<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div id="yiv1543314054"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 14pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_131675511048743"><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_131675511048764">John Clark wrote:</span></div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487126"></span> </div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487131"><font id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487134" size="4">"I</font><font size="4">f </font><font id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_131675511048781" size="4">Special Relativity is untrue then General relativity certainly </font></span></div><div><span><font id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487147" size="4">is, I'd say that was pretty damn Earth shattering."</font></span></div><div><span><font
id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487150" size="4"></font></span> </div><div><span><font id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487154" size="4">Special Relativity and General Relativity requiring replacement</font></span></div><div id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487187"><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487164"><font id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487169" size="4">is big news for orthodox mainstream physics - but not everyone.</font></span></div><div id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487198"><span><font id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487160">Time travel would be Earth shattering.</font></span></div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487233"></span> </div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487236">More about General Relativity:</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487207"><span
id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487121"><a id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487116" href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092406.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092406.htm</a></span></div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487209"></span> </div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487212">I wrote the author and he
explained a more about his work.</span></div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487217">In an unbiased atmosphere his work would have effectively </span></div><div id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487242"><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487230">ended </span><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487223">General Relativity as a viable theory. General Relativity</span></div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487244">plus dark matter cannot produce galaxy velocity profiles</span></div><div id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487254"><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487250">- while remaining consistent with statistical mechanics and</span></div><div><span id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_1316755110487256">the assumptions underlying dark matter. Observational</span></div><div><span>evidence effectively ends the debate for those not wedded
to</span></div><div><span>General Relativity.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>John Clark wrote:</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>"...I will say that I'd be very <span id="misspell-0" class="mark">sirprise</span> if the <span id="misspell-1" class="mark">luminiferous</span> <b></b>Ether </span></div><div><span>made a comeback after more than a century."</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>The math is <span id="misspell-2"><span>indistinguishable<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span></span> from Special Relativity so in</span></div><div><span>that respect it never left. I was fortunate enough to have had</span></div><div><span>this explained to me in great detail in undergraduate Special</span></div><div><span>Relativity. Many have come to the erroneous conclusion</span></div><div><span>that because Special Relativity has achieved mainstream</span></div><div><span>orthodoxy
</span><span>that it defeated LET in some technical aspect. </span></div><div><span>That </span><span>is </span><span>not the case at all. Special Relativity's sole claim</span></div><div><span>is that without observational evidence of preferred reference</span></div><div><span>frames none are required. Any observation of any signal</span></div><div><span>being able to exceed the speed of light would be that </span></div><div><span>observational evidence differentiating the two theories.</span></div><div><span>LET would still require additional work - SR would be</span></div><div><span>done.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Dennis May</span></div><div id="yiv1543314054"><table border="0" cellSpacing="0" cellPadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" id="yiv1543314054yui_3_2_0_22_131675511048775" class="yiv1543314054ms__id59935" vAlign="top"><blockquote
style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid;"><div id="yiv1543314054"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 14pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="yiv1543314054ms__id59939"><div> </div></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></body></html>