The whole story started on April 1 - maybe as an April-fool joke - when Myron was told by E. SCHNEEBERGER about an article of N. FEIST, who claims
An acoustic Michelson-Morley experiment results in the same "zero result" as the optical experiment contrary to the school of taught.
In other words: The existence of Ether as a medium of propagation of light waves is NOT excluded by Michelson-Morley.
Myron didn't oppose to that claim or at least check it. Just in the contrary: He replied on April 4th with a commentary of agreement at his blog:
Many thanks! One can attempt to transform ECE theory into the frame defined I checked the article with that remarkable claim and detected that N. FEIST is starting
his consideration with a wrong and unproven assumption (1) of his so-called
one way speed.
So I sent an email to Myron where I told him about the
error in FEIST's article.
In spite of his remark on Vigier's doubts about the Michelson-Morley experiment I expected
his agreement since the Michelson-Morley experiment is the basic experiment of Relativity
Theory. I thought he would have detected the errors in N.FEIST's paper too. But something
else happened: I received the following email from Myron.
by Mach, on whose ideas Einstein based special relativity as we know. If this
is done we may get the interesting results mentioned by Erwin Schneeberger.
These are just off the cuff remarks of mine at this stage, but the data on two
way sound velocity look interesting. Vigier was also dubious about the Michelson
Morley. I agree about the objectivity. MWE
April 4th, 2006
I checked the article with that remarkable claim and detected that N. FEIST is starting his consideration with a wrong and unproven assumption (1) of his so-called one way speed.
So I sent an email to Myron where I told him about the error in FEIST's article. In spite of his remark on Vigier's doubts about the Michelson-Morley experiment I expected his agreement since the Michelson-Morley experiment is the basic experiment of Relativity Theory. I thought he would have detected the errors in N.FEIST's paper too. But something else happened: I received the following email from Myron.
From: EMyrone@aol.com [mailto:EMyrone@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Schneeberger: Ether
Well Gerhard you always say that any calculation is wrong. So if you say Schneeberger is wrong you are
simply behaving in the same old way. This is very boring. You have no credibility and so I request you not to
send me any further absurd e mail, or any e mail. ...
If you go on like this you will certainly get a haircut in the Tower. ...
Following several lines of insults and concluding with
... So why don't you do something useful and resign? British Civil List scientist.
That was the end of a short discussion where Myron didn't contribute anything to the topic under consideration, to N.FEIST's claim concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment and his opinion about it. Since he gave no further comments on the Feist claim we must believe that Myron, though propagating General Relativity,
Myron wrote on his Blog without any reference to his former Blog note from April 4th:
April 8th, 2006
The experimental evidence for special relativity consists of data from many different experiments carried out for about ninety years or more by many capable people. I believe that recent experiments at Harvard have shown special relativity to be right to one part in ten power 27 (a phenomenal accuracy, one part to ten power 2 is one part in a hundred). The latest experimental evidence for general relativity is, I believe, NASA Cassini, which found that the EH theory is accurate to one part in 100,000. Any deviations from EH would be due to ECE in my opinion, not any flaw in relativity. I am familiar with the claims about Einstein being somehow “wrong”. They come in all the time and there are two or three nutters who attack me all the time. This is what you have to expect if you become successful. Reportage of science is usually poor, the stuff you read on the newspapers is the stuff you read in the newspapers. To understand physics needs a lot of hard work, and reporters are not prepared to work hard. What are you scientific qualifications or are you curious to learn? I ask this because I do not know at what level to pitch the answers, but you are welcome to correspond. I do not turn anyone away unless they behave badly. This particualr report makes very littel sense to me, as is usually the case with stuff like this. So it will confuse the public. It is much better to study physics. Civil List scientist.