Jeffrey, if you want an answer that fits into a comment section: this is utter BS. (and has nothing to do with the shape of the earth eihter)
I looked briefly into the Electric Universe Theory. But it is so wrong from the very beginning, I could not read any more. It builds its hypothesis on completely wrong foundations.
I give a damn what enyone (Tessla, or whoever) says about how Relativity Theory is wrong, because it is the simplest possible explanation for many observations, that can not be explained by any other simpler theory yet. Everyone that does not understand why, has no understanding of the most fundamental properties of our universe, and certainy not understood Relativity.
To say it once and for all: Relativity is not made up to satisfy anyones ego and blindly believed by others. If Einstein would not have figured it out, it would be figured out by hundreds of other people by now from basic observations and logic alone. There is no doubt that this theory is a correct description of reality at all observations we can do until now.
I can not go into all the experiments that lead to Relativity. There were many observations, that could not be explained by the accepted Newtonian mechanics, eg. Maxwells finding of an invariant speed of electromagnetic waves, the impossibility to find a medium for light waves etc.
I will give instead some inside, how Special Relativity can be derived from basic properties of the universe.
What is it about (Special) Relativity? We can observe that there is no special inertial reference frame (IS) that is at rest. To measure a speed you always have to measure it with respect to something else. And no physical law depends on the speed of its frame, so each observer can regard his inertial reference frame as at rest with the same right. By the way, thats the reason why we can't feel the motion of the eath.
This is the Principle of Relativity (not to confuse with Special Relativity). Quote: "In physics, the principle of relativity is the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference. For example, in the framework of special relativity the Maxwell equations have the same form in all inertial frames of reference. In the framework of general relativity the Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations have the same form in arbitrary frames of reference." https://en.wikipedia.org/
We can observe that physical laws do not depend on the direction of movement (Isotropy) and are the same everywhere (Homogeneity). From these 3 observations alone (Principle of Relativity, Isotropy and Homogeneity) we can derive transformations to transform physical observations between inertial reference systems. Lets see how the simplest possible such transformation looks like:
general Transformtion between IS
In this transformation, derived from the 3 basic principle of nature, emerges one unknown factor k. k has the units of 1/speed2. So we can replace k with an expression like 1/c2 where c is some speed factor we do not know yet.
Now lets see what this k may be: it can be 0, negative or positive.
k < 0: leads to square roots of negative values, so k < 0 makes no sense in reality.
k = 0: if we set k = 0 (which is the same as the speed factor c = ∞), the transformation reduces to the Galilei Transformation with Galileian kinematic and an infinite speed of light, absolute space and time. We already know that this is not what is observed. The speed of light is finite. If it were not, Maxwells discovery of electromagnetism would not be possible and without electromagnetism no atoms would exist, and the whole universe we live in would not exist in this form. So k = 0 is no option either.
k > 0: this corresponds to c > 0 we get the so called Lorentz Transformation of Special Relativity:
From this transformation follows, that c is a limit for the speed v in any frame of reference, because if you set v > c you get a negative term in √1 − v2/c2 and so an imaginary solution (√−x has no real solution). So c must be a speed limit for v in any reference frame. The speed factor c is not dependent an a specific reference frame or speed v. c is constant and the same in all frames of reference!
Note, that if the speed v between frames of reference is mutch less than c, then v/c2 and v2/c2 is very, very small and can be neglegted. So if we omit these terms in the Lorentz Transformation we get the Galilei Transformation:
So the simple Galilei Transformation may be applied in all situations where the relative speed v between reference frames is mutch less than this ominously speed c, which we still have to figure out what it is. So the fact that we can observe an apparently static space and time and an almost infinite speed of light is due to the fact, that in our daily life we have only to deal with speeds much slower than c. But all changes with higher speeds.
Ole Rømer was the first to realize that the speed of light is not infinite. James Clerk Maxwell found by experiment two constants, one for the magnetic permeability μ0 and one for the permittivity (dielectric conductivity) ε0, which together gave the propagation velocity c = 1/√μ0·ε0 for electromagnetic waves in vacuum. These constants are independent of any velocity, so they have the same value in each Reference Frame - they are invariant. Maxwell realized that this c is the speed of light measured by Ole Rømer. So that meant that light had to be an electromagnetic wave.
The fact that there exist some invariant quantities in our universe means, that the Lorentz transformation between two Inertial Reference Frames must be the correct transformation, because it contains such an invariant constant. Other transformations like the Galilei Transformation contain no invariant values like c or k. Because we find by experiment (Maxwell) an invariant velocity c for light means, that this c must be the invariant c from k = 1/c2 of the Lorentz transformation. This c must therefore be the highest possible speed for all physical effects, since speeds v > c lead to imaginary results. From the Lorentz transformation it can be deduced, via the relativistic energy derived from the Lorentz Transformation, that all massless particles have to travel at this speed. It is also the speed with which causal relationships propagate, since all physical effects can propagate only with a maximum of c in a vacuum.
From the Lorentz transformation follow predictions such as time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, E = m·c2, etc. All these predictions have been found in innumerable experiments and applications (eg. GPS, particle accelerator, PET scanner) proven to be real. The speed limit c is not only the limit for the speed of light, but a general limit for the propagation of any cause. Any propagation of a cause greater than c would result in insolvable time paradoxes.
Why there is an invariant top speed c in our universe, and not an infinite one, remains an open question. Gao's "guess" is that the maximum invariant velocity could be related to the quantization of space-time at the so-called plank scale. See Relativity without light: A further suggestion; paper by Shan Gao
The only certainty is that at an infinite high speed of light there would be no electromagnetism in the form known to us, and consequently no atoms. And so we would not exist.
General Relativity is an extension of Special Relativity to accelerated frames of reference. It's not made up. It follows logically from Special Relativity although it's math is much more complicated. It makes spectacular predictions such as gravitational lensing, black holes, gravitational waves, and more. Each of these predictions are now confirmed by observations. Not only in prinziple, but also quantitatively.
Relativity is a thing that we understand very well. Only in very special cases it seems to break down and needs some extension. But like Newtons theory of gravity is right for small speeds and low gravity and is usefull in most practical applications like orbital mechanics, General Relativity is and remains right in the realms of high speeds and strong gravity. Some problems arise on engery densities we can never reach in a lab. We have to use the whole universe as a lab and find evidence for some predictions of proposed extensions to GR to falsify the wrong ones.
Some comments to your contribution:
My take is that we have not found gravitional wave. End of story.
Not so fast! This is not the End of story, it's the begin of a whole new era of observations and discoveries.
it is not only light that is the limiting speed of the Universe but all electromagnetic radiation. This makes the statement far more mundane, instead of speaking of light as the limiting speed of the Universe, imagine saying ‘Radiowaves are the limiting speed of the Universe’ or that ‘ x-rays are the limiting speed of the Universe’ or even gamma rays.
Light IS electromagnetic radiation with a specific range of wavelength, like x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves. All the same! So of course, if c is the limiting speed for EM radiation, it is also the limiting speed of light. This guy needs to take at least some basic physic courses. He does not know what light is but thinks he is smart enough to replace the Theory of Relativity with his own ähhh, you name it.
Einstein seemed to imply that the speed of light varied in accord with an observers point of view.
Wrong, the contrary is the case. Einstein recognized that the speed of light is invariant and constant, the same for every observer, no matter how it moves. Doe's this guy even read the first paragraph of Einsteins Theory?
More examples could be given but here it is clear that according to Einstein space and time are fixed at all but vary in both time and dimensions from observer to observer.
Wrong, Relativity excludes that there is a fixed space and time. Space and time are relative. In General Relativity space and time are even warped.
If you will come up with a new theory to replace General Relativity, it must explain all past and current observations without contradictions. This theory will have the same properties as GR like warped space time, time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, E = m*c^2, Antimatter etc. because that's what we observe in reality. To be accepted as a new theory, your new theory must produce the same results as GR but in a simpler form, because we know from experiments and observations that GR describes reality accurate in all aspects we are able to measure until now.
Obviously going merely from observation and empirical result, there can be little doubt that Tesla’s aether theory wins hands down
Nope. The aether theory is wrong. In the Lorentz transformation there is no term of an aether. We can describe all observations without the need of an aether. So why introduce something we don't need? Occams razor: from two competing theories choose the one whith the least assumptions, in this case a theory that does not need the aether (the aether theory is not even a competing theory to Relativity).
leaving the door wide open for the fantastical plastic theories of Einstein and the even more bizarre if possible theories of quantum mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics is the most precise theory we ever developped. There are many fields and applications which where nonexistent without the knowledge from Quantum Mechanics: material science, supraconductors, LASERs, particle accelerations with their application in medicine, many electronic devices, etc.
Why does Tesla’s aether theory win hands down? It wins hands down because that is exactly the manner in which all waves be they water, sound or waves through solids propagate through a medium. Light and electromagnetic radiation also exhibits the same exact properties.
Simply WRONG. The whole theory of Relativity arose from the fact, that light does not behave like matter waves. Light is his own medium: magnetic fields carry electric fields and vice versa, hence the term *electromagnetic fields.* You do not understand Maxwells Theory and Relativity.