Here are some links: http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/ www.anti-relativity.com http://www.mrelativity.net/ <Many proofs against various aspects of SR http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10671635.htm http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity http://www.spheritons.com/Relativity_is_False.html http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html#.UxPpwvmSzCs http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/abrunthaler/iiizw2.shtml http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v371/n6492/abs/371046a0.html http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1210.0;wap2 5 and 8 times C http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t928728/ Good post, but to a racist message board
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:40 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Sagnac effect is a very good example. > > Then there are various interferometry drift experiments, and most have > shown some degree of drift, just far less that a static aether the earth > moves through, positive results are more common than not. Results are often > interpreted to agree with SR, but they don't. > > Then there are findings of the speed of light not being constant (which > might be a slightly separate things) varying along with the fine structure > constant. > > Pulsar FTL has been widely reported, here is just one I found: > http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pulars-superluminal-speeds-really-faster-than-speed-of-light.html > > GPS Satellites have been reported to disagree with SR.. (below) > > http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html <If the speed of > light was always the same, then why do you have to move the mirror for it > to be moving??? Wouldn't virtual particles (and photons at that) be immune > to such 'extra motion? > > Podkletnov, Tesla, A submission to the International Tesla Symposium of an > FTL transmission by a researcher (may be locatable) > > You must also consider that if you try and measure the 2 way speed of > light which really isn't necessary (clocks can be synced together and > separated at low speed), but it greatly reduces the effects of motion since > it adds and removes speed, and then Lorentz transformations in an aether > can make it impossible with the 2 way speed. > Also consider that if you were trying to measure the speed of sound as a 2 > way thing, and with cars moving toward and away from you, would you notice > the speed of sound effected? > If you were in a speeding car with the windows up and measured the speed > of sound, still no change. > If you measured the 2 way speed of sound on a fast moving platform with > wind moving by, would you measure a difference? Yes but only small since > the a mix of faster and slower sound readings. > > I suggest that you look closely at anything claiming to be evidence of SR > and do your own interpretation. If you believe as I do in a fluid aether, > then consider if you would expect it to be entrained by the earth > (underground) or with a relative velocity above ground and not contained. > If there is a small positive result, does that not mean the speed of light > was found to be effected by motion? > > http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html > > What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about > relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the > Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president > of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this > issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of > relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been > proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first > order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not > explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> John: >> >> Do you have a citation for all these "many findings"? I'm debating >> someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and >> better educated than I am. >> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is >>> constant, this is despite many findings otherwise. >>> >> >> >> >
