No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative - and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw:
1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; light propagates in an absolute or preferred reference frame, a conclusion that physicists will be reluctant to accept. 2) The speed of light seems depend on the motion of the observer after all 3) This implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. 4) However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a reference frame might be tied. It will be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation - and whether the author agrees with it . From: Mauro Lacy Sadly, the analysis seem to be flawed (btw, can you see why?). I'm actually discussing this with the author. As the analysis is flawed, the conclusion is not correct. But fortunately, a right analysis (and its related conclusion) falsify other of the postulates of SR(can you tell which one?) Best regards, Mauro
