*So in the video*Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.

*I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".*Everyone here is laughing at you.

You simply do not understand what is going on.

You are refusing to accept reality.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT proves that IF the orbital Sagnac and the solar gravitational effect are MISSING, then the local-ether model exists.

No other options are available.

That is why Dr. C.C. Su was forced to accept this local-ether model, because otherwise the Earth is stationary.

*Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.*Certainly one has to give up Einstein's version of relativity and totally embrace Lorentz' ether model.

Einstein's relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You need to the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL to even try to approach this problem.

*And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an authir that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:*Dr. A.G. Kelly proved that G. Malykin was wrong on this one.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdfpage 8

Because many investigators claim that the

Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the

Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of

that theory with the actual test results is given

below. It will be shown that the effects

calculated under these two theories are of very

different orders of magnitude, and that

therefore the Special Theory is of no value in

trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time t

_{o} recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

t

_{o} = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v

^{2}/c

^{2})

^{-1/2} = 1 + v

^{2}/2c

^{2} + O(v/c)

^{4}...

t

_{o} = t'(1 + v

^{2}/2c

^{2})

dt

_{R} = (t

_{o} - t')/t

_{o} = v

^{2}/(v

^{2} + 2c

^{2})

dt

_{R} = relativity time ratio

Now, t

_{o} - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = t

_{o} - t' = t

_{o}v/(c + v)

dt

_{S} = (t

_{o} - t')/t

_{o} = v/(v + c)

dt

_{S} = Sagnac ratio

dt

_{S}/dt

_{R} = (2c

^{2} + v

^{2})/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio

reduces to 2c/v.

Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any

purely Relativistic effect. For example,

considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),

where the rim of the disc was moving with a

velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about

1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac

as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is

smaller by a factor of 10^7.

Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc

of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe

shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity

at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This

is an extremely low velocity, being less than

lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect

would be 50 billion times larger than the

calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.

**Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude.** He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.

Now, I want everyone here, especially the RE, to be witnesses of this statement.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

*I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!**The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime in such a way that a geodesic, ie the path taken by an object in free-fall, is curved ever so slightly towards that massive object, the Earth.*Completely wrong.

HERE IS THE DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdfFrom Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors stipulate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

Therefore, everything that follows, Einstein's field equations, are based on the SAME ASSUMPTION.

And G is valid only here on Earth, not anywhere else.

That is why Hermann Weyl added the AFFINE CONNECTION/NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY in order to apply relativity to dynamical situations. AFFINE CONNECTION = ETHER FIELD.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

Proven in the above paper.

Now, let us go back to this statement, witnessed by all of you here.

*I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!*Then, there is NO general relativity at all either.

*What "missing orbital Sagnac"?*Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case

K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbeThis is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta**In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.**

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase

for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.