What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Jerry wrote:

On Oct 16, 2:46*pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Amazing! You managed to be even stupider! The evidence:
Majorana, Phil Mag 35, 163 (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919).

The local university library has this reference as an
electronic resource, but it will be a while before I have
time to look it up.

This is the one that Panofsky & Phillips give in their historical overview
of experiments on emission and aether theories (ch 15 (iirc) in their
textbook), so it's a good basic starting point.

(P&P's coverage of this is very good for a general EM textbook. Especially
when compared with the ones that say "once upon a time, physicists
believed in the aether, then MMX happened, and they didn't, which isn't
true, and isn't very educationally useful. It is a concise account,
though, thus its popularity.)

Meanwhile, here are some online references for your
perusal. Some are relevant to the current variant
emission theories discussion, some aren't:
http://tinyurl.com/4y39tyx
http://tinyurl.com/3btwyu5
http://tinyurl.com/3wxz94d
http://tinyurl.com/3jg2rgs
http://tinyurl.com/3z72snu

More papers for Androcles to ignore and Henry Wilson DSc to say are wrong!

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1110170940250.2630-100000@localhost...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Jerry wrote:

On Oct 16, 2:46 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Amazing! You managed to be even stupider! The evidence:
Majorana, Phil Mag 35, 163 (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919).

The local university library has this reference as an
electronic resource, but it will be a while before I have
time to look it up.

This is the one that Panofsky & Phillips give in their historical overview
of experiments on emission and aether theories (ch 15 (iirc) in their
textbook), so it's a good basic starting point.

(P&P's coverage of this is very good for a general EM textbook. Especially
when compared with the ones that say "once upon a time, physicists
believed in the aether, then MMX happened, and they didn't, which isn't
true, and isn't very educationally useful. It is a concise account,
though, thus its popularity.)

Meanwhile, here are some online references for your
perusal. Some are relevant to the current variant
emission theories discussion, some aren't:
http://tinyurl.com/4y39tyx
http://tinyurl.com/3btwyu5
http://tinyurl.com/3wxz94d
http://tinyurl.com/3jg2rgs
http://tinyurl.com/3z72snu

More papers for Androcles to ignore and Henry Wilson DSc to say are wrong!

================================================
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00.htmlAnother experiment there no need to repeat and the **** NNN* will ignore.*NNN: No Need Neiminen.--"No need to repeat such experiments" -- Timo Nieminen, 16th Oct, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/NoNeedNieminenAs a proud Einstein disciple, perhaps you can persuade the BelgianWaffle to im-moortel-ise you as well. It calls such utterances by itsfellow relativistic saints "gems". Cardinal Bellarmine would be proudof you, Doctor Timo Nieminen of the University of Queensland.

On Oct 14, 6:24*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:13:49 +0100, "Androcles"





wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:34:08 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| | When you switch on your torch, what aspect of the beam constitutes a
| | 'frequency'?
|
| The periodic alternation of the electric and magnetic fields of the
photons,
| one from each molecule of tungsten in the torch bulb filament.
| **** off, deranged bloody baboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| OK, 3 out of ten for that. ...Nobody has ever detected such an
oscillation.

Ok, 0 out of 0 for that, radio, radar and microwave radiation is well
understood by pommie engineers but obviously not by ignorant ozzie
sheep shaggers with their head up Einstein's arse where they can only
detect ****.

radio waves are not single photons.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Henry: Radio "waves" (sic!) are chains of photons spaced two far
apart to cause those to be visible in the photo receptors of the eye.
Their regular-recurring interval can be detected in devices tuned to
the harmonic frequency. In the early "crystal" (quartz) radios, the
frequency was adjusted using a slider whose pointed tip cut into a
fine coil of otherwise insulated copper wire. The point of the
slider, effectively, changed the length of the outside, bare copper
wire "antenna" so that only photons arriving at 'that' harmonic length
could be detected. The harmonic energy was directed to a quartz
crystal which converted the energy pulses into electrical pulses that
can be heard through simple, magnetic ear phones as voices or music.
— NoEinstein —

On Oct 14, 6:27*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:13:34 +1100, Byron Forbes
wrote:





In article , ..@.. says...

Diaper you are such an incuarble moron.

The change in velocity changes the in 'wavecrest' arrival frequency, as
shown in my illustration. the wavelength is intrinsic and cannot be affected
by the movement of an observer or his grating.

You'll note that just by changing your movement in your car, the
frequency from a siren fixed to the ground also changes.

HOORAY! YOU FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE DIAPER! YOU HAVE AGREED WITH ME!

* *Ans since he makes the analogy to sound, the speed of sound is c + the speed of air so he has now abandoned SR.

They cannot rid themselves of the aetehr concept.

After all, they claim SR and LET are identical so it is plainly obvioius
that Einstein's crap is nothing more than a disguised version of aether
theory.
Also, an aether is absolutely essential for light speed to be independent of
its source speed.



Raving? What's raving about what's measured, Henry? Just because it
blows your wee little mind doesn't mean a thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Henry: You should have learned by now that light speed IS source
dependent! The ether NURTURES light on its way by favoring velocity
'c', the tangential velocity of the IOTAs that compose the ether.
Faster light, over extremely long distances, will be slowed by the
IOTAs back to velocity 'c'. Slower light, over extremely long
distances, will be speeded up to velocity 'c'. Such facts explain why
there is little or no Doppler shifts in objects at very great
distances. — NoEinstein —

On 10/16/11 8:22 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
Henry: Radio "waves" (sic!) are chains of photons spaced two far
apart to cause those to be visible in the photo receptors of the eye.


John Armistead, who admits he's NoEinstein, sticks his feet in
his mouth once again! The human eye is sensitive to 400-700 nm
and has nothing to do with spacing of individual photons.

Physics FAQ: Can a Human See a Single Photon?
http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ..._a_photon.html

On Sep 3, 12:38*pm, GSS wrote:
Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.

Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
"Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.

[Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
Einstein's opponents? (...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
"The day will come where everything about this theory will be
abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]

It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing *complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
sustained by mistaken beliefs.

1. *Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics.

This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

2. *Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.

This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

Dear GSS (or the 'knowing' readers in general): In looking for GSS in
the latter days of this post, he isn't involved. I am impressed by
his sensible analysis of what is wrong with the present science
establishment. Now, the subject of discussion has changed to... the
nature of light and the aether, etc. GSS could well be too sensible
to be involved in the daily arguments over what is what in science. I
hope that he is doing fine, at whatever project he may be
undertaking. Unlike me, GSS likes to read about the history and the
basis for science thought—screwed-up or not. Though my time is
limited, I would urge others to read more of GSS's threads. —
NoEinstein —

On 10/16/11 8:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
Henry: You should have learned by now that light speed IS source
dependent! The ether NURTURES light on its way by favoring velocity
'c', the tangential velocity of the IOTAs that compose the ether.
Faster light, over extremely long distances, will be slowed by the
IOTAs back to velocity 'c'. Slower light, over extremely long
distances, will be speeded up to velocity 'c'. Such facts explain why
there is little or no Doppler shifts in objects at very great
distances. — NoEinstein —


John Armistead, who admits he's NoEinstein, sticks his feet in
his mouth once again! The 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded to
astrophysicists who made use of Doppler shift of very distant
supernovae.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
So your preferred option is to, despite the experiment having been
done, refuse to look at the results, for then the results will cease
to exist, and your theory will cease to be falsified?

=========================================
My "theory" as you call it, is the vector addition of velocities for light.
Whatever the results of your "experiment", you cannot falsify mathematics.
If you think you have then repeat your experiment, it contains error,
you stupid, useless, dishonest, mentally deranged dumb****.

This is your theory:
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.

480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1
-- your theory is falsified, you stupid, useless, dishonest, mentally
deranged dumb****.

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of
light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity --
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
--ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.


--
"No need to repeat such experiments" -- Timo Nieminen, 16th Oct, 2011

http://tinyurl.com/NoNeedNieminen

As a proud Einstein disciple, perhaps you can persuade the Belgian
Waffle to im-moortel-ise you as well. It calls such utterances by its
fellow relativistic saints "gems". Cardinal Bellarmine would be proud
of you, Doctor Timo Nieminen of the University of Queensland.

On Oct 17, 12:45*pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
So your preferred option is to, despite the experiment having been
done, refuse to look at the results, for then the results will cease
to exist, and your theory will cease to be falsified?

=========================================
My "theory" as you call it, is the vector addition of velocities for light.

On Oct 17, 6:44 am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 3, 12:38 pm, GSS wrote:
Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
.....
It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

.....

Dear GSS (or the 'knowing' readers in general): In looking for GSS in
the latter days of this post, he isn't involved. I am impressed by
his sensible analysis of what is wrong with the present science
establishment. Now, the subject of discussion has changed to... the
nature of light and the aether, etc. GSS could well be too sensible
to be involved in the daily arguments over what is what in science. I
hope that he is doing fine, at whatever project he may be
undertaking. Unlike me, GSS likes to read about the history and the
basis for science thought—screwed-up or not. Though my time is
limited, I would urge others to read more of GSS's threads. —
NoEinstein —

Dear 'NoEinstein',
Thanks for appreciating my viewpoint.

In this thread I had wondered as to why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. The case in point was the Theory of Relativity whereby
precious human and material resources are being wasted in sustaining
the mistaken beliefs in 'length contraction', 'time dilation',
'spacetime curvature' and fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in
relative motion'.

Even though most learned readers agree that there is 'something' wrong
with Theory of Relativity, they are unable to agree on any
alternative. Almost everyone, who disagrees with Relativity, is keen
to push forward his/her individual new theory/world-view/hypothesis/
model or viewpoint as an alternative. And there is absolutely no
consensus on any alternative viewpoint. This, in my opinion, is the
crux of the problem. Whereas the pro-Relativity scientists who favor
maintenance of status quo are in a majority and speak in one voice,
the opponents are all dis-united and pulling in different directions.

Logically, I concede that if you find fault with some accepted theory/
model or viewpoint, you are expected to offer some viable alternative.
At the same time it is simply not true that we need to develop a
consensus on the alternative theory/model or viewpoint before
rejecting the faulty theory/model. Therefore, it is much more
appropriate to first focus on exposing the flaws in the Relativity
theory and only after firmly discarding Relativity we may discuss the
merits and viability of various alternative theories/models/
viewpoints.

After prolonged discussions with hard-core Relativists on the Usenet,
I am convinced that the only way to finally discard Relativity is to
invalidate it through an unambiguous, convincing and repeatable simple
experiment. In this regard I have recently requested a number of
leading scientists and research establishments to explore the
possibility of conducting the "Proposed experiment for detection of
absolute motion". Copy of the communication is appended below.

[Respected Scientists,

Reference- My previous message dated July 25, 2010 on the subject,
"Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion".

Neutrino time of flight anomaly is not a case of superluminal neutrino
velocity. It is a natural consequence of not accounting for the
absolute motion of the neutrino target in space. But the special
theory of Relativity (SR), through the operation of its second
postulate, rules out the existence of any absolute motion. Hence the
neutrino time of flight anomaly is essentially challenging the
validity of the second postulate of SR.

Let us consider the time of flight of a signal pulse from a
transmitter A on the ground to a receiver B on a spacecraft. At an
instant t1 let a signal pulse be emitted from the transmitter when the
instantaneous locations of A and B are A1 and B1 in space. Let the
signal pulse reach B at an instant t2 when the instantaneous locations
of A and B are A2 and B2 respectively in space. The total time of
flight of the signal pulse will now depend on the instantaneous
separation distance A1B1 as well as the distance B1B2 which represents
the motion of the receiver during the pulse propagation time. For
monitoring any spacecraft the motion of the receiver, during the
signal pulse propagation time, is always taken into account.

In the case of OPERA neutrino experiment, the absolute motion of the
neutrino target (in the direction of the source) during the neutrino
flight time influences the total flight time of the neutrino bunch.
The known motions of the earth around the sun and that of the solar
system within the galaxy, obviously contribute to the absolute motion
of the neutrino 'source and the target' in space. Since this absolute
motion of the neutrino target has not been taken into account, it has
resulted in the present time of flight anomaly.

In this experiment, the effect of absolute motion gets mitigated to
some extent due to the continuous synchronization of the source and
target master clocks with the GPS time. This effect will produce a
greater neutrino time of flight anomaly if instead of GPS synchronized
clocks, two primary standard Cs atomic clocks are used at the source
and target locations. Of course these two master clocks will have to
be first mutually synchronized in close by position before moving them
to the two locations. Then the times of flight of neutrino bunches
measured during a 24 hour cycle will show a cyclic variation (over and
above some constant anomaly) of their time of flight during the 24
hour period. This experiment can be repeated within the existing
facility without any major alterations. Alternatively, the two master
clocks at the source and target sites may be allowed to run free
(without GPS link) after initially synchronizing them with the GPS
time. The neutrino flight time measurements conducted during 24 hour
period of 'stand alone' operation of the master clocks will show a
larger time of flight anomaly.

In this regard kindly refer to my paper titled, "Proposed experiment
for detection of absolute motion" published in Physics Essays [Phys.
Essays 23, 442 (2010)].
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We establish by
definition that the time required by light to travel from A to B
equals the time it requires to travel from B to A." This arbitrary
definition of 'time' constitutes a fundamental departure from the
Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has ultimately obscured the
notion of absolute motion. Einstein had essentially employed his
second postulate to establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from
B to A.

Let me outline the above referred 'proposed experiment' to show the
invalidity of the second postulate of SR. Let us consider two points A
and B fixed on the surface of earth and aligned along east-west
direction. Let the separation distance AB be about 30 km. Position two
mutually synchronized identical precision atomic clocks at stations A
and B.
http://www.symmetricom.com/products/...illators/chip-
scale-atomic-clock-csac/SA.45s-CSAC/
Now as part of the experiment, send a light pulse from A to B and
record its time of flight with the two clocks at A and B. Let this
measured time of flight be T_ab. Then send another light pulse from B
to A and record its time of flight with the two clocks. Let this
measured time of flight be T_ba. Repeat these 'to and fro' time of
flight measurements for a period of 24 hours. Plot the difference in
the 'to and fro' flight times, [T_ab-T_ba] over the test period. As
per SR (if the second postulate is true), this 'to and fro' flight
time difference |T_ab-T_ba| must be of the order of zero. On the other
hand, if the second postulate is not true, then the plot of 'to and
fro' flight time differences, [T_ab-T_ba] will be a sinusoidal curve
with amplitude in the range of about 100 to 200 nano-seconds.

Since at present it is extremely important for the scientific
community to "explain the observed neutrino flight time anomaly", it
becomes equally important to actually conduct the 'proposed
experiment' referred above. You are, therefore, requested to kindly
confirm if the 'proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion'
could be conducted at your end.

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,
G S Sandhu
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/ ]

However, only one scientist has responded so far, expressing his
inability as, "Unfortunately, I do not have funds or political power
to promote that experiment".

I only hope that the current 'neutrino time of flight anomaly will
create the necessity and urgency for conducting the proposed
experiment at the earliest.

G S Sandhu