[mad aetherist]

Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).

It is indeed ticking dilation at play. You might like to check this out: "Time dilation reviewed with UVS".

Thanx for that link, i will read it & the others when i have time. A quick look showed a couple of problems.
(1)  I notice it refers to the MMX being null. No.

The MMX did returned null result. However, neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist. It was a hatched job of the Einsteinians that have had obfuscated with the null hypothesis to claim that MMX had proven aether does not exist.

(2) It includes some wordage from wiki which as can be expected talks about time dilation instead of ticking dilation, wiki says..........."

Those two cited Wiki articles were used as the discussion headers for elaborating with its standard terminologies on the fallacious propositions of the Einsteinian time dilations.

(3) The ticking dilation with altitude is not necessarily due to gravitational potential.

IMO, it is due to centripetal acceleration that renders the gravitational potential; geodetic effect.

(4) The Hafele Keating experiment did not confirm gravitational time dilation nor did it confirm gravitational ticking dilation, there was no dilation of any sort, the numbers were cherry picked & fudged, i can give u links.

Please provide the links. Tks.

(5) GPS time corrections are only partly gravitational at best, they are at least partly due to the aetherwind (ie the anisotropy of the speed of light), & are not accurately predicted by GR (contrary to Einsteinian claims).

Any link to "GPS time corrections are not accurately predicted by GR"?  This is contrary to what I believe.

Relativity and Clocks -- Carroll O Alley.
Mentions Hafele & Keating & 4 or 5 similar experiments. Plus a number of hill-valley experiments.

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT -- Domina Eberle Spencer.

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? -- A. G. Kelly PhD*

Critical Reflection on the  Hafele and Keating Experiment --    Witold Nawrot


Successful search for ether drift in a modified michelson morley experiment using the GPS -- Stephan J G Gift.

The GPS and the constant velocity of light -- Paul Marmet.

Light transmission and the sagnac effect on the rotating earth -- Stephan J G Gift.
Another test of the light speed invariance postulate -- Stephan J G Gift.

Rebuttal of arguments published in "studies in history and philosophy of modern physics" claiming that special relativity is "symmetric, physical and consistent" -- J N Percival.

In search of an ether drift -- Ronald R Hatch.
Relativity and GPS -- Ronald R Hatch.

The global positioning system and the lorentz transformation --   Robert J Buenker.

Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity? --   Barry Springer.

[Kryptid]

Yes u need  to watch out for fake evidence.

Such as?

[mad aetherist]

Yes u need  to watch out for fake evidence.

Such as?

There are instances where aetherists have gotten access to data which was contrary to the published results. The main problem being lack of access (Shapiro's venus radar measurements is one such). Sometimes the published results when looked at with a critical eye reveal fudging or glossing. Off the top of my head some that i have read about are as follows.......   
LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.

[opportunity]

Yousuf Godir asked the Naked Scientists:
   Do we understand that some scientific phenomenon became a religion dogma for scientist, and hence rationality fades away? For example, Big Bang, gravitation, and heliocentric seem to me not holding their feet on the ground, yet scientist consider it immune. Do you think these theories have strong base?
What do you think?

I would say yes, on the condition the post is changed to "Can the "idea" of scientific beliefs be "related" with religious dogma".

Why?

Its a more exact use of words. It doesn't assume anything about today or yesterday, or tomorrow.


The point I am making here is that using the idea of "belief" with science, and thus a scientific tenet not completely fundamentally proven, an priori "guess" for instance, would have a nice back-up with the idea of "belief" itself, and thus religious dogma (and this is not to suggest a thorough a-prior scientific tenet could or should interfere with religious dogma, as the nature of religious dogma is to find the ultimate ideals of consciousness itself.....<another discussion>)

[Kryptid]

LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.

How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.

[mad aetherist]

LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.

How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.

I will have a go. Really each item deserves its own thread (but i wont). It will take time. I will start with Shapiro Delay. But anyhow i am going to have a nap first (too much wine).

In most cases i will refer to others. But to some extent the authoritative source is me.
Which reminds me that u will not find any such review in mainstream magazines, in which case by definition they cannot be authoritative.
Which reminds me that u will not find any anti-Einstein article of any sort in a mainstream magazine. Certainly not if it is a sort of review. Sometimes u see one sneak throo, usually some sort of cutting edge stuff that no-one really understands, & then later when a bit of understanding starts to surface the mainstream-mafia get a rude shock & have to resort to a menu of fire retardants.

But i did see one anti article get throo, but it was many years ago, & couldnt happen today -- the article proved that neutrinos dont exist.  It looked solid to me.

[opportunity]

You guys and gals need to think outside the square.

We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?

[mad aetherist]

You guys and gals need to think outside the square. We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?

Life & consciousness are the biggest mysteries in science. However i cannot believe in a god or any sort of supernatural thing. In fact i would prefer to be named Atheist Aetherist. So, consciousness, whatever it is, is certainly not above & beyond space & time. Consciousness is something that is natural & in our universe & in our dimension, & has a quantum material foundation (ie it aint sub-quantum).
But if i believed in God then at the same time i would hate the ***** not love him.

[Kryptid]

But to some extent the authoritative source is me.

I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that. My preference is for you to supply the original data from these studies and equipment and then explain why that data is incompatible with relativity or show where the data was faked or fudged.

By the way, please do take note that news articles are not an authoritative source. News articles are only as good as the person who writes them, and such an author who is not familiar with the material may misquote or misunderstand what was originally written.

the article proved that neutrinos dont exist.  It looked solid to me.

I sure would like to see that, given that we've designed systems that use neutrinos as a communication medium: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf

[opportunity]

I'm pretty sure God is not interested in being a politician 


As telling as my statement should be (and who responds to my posts anyway, right.,.,..too hard basket it seems) is science really needing to use advertising to get funding for the great questions of reality?

[mad aetherist]

But to some extent the authoritative source is me.

I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that. My preference is for you to supply the original data from these studies and equipment and then explain why that data is incompatible with relativity or show where the data was faked or fudged.

Ok i aint an authoritative source. But re believing me, surely u will look at the quality of what i say. After all, what i (will) say will be re what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades -- hencely what u are saying is that u will not believe anything i say, but surely u will read what i say (& then if impressed believe, or not).
Re me needing much more solid evidence than that, i havent yet here given any evidence (solid or otherwise).
Yes i will give links to articles & some of them will refer to the raw data etc, & in some cases i will have some thorts of my own.

By the way, please do take note that news articles are not an authoritative source. News articles are only as good as the person who writes them, and such an author who is not familiar with the material may misquote or misunderstand what was originally written.

Yes news articles are usually badly worded.

the article proved that neutrinos dont exist.  It looked solid to me.

I sure would like to see that, given that we've designed systems that use neutrinos as a communication medium: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf

Here is a link to the article i had in mind. I would like an opinion from an expert in this field. I did see where an Einsteinian said that Buechner & Van de Graaf were using the wrong sort of reaction, their reaction would not give neutrinos -- was he correct.
http://www.autodynamics.org/calorimetric-experiment/

That link article re using neutrinos for communication is impressive. I am open minded re the existence of neutrinos (or something else with the same name). A 170 tonne detector for a range of 1 km suggests the need for a gazzilion tonne detector at 1000 km.

[mad aetherist]

I'm pretty sure God is not interested in being a politician 

As telling as my statement should be (and who responds to my posts anyway, right.,.,..too hard basket it seems) is science really needing to use advertising to get funding for the great questions of reality?

What questions?

[hamdani yusuf]

No i am a retired engineer, with very little science, & not much math. I like to have an intense interest for a few years & then move on to something new, & at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).I am very impressed & awed with~by the intelligence of scientists, oldendays & modern, & wish that Einsteinism be quickly dumped so that science advances. My heroes are Cahill, Ranzan, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Sagnac, Ives, Lorentz, Wallace, Builder, Dingle, Arp, VanFlandern, Allais, Esclangon, Munera, & about 20 others.

I think this youtube channel has some materials you might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT87-DzFFbPkAIk2PRZuz2A

[mad aetherist]

No i am a retired engineer, with very little science, & not much math. I like to have an intense interest for a few years & then move on to something new, & at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).I am very impressed & awed with~by the intelligence of scientists, oldendays & modern, & wish that Einsteinism be quickly dumped so that science advances. My heroes are Cahill, Ranzan, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Sagnac, Ives, Lorentz, Wallace, Builder, Dingle, Arp, VanFlandern, Allais, Esclangon, Munera, & about 20 others.

I think this youtube channel has some materials you might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT87-DzFFbPkAIk2PRZuz2A

Yes thanx for that link, i have watched some of David de Hilster's youtube stuff (Dissident Science).  And lots & lots of other dissident videos,  there is some interesting stuff out there.

[Paradigmer]

You guys and gals need to think outside the square.

We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?

Talking about thinking outside the square, try this metaphysical hypothesis:

"The genesis -The unisonal vortical motion of the universe"

Nonetheless, believing in God has its merits for the pragmatism it offers for the individuals as well as their society.

[Paradigmer]

LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.

How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.

Hello Kryptid, with all due respect, this kinda sounded like a hardcore member of the geocentrism cult during the geocentric era was asking: "How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such geocentric data was faked or fudged."

Having stated the above, it doesn't mean geocentrism is not pragmatic.

I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that.

Your opinion is making Galileo turn in his grave.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” - Galileo Galilei

Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided  a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist.

'If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time". We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, ''I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.' - Albert Einstein

Any relativist who believes that space and time are variants, therefore the phenomena of transformations in relative motion of uniform velocity are physically real in symmetrical situation, symmetrical length contraction in special relativity (SR) is physical, gravitational field physically distorts space and time, active transformations of time for time dilation effect in SR and gravitation time dilation in GR are scientifically proven, and one-way travel into the future in forward time travel is physically possible, he just needs to investigate the explanation by Einstein on time dilation effect in SR for clarification.

"In special relativity, the time dilation effect is reciprocal: as observed from the point of view of any two clocks which are in motion with respect to each other, it will be the other party's clock that is time dilated.", "In the special theory of relativity, a moving clock is found to be ticking slowly with respect to the observer's clock. If Sam and Abigail are on different trains in near-lightspeed relative motion, Sam measures (by all methods of measurement) clocks on Abigail's train to be running slowly and, similarly, Abigail measures clocks on Sam's train to be running slowly.", "Symmetric time dilation occurs with respect to temporal coordinate systems set up in this manner. It is an effect where another clock is being viewed as running slowly by an observer. Observers do not consider their own clock time to be time-dilated, but may find that it is observed to be time-dilated in another coordinate system.". Excerpts from Wikipedia on "Time dilation" and in a section at "Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers".

Watch a video clip on "Einstein Relativity theory declares aether necessary!" for the declaration of aether made by Einstein on May 5th, 1920.

“... space without ether is unthinkable;” - Albert Einstein, on May 5th, 1920..

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein

“Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live.”  - Albert Einstein

It was none other than the author of "Theory of relativity" who had published the ToR papers since 1905 through 1915, which had thus began the era of modern physics, and Einstein by himself, not through another party, after 1919 with the world famous initial successful test of general relativity, was trying to tell the world in 1920 with his definitions to clarify what he meant by spacetime.

Is this source authoritative enough?

[Paradigmer]

Relativity and Clocks -- Carroll O Alley.Mentions Hafele & Keating & 4 or 5 similar experiments. Plus a number of hill-valley experiments.

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT -- Domina Eberle Spencer.

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? -- A. G. Kelly PhD*

Critical Reflection on the  Hafele and Keating Experiment --    Witold Nawrot

For the Hafele and Keating Experiment, in the reference frame that rotates with the Earth, the apparent higher velocity of clock C flying away to the west in a commercial aircraft from clock B, which when assumed to be stationary, would invalidate the Einsteinian ToR with the result of clock B ticking slower than clock C.   

Nonetheless, the atomic clock B located on Earth, is actually not stationary in the reference frame of the Earth that doesn't rotate with the Earth. This means clock B actually has a vector velocity rendered by the rotation of the Earth in the reference frame. In this reference frame, the vector velocity of clock A is highest in the commercial aircraft flying east, and clock C in the commercial aircraft flying west, therefore has the slowest vector velocity in the reference frame; clock B actually has higher velocity than clock C in the reference frame.

In this reference frame, the test result of the Hafele and Keating Experiment, actually asserted the Einsteinian ToR; faster vector velocity renders slower ticking clock.

Time is actually dilated or not is another issue.

*My apology for using the term "vector velocity", was just trying to make a distinction.

Succesful search for ether drift in a modified michelson morley experiment using the GPS -- Stephan J G Gift.

The GPS and the constant velocity of light -- Paul Marmet.

Light transmission and the sagnac effect on the rotating earth -- Stephan J G Gift.
Another test of the light speed invariance postulate -- Stephan J G Gift.

Am already convinced on sagnac effect that confirms the existence of the ether.

This post by TR Livesey elaborated the past difficulties for the solutions with aether base theory, which give much more complex and often only approximate solutions. Einstein did not denounced aether, he was merely using ToR to provide pragmatic solutions that are less complex and more accurate.

Rebuttal of arguments published in "studies in history and philosophy of modern physics" claiming that special relativity is "symmetric, physical and consistent" -- J N Percival.

Am already convinced on the TD and LC of special relativity despite are symmetrical and consistent, they are merely apparent effects, and definitely not physical at all.

In search of an ether drift -- Ronald R Hatch.
Relativity and GPS -- Ronald R Hatch.

The global positioning system and the lorentz transformation --   Robert J Buenker.

Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity? --   Barry Springer.

Despite astounded, am not too surprised the calibration of atomic clocks in GPS satellites doesn't depend on Einsteinian ToR. Given the countless perturbations by celestial objects affecting the eccentricity of the satellite orbits, deviations caused by the Solar System reference frame, Milky Way reference frame, as well as cosmic reference frame, atmospheric conditions, etc, I think it is pragmatically difficult to use ToR to accurately calibrate the atomic clocks in the satellites under the circumstances. Thanks to you, I now know the synchronizations of the atomic clocks are not to the merit of ToR, but the impracticability does not conclusively invalidate ToR.

Much could be discussed with the linked provided, but I just touch on a few salient points for now.

[Kryptid]

Ok i aint an authoritative source. But re believing me, surely u will look at the quality of what i say.

The quality of which in turn will depend on the strength of your sources.

After all, what i (will) say will be re what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades -- hencely what u are saying is that u will not believe anything i say, but surely u will read what i say (& then if impressed believe, or not).

That depends on whether what you say is backed up by the data.

Re me needing much more solid evidence than that, i havent yet here given any evidence (solid or otherwise).
Yes i will give links to articles & some of them will refer to the raw data etc, & in some cases i will have some thorts of my own.

I will be waiting.

Here is a link to the article i had in mind. I would like an opinion from an expert in this field. I did see where an Einsteinian said that Buechner & Van de Graaf were using the wrong sort of reaction, their reaction would not give neutrinos -- was he correct.
http://www.autodynamics.org/calorimetric-experiment/

This is a new phenomenon to me. It seems to me that this experiment didn't detect any unaccounted for energy losses, neutrino-related or otherwise. If the temperature in the apparatus did not drop like expected if energy was being carried away by an unknown mechanism, then that suggests no energy was being lost in the first place. So it seems like they did something wrong and were not reproducing the phenomenon they sought to test. Besides, the lack of neutrinos in this particular experiment doesn't mean neutrinos don't exist. They've been detected in plenty of other experiments.

A 170 tonne detector for a range of 1 km suggests the need for a gazzilion tonne detector at 1000 km.

Perhaps that would be true if the neutrinos were being emitted spherically, in which case the minimum sensitivity of the detector would need increase with the square of the distance from the source. For a beam of neutrinos, however, such is not the case. A perfect beam would not diverge at all and so could be detected at any distance. Any real beam would diverge somewhat, and therefore there would need to be some increase in sensitivity at larger distances, (but nowhere near that reflecting the inverse square law).

@Paradigmer

I believe you misunderstand me. When I say an authoritative source, what I'm asking for are data from experiments that have been through the peer review process. It's not a matter of "some scientist said so, therefore it must be correct". Obviously, the words of a scientist are hollow if there is nothing to back it up. The reason that it needs to be an authoritative source that has been peer-reviewed is because there is a need for the information to be reliable and trustworthy. If the data has been reviewed by other scientists that are experts in their field, it is much more likely to be reliable than if it is from a lone venture experiment that has not been reviewed at all. A lone experimenter may not have the needed precision or may have made some fundamental errors. This is why replication of experimental results are important, to rule out mistakes like this.

As far as aether goes, it doesn't matter much to me whether Einstein believed in it or not. My arguments aren't against the aether, it's against the claim that the data supporting relativity is being faked by some conspirators in high places.

[mad aetherist]

Am already convinced on sagnac effect that confirms the existence of the ether.

Unfortunately Einsteinians claim (probly correctly) that the SagnacX results can be explained by both the aether theory & by the SR-GR theory. However the largest SagnacX ever done can be shown to support the nLeT theory whilst not supporting SR-GR. That SagnacX was the MGX, sometimes called the MGPX (Michelson Gale Pearson), done in 1925 i think. I might start a thread on the MGX -- where i will explain my theory.

This post by TR Livesey elaborated the past difficulties for the solutions with aether base theory, which give much more complex and often only approximate solutions. Einstein did not denounced aether, he was merely using ToR to provide pragmatic solutions that are less complex and more accurate.

I have pasted Livesey's wordage below. He says that Einstein is simpler & more accurate than Lorentz (ie LeT). The truth is the opposite. Livesey mentions aether, but he doesnt mention aetherwind -- aether is the old Lorentz (LeT) -- aetherwind is the new Lorentz (ie neo-Lorentzian relativity)(i will call this nLeT).

In nLeT u use gamma to calculated a satellite's apparent ticking compared to its absolute (true) ticking, using the aetherwind (v) (where v includes the background aetherwind plus the satellites velocity)

However i suspect that nLeT is deficient, i think that it might need to include the slowing of light near mass (predicted by Einstein). Hencely SR & GR are wrong, mainly because they dont allow for the aetherwind. But, nLeT is wrong too, because it doesnt allow for GR.
GR includes time dilation (time) & length contraction (space) -- i am not sure which of these or how much of these should be included in nLeT. I think none should be included. What i mean is that nLeT should include the slowing of light -- the TD & LC in the GR are not the slowing of light, they derive from the slowing of light -- nLeT needs the slowing of light (it doesnt need another dose of TD or LC)(see?).

From Quora..........TR Livesey, Scientist and Activist
Answered May 15 2016 · Author has 1.6k answers and 1.2m answer views
GPS does not prove relativity. GPS does corrections in clock measurements based on both special (SR) and general (GR) relativity without which the system would very quickly accumulate errors and be useless. Comment. No. GPS does not need SR or GR or nLeT synching. However it makes things easier if the satellites have clocks that are approximately in synch with the ground. The ground has to in any case make lots of hourly small corrections. If the clocks are nearly in in synch then the corrections need only be very small, but if the clocks are not nearly in synch then the corrections will need to be big -- both scenarios will work ok, & both scenarios would need the same number & frequency of corrections.
And, GPS doesnt use SR or GR or nLeT -- they know from years of experience what sort of synch correction does the trick, & they do it.
That may encourage considerable confidence in relativity, but it does not prove it.

The corrections used are actually very simple. The GPS system requires very high accuracy in clock signals from the orbiting GPS satellites. According to GR, clocks near a gravitational object tick slower than clocks further away, so before launch, the clocks on the GPS satellite are set to run slightly slower. Problem solved. The corrections needed for SR need to account for the magnitude and orientation of the satellite movement relative to the ground unit, so these have to be done in the ground unit. These calculations basically involve plugging instantaneous position and velocity information of the satellite that come down in the data frame from the satellite into a polynomial. Very easy. You can read for yourself pp 88-89 in ICD-GPS-200, Revision C, Initial Release. INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENT

http://www.gps.gov/technical/icw...

Now let me say something about LET (Lorentz Aeather Theory). First, LET does not lead to GR, so corrections needed for gravitational effects would be missing, and the whole system would not work.
Comment. I have a suspicion that nLeT does indeed need some sort of allowance for slowing of light near mass.
But more importantly, LET is hard. LET is based on a presumed interaction or drag between the electric field of charged particles and the aether that actually distort (compress) the electron (and things composed of them) in the direction of motion. This is a very difficult thing to model, but to a low order of magnitude comes out to the term now known as the Lorentz factor. Comment. I dont know of any modelling of any sort, other than the original FitzGerald Lorentz Voigt Larmor Poincare model.
At the time, the electron was the only known subatomic particle. A more complete LET would have to account for other subatomic particles, as well as whole atoms, which would make it astonishingly more complicated.
Comment. No. It would not need to be astonishingly more complicated. At present the Lorentz model is very simple, & it is likely that it does not need any extra terms to cater for  elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). A model is as complicated as u want. In the end it will be wrong anyhow, as all models are, no model is reality, if it were reality then it wouldnt be a model.
 For example, there is the neutron, which under LET would suffer no 'relativistic' effects since it has no electric field to interact with the aether. Comment. No. Every particle has an electric field. The neutron might have a zero nett field, but that doesnt mean that it has no field. The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction. However if Livesey is correct that the neutron doesnt accord with the Lorentz gamma then this might mean that gamma is not accurate -- that s ok, we dont really know how accurate gamma is -- for sure it aint 100% accurate.
One of the great distinguishing features of SR is its simplicity compared to the theories it competed with. SR is a completely kinematic theory: how we observe things in motion, given two simple postulates - all motion is relative and the speed of light is independent of any relative motion of its source. It does not need to address the properties of matter, or the aether, or the interaction thereof. Comment. SR & GR are wrong -- in the modern hi-precision world we are starting to see errors.
It is hard for a modern reader to appreciate Einstein's original 1905 paper on SR. He lays out the two postulates, notes interesting consequences such as time dilation and length contraction, and then solves a series of apparently random problems. A reader of 1905, however, would recognize the problems Einstein chose to solve as being interesting and difficult ones. And Einstein's provides exact solutions which are comparatively simple, compared to other contemporary theories such as LET which give much more complex and often only approximate solutions. Comment. Rubbish.
Because SR derives the same Loretz factor from its two postulates, for some time Einstein's theory was considered somehow a generalization of Loretz's, despite the fact that as early as 1908 Einstein pointed out Loretz gives a different prediction for the transverse Doppler effect. Eventually, LET fell by the wayside because it was far more cumbersome than SR, and as new subatomic particles and the structure of the atom were discovered, there was no need to revisit LET to account for these things since SR already offered complete solutions that didn't need to account for these things. Comment. Rubbish.
Anyone who claims LET offers simpler explanations than SR does not understand LET Comment.  Rubbish. If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.

[alancalverd]

You guys and gals need to think outside the square.

We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?

Please define "consciousness".