[imatfaal]

These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).

I think they're still scratching their heads over the apparently FTL neutrinos. (I'll be very surprised if neutrinos can be FTL.) Clock synchronization errors can result in false conclusions. Clock synchronization is fully understood in theory, but the formulas can be complex when the reference frame is in a gravitational field, rotating once every 24 hours, and orbiting once every 365 days. If there is a flaw in the GPS system, experiments might reveal what it is. More likely, the flaw is in our application of relativity to GPS or our application of GPS to the neutrino experiments. (It could be as simple as ignoring the influence of the moon.) I don't think there is anything wrong with the relativity formulas, at least nothing that can be measured experimentally with our present technology. (GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.) The speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial reference frame, regardless of whether there is a substantive aether. The Earth reference frame is probably close enough to an inertial reference frame. I don't think Earth's acceleration is sufficient to account for the apparent error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. Anyway, I assume the brilliant scientists at CERN have taken it into account.

I posted a link to an article that claims that the cause of the FTL was a dodgy cable!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43181.0

GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.

  To clarify; GR allows the affect of a massive body to be not time delayed (horrible phrasing but I cannot think of a better one) - but a change in gravity is propagated at the speed of light and there is a delay.  These are gravitational waves and travel at light speed.  The difference is marginal

[Razza]

The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.
Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.

[Phractality]

The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.
Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.

MM proved experimentally that, within the accuracy of the apparatus, the speed of light is constant with respect to clocks and meter sticks that are made of atoms. Einstein explained mathematically why that is so, in terms of special relativity.

My own model explains it in terms of the fine structure of matter, which consists of particles, which in turn consist of orbiting pairs of photons. The photons orbit one another at the speed of light, so their orbits have circular symmetry relative to the center of the orbit, but ellipsoidal relative to any reference frame which is in motion relative to the center of the orbit. In a moving reference frame it takes longer to complete one orbit, as explained in special relativity. (Photons may orbit one another due to the Higgs force, which results from individual photons disturbing the symmetry of the Higgs field around them. I call it the Higgs field and Higgs force because it accomplishes the results described by Higgs; but my description of the field is very different from how Higgs described it. I see it as aethereal pressure waves, which exchange momentum with photons which are aethereal shear waves.)

A fundamental particle is roughly analogous to two speed boats making loops at constant speed and radius around a rowboat. If you're in the rowboat, the speed boats make circles; if you're on the shore, they make ellipses.

[Razza]

I try as hard as i can to get away from a mathematical construct of the universe into a three plus dimensional construct. For example I see the inverse square rule for mass or charge as as the inverse d cubed/d rule, i.e inverse volume/distance rule. This asserts that the volume of influence of masses (including photons) or charges decreases proportionally with distance. The force between two masses or two charges is inversely proportional to the intersection of their respective volume strengths divided by the distance of separation. The maths develop the same result, but now I hold a 3D picture of the event, which in turn gives reinforces probability that the space about a mass or a charge has properties; an aether that doesn't affect the speed of light

[MikeS]

The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.
Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.

[/color]

I don't believe that there is any aether, in as much as it is something as yet unseen and  undiscovered.  I believe it to be empty space devoid of all but virtual particles and gravity.  Also I think it is wrong to say that it does not affect the speed of light, it does.  Light can be thought of as travelling at infinite speed and therefore not experiencing the passage of time.  However, when we measure the speed of light it is found to be finite.  I believe this discrepancy is due to gravity warping or curving space and as light has to follow this geodesic it is travelling further than it would in a straight line.  The delay this causes is what we call 'time'. 
Another way of looking at it is:-  If you think of the curved geodesic as a pipe along which light has to travel, then the curvature introduces friction and causes a delay which we call time.  Using this analogy and applying it to a black hole it is easy to see why the passage of time approaches zero at the EH of a black hole.

[breadpudding]

Unfortunately anyone who dares to suggest anything resembling an aether invariably gets tarred and feathered by mainstream scientists without a second thought.  Special Relativity didn't shoot down the aether, it was simply that a classically based definition of its existence could not, at that time, be reconciled with the constancy of the velocity of light.
Funny thing though, once the aether was removed, it became necessary to invent force mediating particles which, in a sense, became the new aether.  I personally believe that a form of the aether does exist that agrees with all of the experimental results from SR, GR, and the SM.

[breadpudding]

I actually have an aether type theory of my own.  This one might not be so easy to dismiss, but you're welcome to try.

<link removed by Mod>

[imatfaal]

Breadpudding,  we prefer any theories be put on the boards rather than linked to.  If you want to discuss your ideas then put a brief abstract up for us to read.