Jones Beene wrote: > > 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: >
Indeed. > > > > 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 … > I'll post about all that after the author answers my comments, addressing or acknowledging the issues (and conclusions) I have raised. Maybe I'm wrong, and there'se no flaw in his reasoning. Anyway, SR is falsified in both cases, as far as I can tell. Gezari has recently sent me a message saying that he'll look at my comments carefully, and see if he can come up with a response. Best regards, Mauro
