.....He [Ptolemy] also argued that the surface of a rotating Earth would necessarily be moving faster than the clouds floating in the air above it, so we should never see clouds moving to the east.

The logic is correct, but overlooks the surface cyclones that have flows faster that the rotational speed, so the statement is only true in the large. Ptolemy’s argument is still valid on average; the prevailing east-bound temperate zone winds and the eastbound jet streams refute the rotation of the earth eastbound.

19 centuries later his logical statement about the conflict between atmospheric circulation and the West-to-East rotation of the Earth still stands as a refutation of a spinning Earth, a contradiction which establishment physicists choose to ignore.

Likewise the absence of any discernable parallax in the observed positions of the stars apparently rules out the possibility that the Earth revolves around the Sun – unless the distance to the stars is literally thousands of times the distance to the Sun, which seemed implausible.

Parallax is the apparent shift in position of 2 objects relative to a third fixed reference line/point. Parallax is observed today, but it has no bearing on what is actually moving, only on distances and directions derived from geometry.

The heliocentric model assumes both the Sun and stars are fixed, which creates 2 absolute references, not one. The Earth is constrained to move by this choice (which violates the parallax definition). If the Earth were also fixed, then NOTHING WOULD MOVE!

If we assume that the Earth and stars are fixed, then the same illogic proves that the Sun moves – and the Earth is fixed. Classical circular reasoning.

...yet within a century of Copernicus' death the heliocentric model had been fully accepted by the scientific community - despite the fact that stellar parallax still had never been detected.

Defiance and denial of empirical methods had started – the age of enlightenment plunges into darkness.

Btw: The HC model is NOT fully accepted by the scientific community. It is rejected by relativists and mainstream physics today, yet it was the model for rejecting geocentrism.

Acceptance by the scientific community is not the measure of truth; truth is found via the scientific method and valid reasoning. Scientists once all believed in the caloric, a fluid that flowed from hot to cold objects. How many so believe today?

The new theory of relativity was based not on purely kinematic relations, but on the dynamical concept of inertia, according to which there exists an infinite class of relatively moving coordinate systems that are all equivalent from the standpoint of mechanical dynamics.

How long would it take to validate an infinite class of relatively moving coordinate systems? No infinities of any sort are testable within the scientific method.

...the principle of inertial relativity, i.e., every system of inertial coordinates is equivalent for the description of physical laws - at least insofar as those laws pertain to the motions of material entities. Indeed the complete operational equivalence of uniformly moving inertial reference frames remained an unchallenged principle of physics for centuries.

IRFs have many problems, including actual existence. There are 2 types: kinematic and dynamic…

What natural objects in the cosmos move at constant velocity? None.

IFRs are abstractions with no (usable) reality. There are many approximate IFRs, but no fixed rules for when approximation is acceptable. This provides wiggle room for relativists to accept or reject approximate IFRs, depending on their desired result. The experiments of Sagnac and Ruyong Wang demonstrate inertial frame inequivalence – the Earth is a preferred frame.

For an English translation of Sagnac’s experiment:

http://www.wbabin.net/historical/pprhst.htm#Sagnac

For the extended Sagnac tests done by Dufour and Prunier:

http://www.wbabin.net/pprhst.htm#Dufour

For the Sagnac result applied to electrons and neutrons,

not photons, see

http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20sorted%20by%20topic/ifm%20demonstrations/borde1991.pdf

For the linear version of Sagnac, see the Wang FOC exp.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/GED_2005_MarApr_Wang.pdf

....but all efforts to detect the putative aether or its state of motion failed.

All efforts? All the following experiments allow inference of an aether presence…

Foucault pendulum 1851

Sagnac rotor 1913

Stellar aberration Bradley 1727

Fresnel drag 1818-30

Airy failure 1871

Depalma-spinning ball drop 1977

Depalma-Gyro Drop 1977

Quantum red shifts-Tifft 1984

Mirabel and Rodriguez superluminality 1994

Aspden Effect 1995

Marinov Plasma Tube 1996

Casimir Effect 1997

Roth Magnetic Memory 1997

Lijun Wang superluminality 2000

Gravitomagnetic London Moment 2006

Dayton Miller aether drift 1921

Joos c anistropy 1930

Pound-Rebka c anistropy 1959

Jaseja & Champeny Spinning Mossbauer disc 1963

Silvertooth c anisotropy 1986

DeWitte coax cable anistoropy 1991

Galaev aether properties 2002

Pioneer 10,11 anomaly as dual aether 1972 - 2004

Faraday Rotor Generator 1831

Michelson&Morley c anistropy 1887

Shapiro Venus radar anistropy 1969

CMB dipole beam 996

Global Positioning System vortex 1993

Atmospheric circulation aether pattern

This [failure] created a puzzle for physicists, because their theories were based on the idea that light propagates at a characteristic speed relative to the medium, but they were unable to detect the presence of that medium, let alone to determine its state of motion.

M&MX did measure a daily flow of aether, but not the magnitude expected for the Earth’s alleged orbital speed. Ideological exclusion of the M&MX – refusal to accept the option of both Earth and a dynamic aether at rest - led to the wrong left turn into the land of relativity. We have wandered in this barren desert of SR and GR for over a century.

…..Lorentz and Poincare, .., by about 1905, had arrived at the conditions that must be satisfied by all elementary entities and forces (including inertial forces) if the principle of relativity is to be satisfied.

Lorentz and Poincare were forced to fit the worldview into the MMX false null result. But their attempts couldn’t succeed without a correct understanding of the M&MX.

...The coordinate systems given by the Lorentz transformation for reference frames in motion relative to the aether were regarded by Lorentz and Poincare as merely apparent (or “effective”) measures of space and time, rather than “true” measures, which they continued to believe were related to the aether’s rest frame coordinates by Galilean transformations …..

They believed their models were only temporary resolutions to an underlying problem, for which the aether was the real solution.

……neither Lorentz nor Poincare explicitly identified the auxiliary coordinate systems as inertial coordinate systems.

They probably realized that the concept of IRFs was useless and often circular when applied.

Einstein presented a simplified derivation – and a much broader interpretation – of the Lorentz transformation, based on the principle of relativity combined with the principle that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

Einstein’s premises of all motion being relative and yet light being absolute in motion is a contradiction. In logical conflict with itself starting from its very premises, relativity fails Popper’s rule of consistency and must be corrected or abandoned, since one can prove anything with an inconsistent theory.

[Einstein] showed that these two principles – which were just a small subset of the assumptions made by Lorentz and Poincare – were sufficient to derive all the known phenomena of electrodynamics, as well as new relativistic formulas for aberration, Doppler shift, and time dilation.

A very broad statement, and certainly challenged by experiments whose interpretation is restricted to a single version of relativity. Einstein changed his mind on several practical applications of relativity; his followers can selectively quote whatever fits the situation. However, dissidents can also validly quote the contradictions in his writings – and others – to assert, along with Karl Popper, that inconsistent theories can prove anything.

……inertial coordinate systems (i.e., coordinate systems in terms of which “the laws of mechanics hold good”), which are by definition the "true" coordinate systems of Newtonian physics.

The dynamic definition of an IRF. Does this agree with the kinematic definition of constant linear motion? Doies anyone care that the two definitions may be in conflict?

He [Einstein] highlighted the reciprocity of those transformations, emphasizing the symmetry between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, and pointed out the crucial relativity of simultaneity exhibited by these systems.

But didn’t point out the absence of IRFs in realistic experiments and natural events.

...he [Einstein] also derived the consequence that all energy must possess inertia, and that the inertial mass of an object is reduced by E/c2 when the object emits energy E.

A classic historical fallacy – to enhance the Einstein urban legend. E=mc<sup>2 was derived prior to Einstein.

...Thus relativity was restored by reinterpreting the measures of time and space on a more profound level.

Re-interpretation of measures of time and space?? This destroys experimental proof, the validity and reality of testing, if the testimony of our eyes must be ‘re-interpreted! Are we to believe the relativistic distortion of measurements that replaces raw data – or our own eyes?

Minkowski followed in 1907 with a geometrical interpretation, emphasizing the fact that the invariant [interval] is simply a generalization of the Pythagorean theorem…….

Not a simple generalization, but a significant distortion of the Pythagorean theorem. First the additional dimension must be space, not time. Second, all dimensions must be positive.

dx

^{2}+ dy

^{2}+ dz

^{2}becomes dw

^{2}+ dx

^{2}+ dy

^{2}+ dz

^{2}

Minkowski also made extensive use of four-vectors, which had been introduced by Poincare. Important contributions and clarifications to the new relativity theory were also made by Planck, Lewis and Tolman, and others.

The math abstraction of space-time has no clear meaning in the real physical world. Is it measured in meters times secs? What instrument measures spacetime? A ruler-clock?

Why isn’t the invariant interval measured as t

^{2}–(x/c)

^{2}-(y/c)

^{2}-(z/c)

^{2}, converting distance measurements to time by dividing by c ?(See the STEMU apps.)

The general theory of relativity established equivalence between the members of an even larger class of reference systems, and in so doing achieved a conceptual unification of inertia and gravity, while retaining the structure of special relativity locally at every point of spacetime.

So locally GR reduces to SR. Important to note for future discussion, when we see GR and SR conflict, or it’s claimed one does not apply.

…….. Einstein was reluctant to concede the issue, having rescued relativity twice from seemingly intractable problems, both times showing that in fact relativity was the key to a deeper understanding of the very phenomena that were thought to be incompatible with it.

Was this a rescue mission, or an effort to impose an ideology on physics, by a continuous patchwork of corrections and ‘refinements’, a path followed by his acolytes?

………To this day the beauty and elegance of general relativity challenges the imaginations of scientists seeking to reconcile it with the latest theories of physics.

What is beauty and elegance, without truth? And what beauty and elegance is there, when mired in the computational nightmare of the simplest GR calculation?

Why reconciliation, instead of a return to the wrong turn a century ago to address the errors of the M&MX discernment?

This book examines the evolution of the principle of relativity in its classical, special, and general incarnations, both from a technical and a historical perspective, with the aim of showing how it has repeatedly inspired advances in our understanding of the physical world.

We would say more wrong turns were followed since M&MX, instead of returning to the source of the error… Are mainstream physicists like obstinate (male) drivers, who refuse to admit they’re lost, or to stop for directions(examine modern experiments). The longer they persist, the deeper they wander into the wilderness, bewildered by all the wild false claims surrounding them and distancing their world view furtjher from reality.