http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53879.msg1325247#msg1325247An attractive gravity field, made up of gravitons, cannot explain at all the three body problem (Sun - Jupiter - Io/Ganymede/Europa), here is another demonstration:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542G.B. Airy's experiment (1871) showed clearly the existence of an energy barrier between the planets/stars and the atmosphere of the Earth, we can call it the Schumann Cavity - or, the aether/ether field; the speed of light is a variable and not a constant, it varies according to the density of the aether field.
Michelson-Morley mistakes, a fascinating look at the errors comitted by A. Michelson and E. Morley in 1877:
http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htmDayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.
Today, however, Miller's work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having "proved the ether did not exist". "
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htmThe superb presentation of the errors inherent in A. Michelson's approach to his experiment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htmOne of the greatest works which does show the errors committed by both Michelson and Einstein:
http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
The errors of Michelson and Morley analyzed from a different point of view:
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.htmlA. Micheons and E. Morley UNMASKED:
http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.htmlThe intentional mistakes committed by H. Lorentz in deriving his transformations:
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htmlThe Dayton-Miller ether drift experiments:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)
"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, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.
"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)
On the Pound-Rebka experiment:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1020&p=34129&hilit=pound+rebka#p34120If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.
Demolition of relativity:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070930082557/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htmMany physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'
William Cantrell: First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070930082557/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3When Lorentz first developed the idea of length contraction to explain the Michelson-Morley result, it struck many scientists as thoroughly arbitrary and ad hoc. Lorentz admitted that he had arrived at his equations by trial and error. It is noteworthy that no length contraction has ever been measured experimentally.
As for time dilation/clock slowing, it is known that the rate of radioactive decay of mesons slows down when they move at high speed, and the 1972 Häfele-Keating experiment found that an atomic clock transported eastward around the world lost 59 nanoseconds while a clock transported westward gained 273 nanoseconds. Obviously, such findings do not prove that time itself has dilated; it is more logical to suppose that motion affects the internal processes of particles and atoms. All physical devices used for time-keeping are subject to error when accelerated or decelerated, or moved through gravitational fields of different strengths. However, there are indications that the amount of clock retardation need not conform to Lorentz’s ad hoc equation. Relativists claim that if one of two twin brothers journeys into outer space at enormously high speed and then returns to earth, he will have aged much less than his brother – but this is no more than a speculative hypothesis.
If particles are accelerated to relativistic speeds, it becomes increasingly difficult to accelerate them further. Their exponentially increasing inertia as the speed of light is approached is usually attributed to the transformation of kinetic energy into inertial mass. But this interpretation is open to question. Relativists admit that the mass of the body concerned would appear to be constant in its own reference frame. It therefore makes more sense to regard the inertial mass of a system as purely a measure of its rest energy – and therefore as independent of velocity. Instead of invoking ‘relativistic mass increase’, the experimental results can be explained on the theory that an accelerated massbound charge increasingly resists addition of kinetic energy that approaches the magnitude of its rest mass, and radiates thermal energy to keep its mass-energy constant.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.htmlEINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION?
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.htmlVariable speed of light, reasons why Einstein was wrong:
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html