstance. That is UniKEF is not devoid relavistic principles either but they are based on factors that have a physical underpinning and are not mere mathematical extrapolations. Analogies do us no good. You can not tell me where a rocket will land by using an analogy. The math was developed for a reason. Your philiopshical discussions do not address this reason. It is more appropriate even if it isn't anchored in concrete as you would want others to accept. I have said OVER and OVER that relativity (and all of science) is not static. However, it is currently the BEST explanation we have. None of the anti-relativity people on this site have posted anything that provides the range of answers that relativity does. Most theories, including UniKEF, still require the math of relativity to actually get any results. They are just looking for new analogies which they feel are easier understood. Unfortunately, this over simplifies the view.
Um, uh, because he spells it with an 'a'... aether. Six letter theories starting with 'a' and ending with 'r' don't have to be consistant. Duh!
Details Persol, ANS: Nor do your ad hoc rejections address the most current findings and assumptions being made by those doing the research. If I refer to such statements and they are somehow flawed, it means the source is flawed and not me. If I make assumptions (and I do but qualify them as such) and they are flawed then I have no objection to being told I am wrong. But it is less than impressive when you attack me for what others, more qualified than you or I have said and expect me to supply corrections. Show your basis not your back side. ANS: I do not think you will see anytime soon a sweeping theory that covers all bases. Even Relativity came in pieces years apart and it has been modified or extended from its original concept many time over the decades. Your demand that an idea answer all question simultaneously is either to far reaching or a deliberate tatic to defend the status quo. Perhaps they tend to over simplify but isn't that another way of saying they are more likely correct due to Occum's Razor? You need to do much more than spout ad hoc objections and distortion of what has been said. To gain any crediability you have to supply the corrected arguement. I nor many others here are willing, nor should we be, to simply assume things as you claim beause you claim they are. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Originally posted by MacM ANS: Nor do your ad hoc rejections address the most current findings and assumptions being made by those doing the research. Well, seeing as how I pointed out problems, it would not be classified as 'ad hoc rejections'. Perhaps you should read and think about material before you bother posting it. If I refer to such statements and they are somehow flawed, it means the source is flawed and not me. You said "He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart", but I don't see anything that was a consistant point, let alone good. So yes, you are wrong. But it is less than impressive when you attack me for what others, more qualified than you or I have said and expect me to supply corrections. Show your basis not your back side. I did in my first post, but you ignored that part. I meantioned tidal influence, and requireing current theory anyway. It's all been gone into before, I'm not doing it again. I do not think you will see anytime soon a sweeping theory that covers all basis. I could live with consistent. This has yet to be done. Perhaps they tend to over simplify but isn't that another way of saying they are more likely correct due to Occum's Razor? Except Occum's Razor still demands the same level of competence. You don't like relativity because you 'fell' it isn;t right. You have no actual basis to believe that. If you have no logical reason to believe it, then you shouldn't.
Maybe 4DHyperCubix, ANS: Actually it might but if it does the affect would be so minor as to be undetectable. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Re: Maybe Originally posted by MacM Actually it might but if it does the affect would be so minor as to be undetectable. Which would contradict this experiment.
General Response Persol, ANS: Fortunately you make this easy. I don't need to address each of your responses. They all stem from the same ad hoc replies I have accused you of. You claim not only I but these others are wrong but provide no evidence that that is the case. He does tear up SR and GR. If he is correct or not seems will require a bit of time to prove. But your claim that he has blatant error and makes illogical assumptions is in itself an inadequate response to the material. His efforts are based on a sound understanding of not only SR and GR but their history and short comings. His work is indeed most promising inspite of your unsupported hope that he is somehow wrong. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Possible Explainations 1) This could be a result of interaction with background radiation 2) Could be due to tidal forces 3) 12 hour shift aligned with season change Problems 1) Radio/light waves do not experience this... which says this is not an ether. 2) Sidereal motion is distinguiable on earth WITHOUT looking at the sky. De Witt claims they don't, which is plain wrong. Related effects could affected this. Even MM took this into account. 3) The phase shift acheived is statistivally irrelevant because of the way he chose his points. 4) He hasn't released his data. We have no idea how he chooses his 'daily point'.
His argument about path momentum seems pretty solid, if it can be said that if a photon is able to have perpendicular path momentum, then it must also be able to have parallell path momentum. I'm not sure that this is true though. Does anybody care to comment?
Specifics Persol, He makes very specific charges against SR & GR; plus H&K testing, Suppose you attempt to show he has mis-stated his objections to these enities rather than branch off on a wild goose hunt trying to find some reason he may be wrong. Just defend SR & GR against his specific charges and do it sucessfully then that would be all you would need to do. Puts a bit of a different light on the issue I think. You see I'm not going to waste my time defending myself against BS. I'm going to stick to the issue here and that is the discovery of an ether and very good arguements against SR & GR, H&K. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
De Witte WINS Persol, So I have to assume De Witte wins. I thought so. You have nothing that will stick to the wall against his work. We should all take note of this roll-over. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
I didn't sleep well enough to start debunking 164 pages of aether theory. All I can say is: MacM, if you are happy with an aether theory, and if it explains physics as good as any other theory, then fine. Let's all be happy. I personally prefer not to assume the complicating "universal frame of reference", which is the most unnatural thing to introduce considering the already built in relativity in classical Newtonian mechanics. Bye! Crisp
