There are numerous problems with this article which suggest the author has a poor grasp of the physics they're trying to debunk.
The proponents of Relativism and the Big Bang (the “Big Bangers”) want you to believe that the universe is finite, so that, if you go “too far”, you will “fall off the universe”, rather than off a “flat earth”. What’s the difference? Flat earth... finite universe... they’re both dumb theories.
Firstly, the "Big Bangers" never said the universe is finite. The earliest models and even present models suggest the universe may well in fact be infinite, possibly containing an infinite number of stars and planets too. Secondly, if the universe is indeed finite, then if you were to keep travelling in a single direction, you wouldn't fall off the edge; either you'll end up back where you started like when you sail around the Earth, or else the universe will expand at lightspeed/faster so you can never even contemplate reaching this "edge". Why would someone like the author of the article bother to try tackling relativity before they've even learned it? How can scientists be accused of a conspiracy when the author doesn't even know the substance of the supposed conspiracy?
Now here's another silly quote:
Since this book is for the greatly uninformed public, as well as for the researcher, I will make an effort to couch it in layman’s terms—for I am myself a layman—and will provide some illustrations where helpful, to give a reasonable grasp of my concepts, rather than a “quantum mechanical” mathematical orgy, which is usually combined with pages of dull equations and numbers which proceed logically from the contradictory and unproven illogical premises which are so prized by that ilk. It is as if to say, “Hey! Look at me Ma, I can do lots of math!” “Ether Physics”, by its very nature and name, is subatomic physics, which to me means “sub-protonic” and “sub-electronic”.
Sounds just like the typical uneducated crank, making excuses for not having to learn about the established science they're trying to debunk. This is precisely the reason cranks usually think they can disprove a theory, because they don't even understand the theory or what it is they're actually trying to disprove. The author of this quote is effectively boasting to the reader, "Look ma! I can disprove relativity without using my brain!" I would dispute the part about disproving relativity, but I concur 100% with the author's assertions that he wasn't using his noodle when he came up with this idea.
Now's a good time to discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment. Because of
stellar aberration, which has been known for 300 years, we know that if there was an ether, it couldn't be dragging along with the Earth- the Earth must be moving relative to such an ether. Yet if the Earth were moving with respect to an ether responsible for carrying light, such motion would be detectable in the
Michelson-Morley experiment. Michelson and Morley were unhappy with their results and spent decades refining and repeating their measurements, but not once did they ever detect evidence for an ether, and given the known motions of the Earth in orbit around the sun, and the known amounts of stellar aberration, the experiment should have easily been able to detect this motion relative to the ether. Conclusion: the ether, as imagined by Faraday and co., doesn't exist.
Now the author would probably argue in response that I'm just supporting the scientific conspiracy to hide the "truth". Well, let's pick another quote from early in the book:
Since the “accessing” electropulsive force, when in effect, is transmitted at near the velocity of light however, the comparative difference in velocity between the Omni and the earth is almost insignificant It is practically “as if the earth is stationary relative to the ether, except for the effects of so-called gravity. To an effect which travels at 186,000 miles per second, a body traveling at about 20 miles per second is virtually “at rest”.
This is yet another false assertion from an author who clearly, and admittedly doesn't know what they're talking about. A difference of 20 miles per second is easily measurable today and was even measurable in the 19th century. We wouldn't notice it with our eyes on a daily basis as human beings, but one can't expect laymen like the author of this book to understand just how precise the experiments were that measured these things.
