How much has everyone read of this?
I’m about 50% throught the whitepaper.
So far, it has all the hallmarks of pseudo-science: it’s by “outsiders”; invents a completely new terminology using impressive-sounding phrases (even a bit of church-Latin – “Ligamen circulatus”); appeals to recognizable authorities, such as Einstein, with the qualification that what most people believe those authorities said is not what they really intended; and, most suspicious, teases that the information it provides is incomplete, but is all contained in “the book”, which must be purchased.
I’m making every effort to set aside my suspicions, and suppress my annoyance at the authors’ weird and inconsistent use of English syntax, enough to finish reading the paper (which, I hope, eventually “gets to the point”), and, hopefully, be able to translate it into conventional English science writing.
Already, I’ve broken my promise to myself -
For starters, I’d like to read “How ANFFP/the APM explains the http://en.wikipedia....ley_experiment'>Michelson-Morley experiment results”. If it can’t explain that (other than by denying the validity of the experimental data, a common position with ether theories supporters), I’d give it no further attention.
The authors reject the accepted MM experimental data early in the white paper.
There may be some worthwhile ideas in APM, but what I’ve read so far is not encouraging.