MIc-Gale, E-W signal delay,GPS timing

Michelson-Gale 1925

The Mic-GaleX used a large scale version of the Sagnac apparatus to attempt detection of the Earth’s rotational speed , which would decrease with latitude(below, left)   

Counter-rotating half beams were sent around a 1.2 mile perimeter in an Illinois field(above, right) .  There should be a phase difference arising from the difference in rotation speed between the north and south leg, where v1 > v2.  
The result indicated a difference corresponding to a 24 hour eastward rotation, which Mic-Gale interpreted as the Earth’s rotation, ignoring the possible rotation of aether rotating westward around an Earth at rest.

Result:     SoL =  c + v(24 hr rotation) =  c + r(omega)

The Sagnac result eliminated an Earth rotation, so this experiment supported the aether wind’s rotation that the Foucault Pendulum also detected.
Conclusion: The Earth has a free-moving autonomous aetherosphere that rotates westward at every latitude in 24 hours.

E-W radio signal delay

 
Radio signals sent west from New York to San Francisco arrive sooner than signals in the opposite direction, because the aether wind boosts westbound signals and delays eastbound ones(above).   The conclusion is reinforced by sending signals back and forth between NY and SF via the North Pole…. There’s no difference in transit time, because the signals move at right angles to the aether flow.

GPS timing error
GPS signals having a component in the E-W direction are affected by the aether wind now being studied.
The error compensation in the GPS calculations correlates with the 24 hr aether wind. It is called the Sagnac correction, which is technically a misnomer.  The SagnacX change in SoL was generated by mass motion dragging the aether around it.  The aether wind affecting the GPS signaling is a natural free-flowing aether current, like the air current known as the jet stream.

In the diagram above, the Mic-GaleX is shown on the surface, while the GPS satellite communication signals pass through the space above the ground. The same result for aether flow is found. (The Earth’s spin East should be replaced by aether wind West in the diagram.)
Here the aether is self-propelled, independently circulating around the Earth without any mass motion drag. 

Conclusion:  there are four tests (at least) which show the Earth is surrounded by a non-entrained independent aether wind, blowing everywhere westward in 24 hours .

Michelson-Morley - MMX

M&MX - 1886

Both a daily and annual periodic change in aether direction is forecast, based on the HC model.  The  annual change is due to the orbital speed of the Earth and is 30 times greater than the equatorial spin.  

 
The aberration boat model can be conceptually transferred to comparing the motion of a photon up/down an aether stream with motion cross-stream. In the diagram above a beam split into 2 half beams at a right angle and then compared for a phase difference when combined on the interferometer screen.  See below for a typical fringe pattern.

 The result was equivalent to a speed of ~ 5 kms, about 15% of the expected orbital speed of 30 km/s.
The disappointment was reflected in the summarizing term – a ‘null’ result. 

Box plots from the Michelson–Morley experiment

The experimental error analysis of 5 runs shows that the M&MX SoL average was always greater than c, and only one set of error ranges overlapped the value of c.

Although this result is consistent with an Earth and an aether approximately at rest, this option was not listed among the four options for interpretation given in Michelson’s conclusion.

The search for the aether effectively ended with Einstein’s paper on SR in 1905. Albert E said no aether was needed, while Albert M ignored the Earth and aether at rest!

Note: this experiment is small-scale and low precision; the use of transverse flow means the accuracy is of
      second order  ~ (v/ c)²  

Conclusion: …. the Earth is at rest and the surface aether speed is zero.  

Sagnac test - the key exp.

Sagnac  1913

In the SagnacX an interferometer that detects the overlapping pattern of 2 counter-rotating light beams resulted in a measured Speed of Light (SoL) that was the usual light speed c plus or minus the rim speed of the spinning platform, v. 
 
The light beam was split into CW and CCW paths that combined again at the interferometer detector for fringe measurement; the entire apparatus was mounted on a turntable.
Sagnac found that the SoL was c when the speed of the rotor in the lab frame was zero.

But when the rotor’s edge speed was v, the SoL was c +/- v.
 

When the platform is at rest - left diagram - the CW w1 and CCW w2 beam travel the same distance in the same time. But when the platform spins CW - right diagram - the co-rotating w1 beam travels a greater distance than the counter-rotating w2 beam, in the same time.  If the photons were replaced with human runners, the result would be the same - the CCW runner would win the race.

In SR the SoL for either beam is said  to be c in either the lab or rotor frame, whether the rotor spins or not.  
In the rotor frame , the light beam should  see no rotation, because of co-rotation of the whole optical bench… source, mirrors and film are on the turntable. The measurements are being made in the rest frame of the apparatus which is only rotating in the lab frame. Relativity says the SoL should be c, ......

but Sagnac measures     SoL = c +/-  v…..

 The SoL  is anisotropic -  it is not c in the rotating frame!
                                         

The Sagnac model was like coffee stirred by a spoon in the center... the motion spreads out inside the cup.
He considered that the turntable rotation dragged or entrained the aether in the space around it, at the same speed (full dragging) as the rotor, v.  The SoL change was due to the motion of the aether in the path of the light beam, either boosting it (+ v) for counter-rotation or reducing it (- v) for co-rotation.

He then concluded that the SoL was independent of the source speed, and that an entrained aether was detected, explaining the unexpected results.... unexpected, that is, to relativists.

Incredible as it may sound, although the SagX had found that counter-rotating light beams travel at c +/- v, relativists actually delude themselves that the Sagnac change in SoL is consistent with SR! Their idol - Einstein himself - chose to ignore the results that contradicted his 1905 paper – even 40 years later he had no adequate response. Einstein was quite aware of Sagnac’s work, but chose to ignore the refutation and hope the Sagnac result would be forgotten. But for its use in optical navigation and GPS, it would be.
                                                       
Summary - Sagnac analysis of light speed:
Note: SagnacX  is  first order  in  v/c.

The Sagnac result in transparent dielectric having index of refraction n is
                                            
SoL = c/n  +/-   v/n²
   
We simplify the analysis by considering only the fast co-rotating beam, the plus sign, and suppress the factors involving n. (The full expression can be restored at the end.)
So SoL is reduced to Sol = c + v.

                          RESULTS
Frame:             LAB     ROTOR
SoL =                c + v       c + v   (for the co-rotating beam)

Note: the lab frame measurement of c + v was not recorded by Sagnac
but reported by Dufour & Prunier in 1938.

Conclusion: light speed is independent of both source and detector speed and
the aether was being dragged along at the speed of the rotor.

Foucault Pendulum aetherosphere

Foucault Pendulum 1851

The plane of oscillation of a pendulum, like a gyroscope, tends to stay constant regardless of the motion of the pivot. A pendulum free to swing in two dimensions from a long cord ( as in the dome of the Pantheon in Paris, above…67 meters (220 ft) … will  precess or rotate 360° clockwise. The period T depends on latitude: 24 hrs at the poles and no rotation at the equator.

This phenomenon is claimed – illogically, to demonstrate the Earth’s rotation.  For example, how does the Earth’s rotation affect the FP plane, when the FP is only attached to the Earth by a string?  In other words, how does the FP bob know the Earth is there, rotating beneath it, without any material cause to explain the effect? 

      

The results of the Michelson-Gale exp. can be read as supporting an aether wrapped around the Earth like the atmosphere – the aetherosphere – if the aether is rotating westward at every latitude every 24 hours.  The aether’s speed can be modeled as dependent of the distance r from the surface to the polar axis ( see above)

                                                                      V(r) = kr/T

Consider applying this aether speed to the extreme ends of the FP swing:
At the equator the FP plane will not rotate if placed N-S….. both ends have the same speed.

At the poles  the ends will have opposite sense of rotation and will display the actual 24 aether period.

At mid-latitudes the south endpoint will have slightly more speed than the north endpoint , so the FP will feel a CW torque, as observed to occur.

A prediction:

If the FP swings E-W on the equator( blue , above)  the westward aether flow will boost the speed by v = kr/T and slow the eastward swing by –v .  Electronic timing of the swings should detect this effect of the aether’s circulation.

The mainstream physics model of a rotating Earth would not have this effect.

The FP rotation is not rationally explained by a rotating Earth, but by a rotating aether around a static earth. 

 Conclusion:  The Foucault Pendulum cannot show the Earth’s rotation without a physical cause/medium connecting the ground to the pendulum.
The rotating aetherosphere found by Michelson-Gale provides a logical cause, and matches all the details observed.

Galaev altitude test

Galaev   2002

Key aether tests of velocity and viscosity using millimeter radio waves were performed by the gas phase method.  These tests demonstrate aether exists, is dynamic, has viscosity, a cosmic source, and depends on latitude and altitude.  His tests show no evidence of Earth’s orbital motion. 

Virtually all these results conflict with Special Relativity and General Relativity theory.  No MS response to this recent disproof has been published yet.

Ref:  http://narod.yandex.ru/100.xhtml?www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip  P.17

The determination of variation of aether velocity and viscosity with height used the setup above.  Radio waves were sent from B to A directly and also reflected off the ground at C, D and E.  Direct and reflected patterns were compared with a radio interferometer. .

With this data and that of Dayton Miller with light waves above , he found that the aether speed was approximately zero on the surface and increased with the square root of the height above the ground (see below),

Vaether  = k h^1/2

Galaev  reports a sidereal  variation of the aether that several other experiments have also found, including the CMB dipole statistic.  

Conclusion:   This recent test is the first measurement of aethereal viscosity, which must exist to slow down entrained aether motion.

The dependence of aether speed on height supports the Michelson-Gale result, but raises new questions about the aethereal properties.

Fizeau test of drag

Fresnel 1818-30,  Fizeau 1851
Fresnel  proposed that matter moving at v would drag aether along but reduced by the drag factor
(1-1/n²) .   The Speed of Light (SoL) for this case is 

Fresnel’s Law:                         SoL =  c/n  + v(1-1/n²).

Fizeau tested and confirmed the Fresnel conjecture by splitting a beam and sending the half beams through water moving in opposite directions with speeds v and –v (above). The half beams were recombined and compared in an interferometer. Fresnel’s law showed aether is dragged with water/ matter at a greatly reduced speed .

Note that if a vacuum is used , where n ==  1.0000, no dragging will occur; SoL will be c.  It is hopeless to test for c anisotropy with a vacuum, as there is no mass for the aether to interact with. Yet such vacuum exps. are cited by MS scientists as proof of SR’s second axiom….
And the non-existence of aether.

Also, note that the aether motion is measured within the dragging medium, not outside it, as in the Sagnac test, which shows no reduction in v.
Another important note – for future reference in the Sagnac test -  is the unstated reference frame for Fizeau’s  experiment …… the lab frame!

Conclusion:   SoL is composed of 2 terms, one which depends only on the refractive index n, and the other is dependent  on both n and v.

Aberration - aether motion

Stellar  Aberration    Bradley  1727   

Aberration isn’t  parallax; it’s true of all stars  and dependent on latitude.

The MS version uses  the HC model above (top) to explain the annual variation in aberration.

It follows Bradley’s formula  for the aberration angle alpha – above (bottom).

Alpha   ~=   v/c * sin(lat)    

Here lat is the latitude angle and v is the speed of the Earth with respect to the Sun.. 30 km/s.  

The expected view  angle in (a) (computed assuming the Earth rotates)  is corrected by tilting the telescope by alpha.  MS attributes this to the motion of the earth eastward (v in (b)) while the light traverses the telescope at speed c.

There is an obvious –and ignored – conflict here with relativity, for which motion is independent of reference frame, and the required use of the HC system to measure v.  

In any other reference system the Bradley formula is invalid, so the HC system MUST be used, an absolute condition contrary to SR.  

There’s the logical issue, too, of how the starlight knows to use the Sun at rest, out of all the possible reference systems for aberration…. So anyone who accepts the Bradley derivation must rationally reject  relativity.

The Airy test provided physical evidence that refuted Bradley’s theory of aberration due to Earth’s motion.

Go to :
http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Airy%27s%20%27failure%27

Airy's 'failure'

Airy’s test   1871

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added.  This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

Bradley analysis – dashed lines above  :  The middle telescope is tilted to see the aberrated starlight.  When light moves through the telescope from A to D the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D .  This determines the aberration angle of tilt ,  arc tan( BD/AD).

Airy analysis – solid lines above:   With water added (left telescope), the light travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c. 

So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ).   Nice theory, but fails to predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE in the tilting required!  

The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the ‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of air.

Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model,  where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.  

GC ALFA analysis :  There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is motionless.  The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B, but there’s no sideways motion.  So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!

Conclusion:  The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope.   

..... What causes this bending of the stellar light path? 

See  http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Aether%20motion%20test

Parallax examined

 Geometrical Parallax  1838    a logical fallacy  …..

The definition of parallax is : the position shift of 2 objects relative to a third object, assumed fixed. 

The MS version of an HC system is shown at top, where E is the Earth, N a near star and F a far star.  The Sun and stars are considered fixed and the reference is the S-N-F line of sight.

The exact same geometry and angle of parallax is found in the GC model at bottom, using the same S-N-F reference line.    

So the HC and GC systems predict the same results….

How then is this equivalence twisted to require the HC view?

The parallax definition needs to have one object fixed … the HC version fixes the Sun and the 2 stars, and then claims this proves the Earth moves….

The Earth is the only object that CAN MOVE with this HC assumption!   If the Earth didn’t move in this version, then NOTHING would move in the heavens …. 

This is a classic fallacy of circular reasoning , a mainstream favorite.

Another MS version uses Ptolemy’s model for GC, which was reject by Tycho Brahe four centuries ago.   Using the Ptolemaic instead of the neo-Tychonian model is a strawman or red herring fallacy, attributing to modern geocentric believers what was refuted long ago.

The neoTychonian model has the stars orbiting the Sun in elliptic paths, which explains the parallax as due to the varying speeds of the stars as seen from cosmic distances.

Conclusion: The argument against GC using parallax is false logic – the fallacy of circular reasoning.

The neo-Tychonian model – having elliptic solar and stellar orbits around Earth – accounts for observed parallax between near and remote stars.

ALFA model

ALFA model -  discovery of an Absolute Lab frame and a Flexible Aether mediumLet’s see if we can establish a common ground of understanding by analyzing a landmark experiment that is almost a century old, a crucial part of modern navigational technology, but without anything like common agreement in theory  .. the Sagnac eXperiment.(SagnacX). From this analysis will arise a conceptual model, proven by natural testing, that rejects relativity and points to a familiar absolute frame for measuring motion and a universal background as the arena in which all events occur - the EM aether.
An important predecessor to Sagnac was the Fitzeau experiment, which tested the Fresnel theory of aether drag in water flow.
In 1851 Fizeau found that Fresnel’s dragging factor applied to moving water.  The speed of light, SoL, is changed by the moving medium’s speed and refractive index…
  SoL = c/n + v(1-1/n²)  

For details, see  Fizeau test of drag
 http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Fizeau%20test%20of%20drag

Performed just 8 years after Einstein disposed of the need for aether in the 1905 paper on special relativity, the SagnacX was intended to show that aether existed, and Sagnac thought he had done just that.  He had, indeed, and much more that he didn’t realize then.
Three years from now will mark a century since Sagnac performed this critical test of relativity. Despite its key practical use in modern navigation, its theoretical basis is still far from established.  

see  Sagnac test :    http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Sagnac%20test%20the%20key%20exp.

The ALFA  model: 
Two metaphysical premises are based on the Fresnel test results:
1) Light speed in aether is always c  (c/n in transparent dielectric) , so
Vph,ae =c             where  ph represents a photon . ae  is aether
This is a key definition of aether’s properties.
2) Galilean velocity addition is valid. 
The speed of a photon is its speed in aether plus the aether's speed in any reference frame x.  
SoL = Vphoton,aether + Vaether,reference system   simplifies to
SoLx = Vph,ae   +  Vae,x    = c  +  Vae,x     where  x = the frame name

Predictions of SR, Ritz and aether models vs. Sagnac results    For all models, the measured rim speed of the rotor is v, so
3)  Vrot,lab = v

SoL for NO aether:
Special Relativity:    Axiom 1  is    Vx,y  =  -Vy,x  and  axiom2  is  Vph,x = c  
Predicts SoL in lab and on rotor   = c      ….. X  X  
.....both disagree with the Sagnac results
 This implies there must be a preferred frame in which
 Vx,y <> -Vy,x  !! 

Ritz ballistic:       predicts  the source’s speed adds to the photon speed
 Prediction: SoL on rotor = c         X     ..disagrees with Sagnac result

SoL for aether theories:
For all aether models :    SoLx = Vph,ae + Vae,x    and    Vph,ae =c
Static/fixed aether :  Vae,lab = 0   and  Vae,rot = 0
 Prediction:
SoL in lab    = Vph,ae + Vae,lab  = c + 0     X     both disagree with
 SoL on rotor = Vph,ae + Vae,rot  = c + 0   X     the Sagnac results

Dynamic Aether:   with full dragging,    Vae,lab = v and  Vae,rot = 0  
 Vx,y = -Vy,x  …. Assume Poincare’ relativity is valid 

Prediction:
 SoL in lab     = Vph,ae + Vae,lab  = c + v       This agrees with Sagnac
4) SoL on rotor = Vph,ae + Vae,rot  = c + 0       ??    
 To agree with Sagnac , Vae,rot must equal v, not 0…   
Then aether speed will equal v in both lab and rotor frame ??
How can that be ?   
BUT ….let’s recall that special relativity was refuted, so
Vx,y does NOT NECESSARILY equal -Vy,x in an absolute frame!

So we now examine the effects of replacing relativity with absolutivity.
 From premise 2, velocity analysis,  
5)  Vae,rot= Vae,lab + Vlab,rot 

The graphical version of the vector analysis is shown above…
Now substitute 5) into 4) and use  Vae,lab = v:
4) SoL on rotor = Vph,ae + (Vae,lab + Vlab,rot)  must equal c + v 
(the Sagnac result)
So  SoL on rotor = c  +  v   + Vlab,rot  must equal c + v 
Therefore,    Vlab,rot  must equal zero (0) !
In the rotating frame the lab must be at rest. !

If relativity were true, Vlab,rot would equal –v = -Vrot,lab…..
Since the rotor speed can be any v, we conclude that :
The lab is always at rest with respect to any rotating system, x,
which contains mass to entrain aether.
This now restricts the x frame to any rotating mass in the lab system.

ABSOLUTE REST THEOREM:
Vlab,x = 0   where x is any rotating frame on Earth.
The Earth is the absolute rotating frame sought by Newton in the water bucket exp. and rejected by Einstein.
Now, using 2),     SoLx = c + Vae,lab + Vlab,x
Using the absolute rest theorem,   SoLx = c + Vae,lab + 0, yielding

ABSOLUTE FRAME THEOREM:
Vx,y = Vx,lab   using the absolute rest theorem.

The speed of light in any frame x:
SoLx = c + Vae,lab   using the absolute frame theorem.
The SoL in any frame  is c plus aether's speed in the lab/ECEF frame.

To review:
We started by taking –

1.      SoLx = Vph,ae + Vae,x   vector analysis

2.      Vph,ae = c                        definition of aether

3.      Vae,lab = v                       full rotor drag of aether

And the Sagnac result that
SoL = c  +  v    for both lab and rotor
led to the conclusion that

A.    Vlab,x = 0    

B.     Vx,y = Vx,lab   

C.     SoLx = c + Vae,lab  

This exhibits sufficiency, that {1,2,3} => {A,B,C}  
The premises imply the conclusion

To show necessity in addition, the implication must be reversed,
so that  {A,B,C} => {1,2,3}
We assume {A,B,C} is true and try to prove that {1,2,3} must be true.

We start with C:  SoLx = c + Vae,lab 
By the Sagnac result
 SoLx = c + v = c + Vae,lab
So
Vae,lab  = v   which is proof of #3.

Take Vph,ae = Vph,lab + Vlab,ae
= SoLlab – Vae,lab
Vph,ae = c + v – v  = c  using the Sagnac results.
This is proof of #2.

If the Sagnac results are true, then the ALFA model is true.
If the ALFA model is true then the Sagnac results are true.
Logically the two are equivalent, each being necessary and sufficient to explain the other.

Conclusion: Only the Absolute Lab(ECEF) frame with Flexible Aether model agrees with the
Sagnac results ….
(and with similar experiment types – Fresnel drag, M&MX, Wang FOC, Dufour&Prunier.)

For example, for the M&MX:  Note: MMX is second order  in (v/c)² ;Sagnac is first order  in (v/c).
from the frame theorem :      SoLlab = c + Vae,lab   
from measured ‘null’ result of M&MX :
SoLlab = c  + ~0 implies  Vae,lab   = 0       
The aether speed is approximately zero at the Earth’s surface, so both the Earth and the surface aether speed are zero (within the M&MX precision limits).
 
For M&MX details, see   http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Michelson-Morley%20-%20MMX

for the Michelson-Gale large-scale experiment:
from the frame theorem:                    SoLlab = c + Vae,lab
from Mic-Gale measured result:       SoLlab = c + v
implies     Vae,lab = v                  v = aether flow near the ground  
For Mic-Gale details, see   http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/MIc-Gale

The final version of the ALFA model is :
SoL  in aether axiom:  Vph,ae = c   Light speed in aether is always c 
Vector speed addition axiom:  SoL-x = Vphoton,aether + Vaether,lab     Absolute Rest theorem:   Vlab,x = 0  The lab/Earth is universally at rest
Absolute Frame theorem:    SoLx = c + Vae,lab 
So whatever entrainment frame x is used,
light speed only depends on aether speed in the lab frame

Summary of discoveriesDoes the aether exist?   Yes
Is the aether rigid/static or flexible/dynamic ?  flexible/dynamic
Is the measured speed of light an absolute constant?  No
Is special relativity refuted by experiments?  Yes
Is there a preferred reference frame?  There must be, since relativity is invalid.
Is the aether the preferred reference frame?  No – the aether is flexible, not fixed.
What is the absolute reference frame for motion measurement? The lab/ECEF frame.
Fresnel found that aether INSIDE matter is barely dragged by matter: Vae = v(1-1/n²)
Sagnac  found that aether OUTSIDE matter is almost fully dragged by matter: Vae = v/n²

Quick review
Sagnac -  The SoL is:
• c + v for the co-rotating beam, in both lab and rotor frame.
• independent of source and detector motion,
      BUT DEPENDENT ON AETHER motion.
1) By definition of aether, the SoL is Vph,ae = c in the aether frame
(c/n in a transparent dielectric)
2) SoL = Vph,x = Vph,ae + Vae,x = c + Vae,x   ...  simple vector addition 
3) Vlab,x =0
4) SoL = Vph,x = Vph,ae + Vae,x = c + Vae,lab + Vlab,x = c + Vae,lab
5)The dynamic aether model predicts the entrained aether will have the
same speed as the rotor, as tested.
6) SoL does not equal c when aether is moving in the lab frame. 
7) Vae,rot <> 0 from the Sagnac result, proving the rotor is not the preferred frame.
8) Vae,lab  = v, same as the Sagnac result, proving the lab is the preferred reference frame.
--------
In this ALFA Challenge we solicit any responses that support or refute this SagnacX analysis, which concludes with the existence of a flexible/dynamic aether
and the identification of an absolute lab/ECEF coordinate system for measuring motion.

Please stick to objective evidence using the scientific method and logic,
as described in the Rules section.
Citing experimental proofs of relativity are futile, because logically inconsistent theories - like relativity -
can be used to prove anything is true. See the Googol axiom section. 

MS claim:  Relativity predicts the correct results of all experiments.
Response: True.  Also predicts different  results for them.
For example:  
There is an aether and there is not.
The traveling twins contradiction:  A is older than B; B is older than A.

Once free of contradictions and restored to logical consistency the type of applied relativity must be stated. Like ice cream and quarks, relativity comes in several flavors.
See Relativity app survey.

To disprove the ALFA model:
Do not raise issues that are ad hominem or irrelevant - focus on ALFA.
Do not use the Ptolemaic model as strawman; the neo-Tychonian universal model is our Best Current Thinking.
Do not ask for an explanation of  every relativity variant possible –
the subject is ALFA, not SR.

If you want to know why relativity predicts every test,
- read Popper’s coverage of inconsistency - see the Googol axiom post.
- consider the conflicting beliefs under the umbrella name of relativity.

What you should do to test ALFA:
Apply the scientific method using testability and consistency.
Examine ALFA for contradictions in its premises, logic or conclusion.
or with experiments.
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
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 linear version of Sagnac, see the Wang FOC exp.
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/GED_2005_MarApr_Wang.pdf
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

Relativity Survey

The theory of relativity is many theories of relativities -
   when applied to testing nature.
The following statements can be and are - answered either Yes or No by relativity promoters. Just from this sample there are over 64 million(64,000,000) possible relativity theories, whose contradictions are ignored because "relativities give the right answer to experiments".
Yes, they do - inconsistent logical systems can prove anything is true! The value of these different positions to relativities theorists is that a set of yes/no answers can be selected to match any empirical test.  
A win-win situation. 

Relativists - answer these statements - take a stand!
1. All motion is relative and light motion is absolute
2. The traveling twins prediction is that each one is younger - or  older - than the other.
3. There is no aether.
4. SR applies to rotation.
5. SR applies to acceleration.
6. The cosmological constant must be added to the GR field equations.
7. An inertial reference frame is a system of space and time coordinates in constant motion in a straight line
8. No inertial reference frames exist in nature.
9. An inertial reference frame is a system in which the laws of physics hold true.
10. For any material body in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame in which that body is instantaneously at rest.
11. Length contraction and time dilation are real physical effects,
not apparent or just appearances. 
12. Length contraction and time dilation are testable.  
13. The twin paradox is a contradiction.
14. The twin paradox is explained by asymmetry -
the acceleration of one twin and not the other. 
15. Light speed measurement = distance traveled by a light beam divided by the time to travel that distance.
16. Changing inertial frames is the same as an acceleration.
17. All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics.
18. No experiment can distinguish the acceleration due to gravity from the inertial acceleration due to a change of velocity.
19. Relativity does not apply to the Sagnac experiment.
20. The Sagnac experiment supports special relativity only.
21. The Sagnac experiment supports general relativity only.
22. The Sagnac experiment supports both special and general relativity.
23. Clocks separated in space cannot be synchronized.
24. Mach's principle agrees with SR.
25. Mach's principle agrees with GR.
26. SR is proven by the mass and energy transformations observed in atomic accelerators.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
when Albert Einstein we still believe.

ALFA Consequences

Contemplation of ALFA Consequences :

1. ALFA model's conflict with relativity implies all SR conclusions must be revisited and re-examined
2. The Big Bang model fizzles - a cosmos centered on Earth must now be contemplated and explained. 
3. The Cosmological/Copernican Principle of cosmic large scale uniformity is found to be unprincipled!
4. CMB anomalies are explained as authentic geocentric structures and motions, not ancient relics of radiation imprinted in the early stages of the bogus Big Bang model. 
5. Evolution faces enormous new hurdles: our special role in the universe, the appearaance of natural evidnce of the supernatural, etc.
6. Quantum mechanics may find aether causes for its enigmas... Entanglement, Bell’s theorem, etc.
7. Newton’s 3 laws of mechanics must be modified to include the interaction of matter and aether.
8. Kinetic energy is now anchored, since speed now has an absolute meaning (motion on Earth)
9. All physical laws that involve motion must use the lab frame: for example, the Lorentz EM force and Centripetal and Coriolis inertial forces.  
10. The Pioneer and fly-by anomalies hint at two types of aether. – electromagnetic(EM) and gravito-inertial(GI).
11. Hot current topics in applied mathematics are now dead; Lorentz transforms and inertial frames and Riemannian geometry - along with many others - are of no physical importance.
12. Mach’s principle is disproven – rotation is not relative.