Forgot to check your site earlier Num.
Just went in and had a look. Very interesting stuff.
I totally agree that anything that replaces relativity has to explain all the things that relativity does. That is the nature of science. One theory surpasses another simply by explaining stuff a little better than the last one did.
I don't disagree that relativity explains a lot of stuff very well and I don't actually think it is wrong per se.
My objection is more to the attitude that surrounds it. There is a massive reluctance to entertain the notion that maybe something else can also explain stuff and maybe even do it better.
At the first sign of anyone suggesting such a thing, the defences come up and they set out to prove that Einstein was right.
I have seen it so many times.
The point is that when doing an experiment of any sort, you don't set out to prove your point. That is going into it with a biased frame of mind so answers that are borderline will be given the benefit of the doubt and some answers that could conceivably point the other way may be discarded as outliers.
To do real science, you have to be completely unbiased or the results will be meaningless
How many papers or web sites have you seen that are actively defending relativity. From my experience, most seem to do this. The researchers are so convinced that relativity is 100% correct that they become blinded to other possibilities.
Maybe they are right, at least most of the time, but then again maybe they are missing something else that explains it all even better.
For one thing, we know that relativity doesn't apply in all situations since it comes into direct conflict with QM in certain cases. It isn't the be all and end all of science.
It is a useful tool. Nothing more and nothing less.
Just because something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck doesn't necessarily make it a duck.
Maybe it's a decoy and you are about to get shot through the head by an irate hunter.
:D PY :D