[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure

Wow, an experiment failed to show motion of the Earth through the behavior of light? You know, it's almost like they were missing an extremely important axiom regarding the physics of light that would be established a few decades later, and that the equations and properties derived from it specifically explain the results of the experiment.

YOU KNOW, ALMOST.

Tom, I would advise caution in using the failures of 19th century experiments to measure the Earth's motion using light. Their results are almost invariably explained by special relativity.

[Tom Bishop]

Special Relativity's second postulate was created as an illusion to explain these types of experiments that involve studying the horizontal motion of the earth, which always came up with a null result. It is explained on the Michelson-Morley Experiment page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

However, the second postulate of Special Relativity is not internally consistent. It is contradicted by many experiments, such as the Sagnac Experiment, which is basically the same Michelson-Morley experiment, except on a rotating platform. When the earth is not used as the moving platform, Einstein's light-consistency phenomena does not appear. There are many papers and resources on the subject.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0bc/0dfe3a7809b3adeff723aeea6363f3272850.pdf

It is believed that the Sagnac effect does not contradict Special Relativity theory because it is
manifest in non-inertial rotational motion; therefore, it should be treated in the framework of
General Relativity theory. However, several well-designed studies have convincingly shown that a
Sagnac Effect identical to the one manifest in rotational uniform motion is also manifest in
transverse uniform motion. This result should have been sufficient to falsify Special Relativity
theory. In the present article, we offer theoretical support to the experimental results by elucidating
the notion that the dynamics of transverse and rotational types of motion are completely equivalent.
Since the transverse Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity theory, it follows that the rotational
Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity theory as well.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Funny thing about the Sagnac experiment: it uses a rotating reference frame, whereas the postulates of special relativity concern inertial reference frames. They're not applicable to rotation.

And if you're accepting the results of that experiment, then what makes a ring laser gyroscope, which relies on the same principle, so unreliable?

Edit: and yes I saw your changes, give me a minute to respond.

[Tom Bishop]

Per the Ring Laser Gyroscope, it is a specialized consumer device, not an experiment which is referenced with well defined parameters and results that we can read about. It is said that the Ring Laser Gyroscope is a version of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Gale-Pearson_Experiment

The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment was a large-scale version of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer which attempted to measure the Sagnac Effect due to the rotation of the earth. It has been claimed that this experiment provided evidence for the earth's rotation.

From a work titled The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments (Archive) by Dr. Paulo N. Correa we read on p.5:

http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.2.pdf

The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation, but the result was of borderline significance. It could be said that the experiment was inconclusive because it adduced neither proof that there was a shift in the phase of the light beams, nor that there wasn't one.

Essentially the tests saw wild results. There was almost no change to light's velocity in one test, and then a lot of change in another test. It is perplexing that the rotation of the earth would start and stop when tested at different times. Only through the statistics was it claimed that the experiment saw the rotation of the earth. As stated above, the inconsistent results were ambiguous in nature and could offer no evidence of the shift in the phase of the light beams.

Importance of Consistency

In attempt of correlating such results with the rotation of the earth the mean is discussed, but what of the average or the median? What of the fact that one of the extremes is near zero? Which is the baseline that is being modified?

Consistency in empirical experimental investigation is of prime importance to science integrity. If one were to conclude from such an experiment that the earth is rotating, but also imagines that a mechanism is modifying the results from their own favored ideal to create the inconsistent results seen, the conclusion is fallacious. That imagined mechanism which modified the results could equally be creating those results. One sees that consistency is required for any valid test of a phenomena. In sciences which are not desperate to prove something, experiments with inconsistent results are often rejected altogether for that very reason.

According to the above, the results of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was inconsistent and an algorithm was applied to get the desired result. If we are to say that the Ring Laser Gyroscope is the same device, then the same criticism would apply.

[Rama Set]

The Sagnac Experiment, as just pointed out above, is not covered by Special Relativity, but by General Relativity.

[Tom Bishop]

The Sagnac Experiment, as just pointed out above, is not covered by Special Relativity, but by General Relativity.

The paper I quoted addresses that belief.

It is believed that the Sagnac effect does not contradict Special Relativity theory because it is
manifest in non-inertial rotational motion; therefore, it should be treated in the framework of
General Relativity theory. However, several well-designed studies have convincingly shown that a
Sagnac Effect identical to the one manifest in rotational uniform motion is also manifest in
transverse uniform motion. This result should have been sufficient to falsify Special Relativity
theory.

How does the universe decide when physics does not apply to certain motions, anyway?

[Rama Set]

What a foolish thing to say. Why would you assume it is the universe deciding anything? Physical theories are human attempts at abstractions of what the universe does. Special Relativity came about as an attempt to provide a simplified case to try and understand how some major problems in physics could be reconciled. General Relativity then was developed to cover all the cases of Special Relativity as well as a great number more.

Either you really know less than I thought or you are employing silly rhetorical techniques to try and appear as if you have a valid complaint. I suspect the latter, and pity you if it’s the former.

[Tom Bishop]

Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula. In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.

The paper has cleared the definition of the physical time and proved that the time of a physical clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation i.e. an invariant of inertial reference frames same as Galilean time. The Lorentz invariance of the clock time makes it possible to synchronize clocks in all inertial reference frames to produce the absolute and universal physical time as demonstrated in the universal synchronization of all the satellite clocks and ground clocks of the global positioning system. Therefore, the time of the STR is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks.

Moreover, the paper has further proved that Lorentz Transformation is the same as to redefine time and space as functions of Galilean time and space to produce an artificially constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames. The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions. Using the relationship can also prove that the real speed of light measured with clocks still follows Newton's velocity addition formula, which directly falsifies the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable. Disproving the STR and other related theories of physics will not lead to any crisis but instead open a new room for scientists to develop new theories for all the known and unknown physical phenomena. The paper has proposed a new experimental setup with which scientists will be able to measure the velocity of aether wind anywhere in the reachable universe and determine the velocity field of aether in the space for studying the dynamics of aether. The dynamics of aether may lead to the discovery of new methods to propel our space ships to speeds close to or even faster than the speed of light as the speed limit imposed by the STR is no longer valid, though there should exist an extremely difficult barrier for us to surpass the speed of light in the aether just as to surpass the sound barrier in the air.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

snip

My first thought was that it was too generic of a title to be credible at all. Then I found out that they're 170 years old and publish one of the most respected journals out there.

I thought it was really bad that the most popular physical theory for the last 90+ years was rejected. But then I remembered that it also means that Bell's theorem is wrong, and that's good news.

This isn't to say that the world is actually flat though.

[Rama Set]

So general relativity can still explain the Sagnac experiment?  Good then.

[stack]

Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

snip

My first thought was that it was too generic of a title to be credible at all. Then I found out that they're 170 years old and publish one of the most respected journals out there.

I thought it was really bad that the most popular physical theory for the last 90+ years was rejected. But then I remembered that it also means that Bell's theorem is wrong, and that's good news.

This isn't to say that the world is actually flat though.

Just doing a little poking around for this paper Tom referenced. Apparently, on many levels the article cited regarding the paper entitled "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" by someone named Xinhang Shen, is considered dubious at best by some. First of all, as Tom misinterpreted, "Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism. At the bottom of the referenced page it states:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

As well, regarding the 'paper' in question, I found an article that disassembles a portion of the papers notions as well as calls out where it was published:

"Physics Essays doesn’t find mention on Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory journals while it isn’t indexed by Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science either. However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Here is an intro on what the paper purports:

"A Non-challenge to the Special Theory of Relativity
Has the special theory of relativity been disproved?
No. But it’s disappointing that EurekAlert saw fit to carry the press release accompanying the ‘paper’ that made the startling claim. It’s impossible to call out all the specious claims being made everyday but quite possible and even more relevant to call out those who popularise it without necessary checks. EurekAlert is a service that also disseminates press releases from the journals Science and PNAS , with an audience that has come to trust what it puts out."

https://thewire.in/science/a-non-challenge-to-the-special-theory-of-relativity

There's more to the above article and worth a read.

I think the point being, Tom needs better, more solid references to begin to claim SRT has been "disproved". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The paper he cites is by no means extraordinary let alone evidence.

[Tom Bishop]

"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

[stack]

"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

Like I said, read the disclaimer on the page you cited:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Doesn't really fall into the "stamp of approval" bucket that you are asserting. I think you should find less dubious 'papers' to support your extraordinary claims.

[Tom Bishop]

"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

Like I said, read the disclaimer on the page you cited:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Doesn't really fall into the "stamp of approval" bucket that you are asserting. I think you should find less dubious 'papers' to support your extraordinary claims.

That's called a disclaimer. AAAS still selected it and posted it. They kept it there on their website. Are you saying that the AAAS is posting dubious papers? That claim in itself is dubious. You have not demonstrated that the AAAS is known for posting dubious papers or that they partner with dubious journals.

As far as I can see, AAAS is completely legitimate and highly respected.

If you are accusing them of posting dubious papers, then I would suggest for you to contact them and explain why it is wrong, since no one else has thought to, and link them to your post from the Wired science communication writer. If valid, surely such a respected organization will immediately remove such dubious material from their website.

[Why Not]

That's called a disclaimer. AAAS still selected it and posted it. They kept it there on their website. Are you saying that the AAAS is posting dubious papers? That claim in itself is dubious. You have not demonstrated that the AAAS is known for posting dubious papers or that they partner with dubious journals.

As far as I can see, AAAS is completely legitimate and highly respected.

If you are accusing them of posting dubious papers, then I would suggest for you to contact them and explain why it is wrong, since no one else thought to, and link them to your post from the Wired science communication writer. If valid, surely such a respected organization will immediately remove such dubious material from their website.

tom , how can you possibly reconcile this statement with your own world views?
So much information on that site dealing with astronomy, mathematics and physics that render a flat earth impossible.
I will post just one example :
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/nsfc-nsc050919.php
Do you wish to claim that they are posting dubious material?
Can we use information from AAAS as evidence in debate against you?
 

[Curious Squirrel]

I don't think they curate their releases in any manner as controlled as you're implying Tom. www.eurekalert.org/releaseguidelines So long as it's getting published in a peer reviewed paper (which the one publishing this at least purports to be) eurekalert will post or allow to be posted, a notification about the release of the paper. This doesn't imply an endorsement of the paper whatsoever.

[stack]

"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

Like I said, read the disclaimer on the page you cited:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Doesn't really fall into the "stamp of approval" bucket that you are asserting. I think you should find less dubious 'papers' to support your extraordinary claims.

That's called a disclaimer. AAAS still posted it. They kept it there on their website. Are you saying that the AAAS is posting dubious papers? That claim in itself is dubious. You have not demonstrated that the AAAS is known for posting dubious papers or that they partner with dubious journals.

Listen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how this works. On the page you cited, under the title of the release, it states:

"Public Release: 1-Mar-2016
The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically
A paper titled 'Challenge to the special theory of relativity' to be published on Physics Essays
International NAC Society"

As long as the paper is to be published in a peer reviewed journal it's eligible to have a "News Release" on EurekaAlert. It's not 'endorsed' by AAAS/EurekaAlert.

As well the news release abstract on EurekaAlert was created by the International NAC Society. And says so again in the upper righthand corner where the media contact info is:

Media Contact
Lixin Zhou
press@nacgeo.com
416-496-6110
http://www.nacsociety.org

Go to http://www.nacsociety.org. The last article they posted is for this paper:

"March 1, 2016 - The Special Theory of Relativity Has Been Disproved Theoretically
NAC Geographic Products Inc. announced that a paper titled "Challenge to the Special Theory of Relativity" authored by Xinhang Shen, President of NAC Geographic Products Inc. is to be published on the issue of March 2016 of Physics Essays"

So the President of NAC Geographic Products Inc. wrote a paper about how he thinks he has disproved SRT, gets it into a journal and his company gets a media article over to EurekaAlerts to promote it.

Apparently Physics Essays Journal is known for accepting fringe stuff. Nothing wrong with that. All I'm saying is that:

A) You are being misleading with your statement, "Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website". Their rules are, they will publish a NEWS RELEASE about a paper that is published in a peer reviewed journal. They are not publishing the paper, just the news release provided to them. It's called "publicity". And their disclaimer again, for the third time:
"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

B) If you're just going to cherry pick some random paper written by the president of some company that got said paper into a sort of fringe journal without reviewing the paper or any of the comments about the paper and just rely on a press release to try and refute all of SRT, you are personally not firing on all cylinders and need to rethink your approach to things.

[Tom Bishop]

It says right here in their FAQ:

News releases must meet EurekAlert!'s longstanding eligibility guidelines in order to be accepted and hosted on the website. Institutions must pay a fee to submit news releases news releases to EurekAlert!. Payment of submission fees does not guarantee acceptance of news releases.

Then on their elegibility page:

at our sole discretion, news releases that may be perceived to promote biased findings, raise unanswered questions about potential conflicts of interest, and/or carry an advocacy agenda unfounded in scientific research, may be deemed inappropriate for the site.

The article is on the website, so they therefore did not deem it inappropriate, unfounded in scientific research, or biased.

It sure sounds like they are reviewing the content and giving it their approval it to me.

[Why Not]

tom, would you like to comment on any of the following?

What a dying star's ashes tell us about the birth of our solar system
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/uoa-wad042619.php

Dark matter exists: The observations which question its presence in galaxies disproved
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/sisd-dme042919.php

Telescopes in space for even sharper images of black holes
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/run-tis050619.php

When it comes to planetary habitability, it's what's inside that counts
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/cifs-wic050119.php

[stack]

And maybe you could comment on these "approved" by AAAS/EurekaAlerts:

New ISERV tool enables rapid view of Earth images from space
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/nsc-nit092314.php

Pioneering research from the ISS
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/tuob-prf040618.php

Satellite measurements of the Earth's magnetosphere promise better space weather forecasts
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/ku-smo080818.php