[mad aetherist]

Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.

I dont know much about fields & electricity, but i am thinking that u cannot get very far here if u dont read what Ivor Catt has to say (articles)(& youtube)(& google the Catt question).

Is there a link to the articles?

Here are a few -- i havnt checked these there might be multiple links -- youtube links at end (if them youtube links dont work then just go into youtube & search for IVOR CATT)(there are about 5 good videos).

http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_1.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/07091.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/08101.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2698.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/28scan.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/981.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbbanbk1.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF

[LB7]

The questions could be:

Are physicist more dangerous than crazy people of god ?

Today it is possible to destroy a country like France or UK in one night with 30 people and without weapons: just burn the HV voltage transformers in the substations. Even, France or UK could survive without electricity for months, the time to build another HV transformers (few factories and it is not a standard piece except RecX transformers in USA), the nuclear plants can't survive more than a week without any external power, there are not autonomous to cooling themselves. In the pools in nuclear plants there are hundreds of times the radiations compared to the core or even nuclear bombs.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42795.pdf

So, if tomorrow terrorists, the people who believe in god, destroy HV transformers in Europe, the northern continent will have at least 1 or maybe 2 Sv each year, the last conclusions from Greenpeace are worst. The entire life on Earth could be affect durably, in bad terms. So, are there scientists responsible of that ? Even physicists could argue they don't choose anything about politics, you know politics are unable to build a doghouse so imagine to build a nuclear plant.

NB: for me there is only one science: physics

[Bored chemist]

The questions could be:

Are physicist more dangerous than crazy people of god ?

Today it is possible to destroy a country like France or UK in one night with 30 people and without weapons: just burn the HV voltage transformers in the substations. Even, France or UK could survive without electricity for months, the time to build another HV transformers (few factories and it is not a standard piece except RecX transformers in USA), the nuclear plants can't survive more than a week without any external power, there are not autonomous to cooling themselves. In the pools in nuclear plants there are hundreds of times the radiations compared to the core or even nuclear bombs.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42795.pdf

So, if tomorrow terrorists, the people who believe in god, destroy HV transformers in Europe, the northern continent will have at least 1 or maybe 2 Sv each year, the last conclusions from Greenpeace are worst. The entire life on Earth could be affect durably, in bad terms. So, are there scientists responsible of that ? Even physicists could argue they don't choose anything about politics, you know politics are unable to build a doghouse so imagine to build a nuclear plant.

The last power plant  I looked at could run on diesel.
The paper you cited makes no mention of this fuel.

How do you spell "scaremongering"?

[Paradigmer]

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.

I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons.

Have tell me how you come to this proposition?

If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.      

Interesting! Can you show?

[mad aetherist]

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.

I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons.Have tell me how you come to this proposition?

Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.
A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.
On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?
The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.
Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.

If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.

Interesting! Can you show?

(1) In aether theory u firstly calculate the aetherwind Vawo blowing throo observer O, & (2) stick Vawo into the equation for Lorentz gamma to give u the gamma (gamma(O)) that applies to the ticking rate for O's clock. (3) If u divide the apparent ticking rate of clock O by gamma(O) then that would give u the absolute ticking rate for clock O in the absolute reference frame (where the aetherwind Vaw is zero kmps), but there is no need to do (3), just saying.
In (1) u (a) use the known background aetherwind on Earth Vbgaw, which is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's axis, Right Ascension 4.5 hr. And (b) u correct for Earth's spin (Vspin say 0.4 kmps) at your latitude (spin correction changes during 24 hrs)(due to the 20 deg), & (c) u correct for Earth's orbit (Vorbit say 30 kmps)(this correction changes during 24 hrs & during 365 days) .
(4) And u already know the apparent ticking rate of clock O.

Then to calculate the expected ticking rate of your clock (or an identical clock) for when it will be sitting in a satellite u calculate (1) for the satellite, ie its expected aetherwind (Vaws), & (2) stick Vaws into gamma to give gamma(S) for the satellite clock.

(5) The ratio of gamma(O) to gamma(S) is the ratio of the ticking rates.
(6) The main problem being that the aetherwind will be changing for both O & S during every second of the day & year.

In SR-GR u simply (1) calculate the relative velocity tween O & S & (2) stick that into Einstein's equation for gamma (this equation looks identical to Lorentz's, but it aint) to give gamma(O-S), which is the ratio of the ticking rates (no need for step (5)). However u will still need to continuously correct for the changing relative velocities of O & S similarly to (6).
So, SR-GR looks simpler than the aether theory model. But wait. SR-GR give bad numbers. Einsteinians have to resort to a menu of fudges to try to explain. Here they invoke a faux-Sagnac correction. So, u now have to go throo steps (7 8 9) or something, to work out a bogus faux-Sagnac correction. I aint gonna bother. Good luck with that.

One slight possible problem. I suspect that light does indeed slow near mass (in which case Einstein was right), altho i suspect that the slowing is probly a half of what Einstein said (in which case Einstein was half right)(due to a lucky guess of sorts)(but i think deserves credit anyhow)(if slowing is found to be true).
Anyhow i dont know what an aetheric calculation might look like -- i dont think that it will be much like the GR correction for space (radial length contraction) nor time (ticking dilation) -- i think that if ever it raises its ugly head the model & its equations will look nothing like gamma.
And i haven't included any such slowing correction in the above SR-GR calcs (but i did use gamma once)(praps i should have used it twice).

[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.

Appreciate you take the effort to clarify, and I understand where you are coming from.

The replication of experimental results is of course important to rule out mistakes.

My take is, when authoritative sources are asserted with compromised peer-reviews, even they are for whatsoever good reasons, such as pragmatism, the necessity for the information to be reliable and trustworthy, is compromised.

Am stating this with my conviction on “Critiques of the scientific method”.

As far as aether goes, it doesn't matter much to me whether Einstein believed in it or not.

Your this opinion is making Richard Fenyman turn in his grave:

“And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.” - Richard Fenyman on cargo cult science

The postulation for aether, is the crux of the contention by the scientists of those venture experiments; this must not be simply brushed away with the appeal to authority.

The rebuttals to the experiments that demonstrated the existence of aether, are akin to those in the geocentric era after having officially denounced the spheroidal Earth hypothesis, put away Galileo for good, and then high-handedly asked the deprived supporters of the Galilean hypothesis for supporting authoritative source.

I believe you do not understand its implications when you said it doesn’t matter to you much whether Einstein believed in it or not.

Einstein was not quite in peace on this.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

It would falsify the Minkowski spacetime.

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.

IMO, the contention was on the ways relativity were being spuriously supported to denounce aether, which renders all sorts of physical paradoxes and the myths they entailed, therefore much to the unrest of the so called dissidents. It was not entirely on the data that supports relativity.

Nonetheless, keep up with your work on the designed systems that use neutrinos as a communication medium. After all, I agree pragmatism is an important criterion for scientific endeavors and progress. All the best.

[Kryptid]

My take is, when authoritative sources are asserted with compromised peer-reviews, even they are for whatsoever good reasons, such as pragmatism, the necessity for the information to be reliable and trustworthy, is compromised.

Compromised how?

The rebuttals to the experiments that demonstrated the existence of aether, are akin to those in the geocentric era after having officially denounced the spheroidal Earth hypothesis, put away Galileo for good, and then high-handedly asked the deprived supporters of the Galilean hypothesis for supporting authoritative source.

The situation is not at all comparable. The scientific establishment as we know it today did not exist in Galileo's time. The church silenced Galileo for religious reasons, not scientific ones. Moreover, Galileo was not "put away for good", as the scientific establishment currently recognizes his work.

I believe you do not understand its implications when you said it doesn’t matter to you much whether Einstein believed in it or not.

It doesn't matter much to me because a belief is not evidence.

@mad aetherist

When are you going to post that fake evidence you were talking about?

[mad aetherist]

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.

No, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?

[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...........

Lets go back to 1905.
We see one random guy.  Contradicting what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades. With no solid evidence, in fact with evidence contrary to what the random guy said (ie the MMX wasnt null).
And with no peer review. Alby has not had any article of his peer reviewed before publishing ever. Not one. Nix. Zilch. Zero.
Hey everybody, look at that blackhole over there.

[Kryptid]

Lets go back to 1905.
We see one random guy.  Contradicting what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades. With no solid evidence, in fact with evidence contrary to what the random guy said (ie the MMX wasnt null).
And with no peer review. Alby has not had any article of his peer reviewed before publishing ever. Not one. Nix. Zilch. Zero.
Hey everybody, look at that blackhole over there.

You're right. Until the data of the relevant experiments were in and reviewed, we would have been right to be skeptical of Einstein's claims. I believe that many scientists were, in fact.

[mad aetherist]

Lets go back to 1905.
We see one random guy.  Contradicting what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades. With no solid evidence, in fact with evidence contrary to what the random guy said (ie the MMX wasnt null).
And with no peer review. Alby has not had any article of his peer reviewed before publishing ever. Not one. Nix. Zilch. Zero.
Hey everybody, look at that blackhole over there.

You're right. Until the data of the relevant experiments were in and reviewed, we would have been right to be skeptical of Einstein's claims. I believe that many scientists were, in fact.

Not quite. There was major disagreement untill about 1932 i think it was when Miller's MMX was done & this showed an aetherwind, south to north, after which the major disagreement continued. Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.

Re being skeptical i am skeptical about everything all the time. Everyone should be likewise.

[Kryptid]

Not quite. There was major disagreement untill about 1932 i think it was when Miller's MMX was done & this showed an aetherwind, south to north, after which the major disagreement continued. Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.

Einstein died disbelieving in SR and GR? Source please. Even if he did, it doesn't matter. As I've said before, beliefs are not evidence. Speaking of which, are you finally going to give me a source for that fake evidence you claim to exist?

[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.

SHAPIRO DELAY FUDGING.
Roodenburg reckons that Shapiro shouldnt be using Schwarzschild (so confirmation of a Schwarzschildian GR delay  to 5 decimals smells fishy).
Roodenburg et al -- Emmy Noether the ignored scientist.
Introduction and relevance.
Emmy Noether (1882 – 1935) was a brilliant mathematician, creating one of the pillars of physics: defining reference frames within which energy and momentum conservation can be proven. However, she was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The best position she could obtain was that of an assistant to David Hilbert, a mathematician at the  university of Göttingen.
In 1933, she fled to the USA, where she died two years later. In 1915, she was hired by professor Hilbert to the university of Gottingen, who stated that "I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as lecturer. After all, we are a university, not a bath house”. Hilbert did, as one of the very few male scientists, not ignore her. In 1918 Noether’s theorem was published, a year after Einstein published his theory of
General Relativity. Unfortunate timing, because her theorem would have helped Einstein with his theory. General Relativity is in some respects in conflict with Noether’s theorem. Although she signaled these inconsistencies to Einstein and despite his admiration for her work, he somehow did not take her comments to heart and ignored these comments in his work.

Emmy Noether remains the ignored scientist because her theorem is still not implemented in Einstein’s theory. Einstein’s theory is brilliant, but not perfect. For example, energy conservation requires the speed of light to be invariant to time in the wider reference frame, not just in the local reference frame. Because Einstein did not correct his theory for Noether’s theorem, a small error lingers in the Schwarzschild solution, which prohibits the Shapiro delay to be explained by the Schwarzschild solution. Amazingly, Noether’s theorem is not even mentioned in a major work of Relativity: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s “Gravitation”. Emmy Noether, the ignored scientist.
Implications: 1) Inability to use the Schwarzschild solution to describe the Shapiro delay, 2) Failing proper time in gravitation at high transversal speed (like at CERN), 3) Failing energy momentum conservation within a sphere, 4) Ability to compute escape speed from a sphere, 5) black holes without singularity. Let us now look further into Noether’s theorem, the resulting error in General Relativity, followed by the repair the Schwarzschild Solution for Noether’s theorem.


Asada reckons that Shapiro Delay is due to the propagation of light not the propagation of gravity.
The light cone effect on the shapiro time delay -- Asada.

A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft -- Bertotti et al -- 2003.
Bertotti shows Fig 3 showing the residuals for 18 days -- the residuals for each day each have a spread of about 0.0008 Hz, yet Bertotti takes the averages & claims an accuracy of +- 0.000023 Hz.

Radar testing of the relative velocity of light in space -- Bryan G Wallace -- 1969.
Wallace puts a case for c+v.

Farce of physics -- Bryan G Wallace. Chapter 6 is good. See also below.

The suppression of interesting facts in physics -- Rochus Boerner -- 2003.
Is the Speed of Light in Interplanetary Space a Constant?
The late physicist Bryan G. Wallace discovered in 1961 that radar distance measurements of the surface of the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. There were systematic variations in the radar data containing diurnal, lunar and synodic components. Attempting to get his results published in Physical Review Letters, he encountered great resistance from referees, and eventually settled for a lesser journal[48].

In a letter to Physics Today[49] Wallace summarizes his findings as follows:

"The 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best [general relativity] fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense. "

Let's do a quick reality check here. If the speed of light in interplanetary space is non constant, how could NASA not have noticed in its robotic exploration of the solar system? Wallace makes the scandalous claim that NASA has noticed, and has been using equations with non-relativistic components to calculate signal transit times in the solar system all along:

"At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation."[50]

In a 1973 paper[51], Wallace describes how the Lincoln Lab introduced averaging to suppress the anomalous radar results and refused to release the raw data to him, stonewalling his investigation.

"The apparent improvement in the residuals for later years was due to the fact that the Lab interpolated the 1964 [Venus] data to 12:00 UT and the 1967 data to one observation a day from 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT. The observing time for the 1961 data ranged from 00:33 UT to 23:40 UT. The involved radar astronomers are publicly claiming nearly complete agreement between their recent radar analysis and general relativity, but my investigation reveals otherwise. At the Fourth Texas Symposium of Relativistic Astrophysics, I.I. Shapiro of the Lincoln Lab promised to send me any data I wanted. I read in an article published by the lab that they had data for the same observing dates covering a wide range of daily observing times from both the MIT and USSR radar stations. I wrote Shapiro requesting this data 2/13/69; his letters of 2/28/69 and 3/12/69 ignored my request. I made an issue of this in my letter to him of 3/20/69, and in his reply of 3/27/69 he stated, 'Unfortunately the data do not exist in the form in which you wanted them and hence, I cannot honor your request.'

Shapiro later sent me data that were completely worthless for making an objective test of the relative velocity of light in space. The data were from two MIT radar stations in Massachusetts. The separation between them was only 0.2' of longitude and 20.6" of latitude and the observations had been interpolated to 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT with only one observation per day. It seems obvious that the Lab eliminated the variations by interpolating the data for each day to the one observing time for that day that agreed with the general relativity prediction. One could use the same method to prove that a stopped clock keeps perfect time."

A subsequent letter submitted to Physics Today on July 9, 1984 was denied publication. Wallace reproduced this letter in the chapter Publication Politics of his online book The Farce of Physics[52]. In it, he wrote

"The speed of light is c+v

During a current literature search, I requested and received a reprint of a paper [T. D. Moyer, Celes. Mech., 23, 33(1981)] published by Theodore D. Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The paper reports the methods used to obtain accurate values of range observables for radio and radar signals in the solar system. The paper's (A6) equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) in my paper RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE. [B. G. Wallace, Spectros. Lett., 2, 361(1969)] The additional terms in the (A6) equation correct for the effects of the troposphere and charged particles, as well as the general relativity effects of gravity and velocity time dilation.

The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to challenge Einstein's sacred second postulate. Over twenty-three years have gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS to bring true scientific freedom to the PR journal's editorial policy."

Supporting evidence comes from Ronald Hatch who finds that the NASA equations for interplanetary navigation follow his MLET theory rather than special relativity:

"The experimental evidence is almost overwhelming in support of the MLET view. There is a large disjoint between the SRT theorists and the experimentalists. The SRT theorists continue to claim that the speed of light is automatically the velocity c and isotropic with respect to the moving observer or experiment. But the SRT experimentalists do what is necessary to explain and make sense of the measurements. The equations for tracking and navigating the interplanetary probes developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory(JPL) for NASA clearly follow the MLET template."[27]

Mr. Wallace died on April 19, 1997, his findings ignored and thus neither confirmed nor refuted by the physics establishment. The question remains: Is the speed of light in interplanetary space subject to systematic variations in time?

It is therefore imperative that systematic, high precision speed of light experiments be performed in earth orbit and interplanetary space. No such experiments have been carried out yet - why test a theory that you already know is correct? - but majority opinion has been changing lately. Attempts to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory have been a notable failure, and physicists have come to suspect that a unified field theory must involve "small" violations of special and general relativity. Müller et al. state

"Special relativity (SR) underlies all accepted theories of nature at the fundamental level. Therefore, it has been and must be tested with ever increasing precision to provide a firm basis for its future application. Such tests are also motivated by the efforts to unify gravity with the other forces of nature, one of the outstanding open challenges in modern science. In fact, many currently discussed models of quantum gravity do violate the principles of SR."[36]

This has finally created a renewed interest in testing both relativity theories experimentally to high precision. German physicists are currently designing the OPTIS mission[53], a satellite carrying ultra-high precision experiments to test key assumptions and predictions of relativity; among them, the isotropy and constancy of the speed of light. As expected, the OPTIS mission objective is to confirm special and general relativity, or at most to find weak violations:

"New unifying theories (e.g. the String-Theory) predict small deviations from the Special and General Relativity. If such deviations could be found (e.g. an unisotropy of the speed of light) the way to a new understanding of the time and space structure of the universe would be open."[54]

The motivation to conduct such experiments in Earth orbit is solely due to technological considerations and has nothing to do with the dissident argument that space-based tests of special relativity might produce radically different results than ground-based ones. But if Miller and other relativity critics are right, OPTIS may find much more than small deviations. The mission is still in the planning stages and no launch date has been set, but results could be available between 2005 and 2007.


Relativistic deflection of light near the Sun using radio signals and visible light -- P Marmet and C Couture.
This pours cold water on Shapiro.

[Kryptid]

@mad aetherist

Can you actually show me links to the data? You know, the actual, original studies? If you're going to claim that the data is fudged, I'm going to need to be able to confirm that the data is what you and others claim it is and that it doesn't match relativity's predictions.

By the way, who is this Roodenburg you mention?

[mad aetherist]

@mad aetherist

Can you actually show me links to the data? You know, the actual, original studies? If you're going to claim that the data is fudged, I'm going to need to be able to confirm that the data is what you and others claim it is and that it doesn't match relativity's predictions.

By the way, who is this Roodenburg you mention?

Here is a link to the Roodenburg stuff. I will get Shapiro's stuff later.

http://www.loop-doctor.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Emmy-Noether-the-ignored-scientist_v9.pdf
Noether’s theorem enhances Einstein’s Relativity
______________________________________________________________________________
More information?
Our three books (www.loop-doctor.nl) describe the repair of Einstein’s Relativity for Noether’s
theorem in full detail. We hope you get as many “aha” experiences as we did,
Rob Roodenburg (MSc. author)
Frans de Winter (MSc. coauthor)
Oscar van Duijn (MSc. coauthor)
Maarten Palthe (MSc. editor)
February, 2018

[Paradigmer]

Quote from: Paradigmer on Yesterday at 05:54:59The rebuttals to the experiments that demonstrated the existence of aether, are akin to those in the geocentric era after having officially denounced the spheroidal Earth hypothesis, put away Galileo for good, and then high-handedly asked the deprived supporters of the Galilean hypothesis for supporting authoritative source.

The situation is not at all comparable. The scientific establishment as we know it today did not exist in Galileo's time. The church silenced Galileo for religious reasons, not scientific ones. Moreover, Galileo was not "put away for good", as the scientific establishment currently recognizes his work.

Galileo was indeed silenced by the authority of the church, but his works was in fact scientifically denounced by the authority of geocentrism. Galileo was put away for good at then, and that was the insidious intention of the involved authorities. His works was revived in modern science is another thing. The scientific establishment that could exist two centuries later, may not be known today.

Quote from: Paradigmer on Yesterday at 05:54:59My take is, when authoritative sources are asserted with compromised peer-reviews, even they are for whatsoever good reasons, such as pragmatism, the necessity for the information to be reliable and trustworthy, is compromised. 

Compromised how?

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed. Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space

This is a subtopic from "Critiques of the scientific method", which could be worthy for a read.

p.s. Please forgive my audacity. As offensive as my propositions seem to be, I have no mean to be offensive in any way.

[Kryptid]

Here is a link to the Roodenburg stuff.

Who is Roodenburg? Is he a physicist?

Galileo was indeed silenced by the authority of the church, but his works was in fact scientifically denounced by the authority of geocentrism.

Of that I have no doubt. That tends to be the case with any new idea in science that proposes to revolutionize the way we fundamentally think about the Universe. Speaking of which, do you know of any cases where an older theory was replaced by a newer theory, one that then became accepted by the scientific world at large for nearly a century, but then later it was discovered that the older theory was in fact the correct one? I'm not aware of any such cases. If I'm wrong on that, please do correct me. It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed.

Then you might as well declare that all scientific ideas, aether included, as being compromised.

Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space

Firstly, I don't see what that has to do with peer review. Secondly, there wouldn't be any time dilation for objects in an expanding space because they aren't actually moving.

[Paradigmer]

Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59Einstein 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.

No, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?

That postulate doesn't make sense. Where was this from?

And i haven't included any such slowing correction in the above SR-GR calcs (but i did use gamma once)(praps i should have used it twice).

IMO, you should use time dilation gamma thrice for an observed fast moving object for its instantaneous prediction. One on the GR equivalence of gravitational potential with the centripetal acceleration in its high speed velocity, second one for the SR optical effect of the high speed object in its elliptic orbit, and the third one on the instantaneous GR gravitational potential.

Even then, with all other countless known and unknow perturbations, such as those caused by the unsolved 3-body problem, retrograde motion of the Earth in the galactic reference frame, etc, unlike in the lab, it is very difficult to be very accurate for predicting the TD for the atomic clock for every instant. And this is even so for a single satellite revolution that deviates with its apsidal motion for every revolution.

For instant, the Earth's equatorial plane is inclined at about sixty degree to the spiral trajectory of the Sun in its complex helical path while revolving around the Milky Way. This mean half the time the Earth in its complex motion, is revolving in its relative retrograde motion in the Solar System reference frame with its obliquity of the ecliptic alone. Also, the 3-body problem even with its pragmatic solution, is too overwhelming to handle with the countless celestial objects that could spontaneously perturb conjunctionally at any point of the orbit of the satellite. With all else that complexly contribute to its final outcomes, it therefore is more pragmatic to synchronize the atomic clocks with the differencing method. 

[Paradigmer]

Quote from: Paradigmer on Today at 11:34:08The scientific method is intrinsically flawed.

Then you might as well declare that all scientific ideas, aether included, as being compromised.

I wouldn't say that.

But you got Hannes Alfven turn in his grave:

“We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect.” - Hannes Alfven, 1986.

Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.

[Kryptid]

But you got Hannes Alfven turn in his grave:

You sure do like the "turning in his grave" line.

Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.

Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?