RE: Cosmology video - LLTs

[Stephan Gift]

Hi Bob,

I do not know if Nick answered you privately but the Wikipedia entry on the Lorentz ether theory contains a good account. It can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

 

Regards

Stephan

 

 

From: rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>
Sent: Friday, 27 June 2025 3:38 pm
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Cc: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cosmology video - LLTs

 

Hi Nick, Everyone,

Can you provide a good, thorough, maybe intro level, reference that someone not specialized in LLT (but has had SR in physics courses) could study to get up to speed on what you (and others) are saying about LLT?  Not LT in SR, but the Lorentz theory and LT in that theory and its usage.

I see a lot of "you don't understand" comments and "let me know when you have studied and understood Lorentz theory" type comments, but not where to go to study it.

My guess is that it is all in the historical physics literature, but I would hope there is a modern thorough text/paper that would present it.  And I'm not sure I could find the original papers.  

Cheers,

Bob Gray

 

---

 

 

On 2025-06-27 14:38, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL wrote:

 

Stephan 

       I'll be brief. Previously, I had asked:

 "Do you still contend that the LLTs are incorrect because "they predict light speed invariance"?

Your replies clearly indicate that you still explicitly maintain that fundamental misconception about Lorentz Theory & its LLTs. In your latest response, you write, "you don't get to introduce properties into the model by mere assertion" which reinforces your fundamental lack of knowledge about Lorentz Theory and its LLTs. Hence, for this topic, let me know when you have studied and understood Lorentz theory. 

                                  Thanks,

                                                Nick   

 

 

On Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 04:04:35 PM EDT, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Stephan

        Several of my key points in my email to you which you respond below requires that you understand the physics meaning of Lorentz's original Lorentz Transformations (LLTs). However, regarding that topic you have written to me several times that those LLTs are incorrect because,  "LR is based on the Lorentz transformations which cannot be correct as they predict light speed invariance." Do you still contend that the LLTs are incorrect because "they predict light speed invariance"?

                                       Thanks

                                                      Nick

 

On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 10:25:44 PM EDT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:

 

 

Nick,

Thank you for your comments. My responses are in blue.

Stephan

 

Stephan

      Since 1905, all mainstream academic physics' version(s) of SR have been incorrect and the original founding purpose of the NPA/CNPS by John Chappell was to correct this error. The purpose of the NPA/CNPS has expanded quite naturally as mainstream academic physics assertion that SR is one of the key foundational building blocks of their physics model is valid and the foundational error in SR has rippled through what was built on top of that erroneous foundation (e.g., Big Bang Theory, key aspects of GR). You and Prof Selleri are to be congratulated for being two of the few mainstream physics professors to see and articulate a fundamental error in SR. 

 

    Basically, Einstein took all of the math equations of Lorentz and changed from having absolute v with respect to a single, physical entity (e.g., the ether) to having relative v with respect to an infinite # of inertial frames. To say the least, this was a MAJOR step backwards to understanding the true physics. To correct the disastrous confusion of this misstep in transitioning from Lorentz Theory to SR, we need to clearly articulate and make known this misstep. Unfortunately, the teaching of SR has created a tremendous amount of confusion within physics academia, including its students and this is a great obstacle to making progress on this foundational problem. Hence, the best way to solve this problem in physics is to avoid adding a great deal more confusion! 

 

While I appreciate your and Selleri's efforts to correct an error in SR, your partial fix has the inherent problem of adding to the existing confusion rather than correcting the confusion SR created.  

 

My effort has not been to correct an error in SR, but rather to find the correct transformations that connect one (preferred) inertial frame to another inertial frame. I do not consider that the Selleri transformations (STs) represent a "partial fix" nor do I believe that they add to the confusion created by SR.

 

The correction is simple. Lorentz got the right clock retardation equation by using standard physics (e.g., absolute v with respect to a single, physical entity) whereas Einstein changed the meaning of Lorentz math by recasting it in an abstract math and non-physics model. So Lorentz was correct about clock retardation (not time dilation) being a function of absolute v per his clock retardation equation and GPS has confirmed Lorentzian (atomic) clock retardation to very high precision!

 

As most of us know, physics academia has used multiple, erroneous physics interpretations of SR to try and get around the physics problems caused by Einstein's abstract math transition from Lorentz's physics model. 

 

One of the many problems with introducing the Selleri Transformations (STs) is that the STs have gone through a series of changes that add a great deal of confusion and have never freed themselves from relativistic thinking. For example, Selleri introduced the STs (then called the ITs), in a book called "Weak Relativity" where the name is quite candid and insightful. Whereas the problem to fixing SR is quite simple (i.e., avoid going from physics to purely abstract math), Selleri tried an abstract math fix to one SR problem he correctly saw. Selleri, a true critical thinker, saw that the construct of "relative simultaneity" insured sucking all true physics

meaning out of SR. Unfortunately, Selleri's fix was to give an artificial, abstract math fix whereby one would arbitrarily select one frame's definition of simultaneity as the definition that must be used by all frames.

 

I have been conducting research on the STs for many years and do not perceive them in the way that you do. While there may have been changes in the theory and its development over the years, today, the STs simply represent the transformations that connect one (preferred) inertial frame to another inertial frame. Nothing artificial is involved since the equations are derived using two experimental facts rather than two postulates as in SR. This approach actually follows the scientific method of making observations (two experimental facts), codifying them (derivation of the STs) and testing the predictions of the model (my exhaustive testing of the STs).

 

Over time, Selleri evolved his STs to address more than just relative simultaneity. However, both his versions and the specific versions that you endorse, still contain a great deal of SR's problems. Even granting that, given enough time, you might figure out a correct version, it would only be 100% correct and 100% relativity free, if you end up with Lorentz's clock retardation physics equation and removed some of your and selleri's erroneous, relativistic assumptions. Even assuming such fundamental improvements, your approach to trying to straighten out a very confusing SR physics mess would still be adding a great deal of unnecessary confusion and skipping over a simple solution and that's inherently counterproductive and would also plagiarizing Lorentz and cheating him out of his due credit. 

 

Based on my very extensive work with the STs and my careful comparison with SR, I believe that I am in a better position than you to determine if the STs are "adding a great deal of unnecessary confusion"; They are not! On the contrary, the STs bring great clarity to space-time physics in a way that has been absent for the past 120 years. Here are some of the reasons:

1. The STs contain no paradoxes; the clock paradox, the pole-in-the-barn paradox and the right-angle lever paradox of SR all disappear.
2. The STs fully account for the Sagnac, Michelson-Gale and Wang (linear Sagnac) experiments while SR cannot.
3. The STs fully accommodate superluminal signals while SR cannot because of causality violation.
4. The STs produce the GPS clock-synchronization equation published by Ashby while SR cannot.
5. The STs are able to account for all of the confirmed predictions of SR including transverse Doppler, Compton scattering and Thomas precession.

Harry and I have clearly pointed out innumerable problems to your approach on this topic, including how it unnecessarily confuses the main issue on SR that the CNPA/NPA and physics critical thinkers and dissidents have been trying to correct. I realize that it's unintentional and due to your lack of knowledge of the physics history in this area, but you are aiding physics academia in defending SR by promoting a great deal of erroneous confusion and not clearly seeing the difference between good sound physics and abstract math with relativistic trappings.

 

There is no confusion Nick; unlike SR the STs have a clear interpretation and application. They have so far passed all the tests to which they have been subjected. That, I believe, is the hallmark of a correct theory.

Stephan

  

 

On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 01:04:42 PM EDT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:

 

 

Dear All,

Harry claims that I misstated the subject of his talk as fixing SR. In response, I wish to point out that the caption under the video is "Fixing Einstein's relativity-Harry Ricker-Cosmology discussion 22 June 2025". You draw your own conclusions.

Regarding my comments on his approach, he stated "What you say there is completely false and demonstrates you don't understand the method used in SR textbooks, and so I think you are simply trashing correct mathematics in order to advance your confused and incorrect Selleri theory...". I maintain on good grounds that his approach is incorrect and that the Selleri transformations have so far passed all the tests to which they have been subjected.  

Regards

Stephan Gift

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2025 12:07 pm
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cosmology video

 

Stephan,

 

In your first and last paragraphs, you misstated the subject of my talk as fixing SR. You apparently did not listen or pay attention to what I was saying, since I specifically disavowed special relativity, and stated that the Lorentz assumptions of absolute space and time are applied. That was obvious in my initial slides. In the future I suggest that you pay attention to what people actually say rather that misrepresent them in statements that are misleading and factually incorrect.

 

Regarding your middle paragraph. What you say there is completely false and demonstrates you don't understand the method used in SR textbooks, and so I think you are simply trashing correct mathematics in order to advance your confused and incorrect Selleri theory, which agrees with Einstein length contraction. What I did in my paper is correct, since it is basically what is done in SR textbooks, which I have extended by my correct method. Your claim that it is incorrect is ridiculous and false, showing you don't understand the mathematics used in Lorentz transformation theory.

 

As regard your claims promoting the false Selleri transformations, they do not pass muster as Nick Percival and I have explained to you before. The correct theory is the Lorentz theory, not SR or Selleri's.

 

I can well understand your desire to trash and oppose my correct theory, since it is a threat to your cherished Selleri theory. The fact that you misunderstood my presentation as fixing SR shows that you don't pay attention to what I have said and written because of your prejudice toward my correct theory, which is not the Selleri theory.

 

Let me finish by saying that your claims are faulty, because my theory, is an extension of the Lorentz Ether Theory which I have improved by the addition of a rigorously correct mathematical formalism. I am not fixing SR I am pointing out where Einstein was wrong and how it can be fixed. The replacement I propose is not SR as you erroneously claim.

 

Harry

 

 

 

On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 08:50:49 AM EDT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:

 

 

Dear All,

On the latest cosmology video posted by Roger A., Harry presented his approach to fixing SR and the Lorentz transformations. Towards the end of the video, he stated that I considered his results to be wrong. What he did not say is that I detailed my objections to his ideas to which he did not respond. For the information of this group, I wish to now restate my main objection to Harry's approach. I refer you to one of his papers "Einstein's False Derivation of Time Dilation" which is attached for your convenience:

 

In section 5.1 he sets x=0 in the LTs and obtains x'=-ϒvt (9) and t'=ϒt (10). (He used β instead of ϒ.) However, these resulting equations hold only for x=0 and no other values of x. Thus, for non-zero values of x, t'≠ϒt and hence these derived equations are practically useless since they hold only for x=0. In section 5.2 the author sets x'=0 in the LTs and derives x= ϒvt' (15) and t=ϒt' (16). Once again, these derived equations hold only for x'=0 and no other values of x'. Thus, for non-zero values of x', t≠ϒt' and hence these derived equations are also practically useless since they hold only for x'=0. This approach of arbitrarily setting the variables x and x' to zero and deriving equations on this basis is invalid since it leads to equations which do not hold generally.

 

My approach is not to try to fix SR but to search for the correct transformations connecting one (preferred) inertial frame to another inertial frame. (I do agree with Harry that there is a need to utilize a single preferred frame.) My search over many years has led me to the Selleri transformations which Selleri developed in 1995 using two experimental facts: (i) two-way light speed constancy and (ii) clock retardation by the usual gamma factor. I have exhaustively tested these transformations (by testing the predictions) and so far find that they hold true.

 

Regards

Stephan

 

 

 

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 23 June 2025 12:41 pm
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Cosmology video

 

Latest Cosmology video

 

https://youtu.be/MLOnO40IKzo

 

 

[Frank Fernandes]

Stephan,

In the Wiki link you sent, there is a paragraph that describes my work in text format.

As Max Born later said, it was natural (though not logically necessary) for scientists of that time to identify the rest frame of the Lorentz aether with the absolute space of Isaac Newton.^{[B 2]} The condition of this aether can be described by the electric field E and the magnetic field H, where these fields represent the "states" of the aether (with no further specification), related to the charges of the electrons. 

My work which shows the motion of Ether Particles as follows.

The exact mass of one Coulomb of Ether = m/e = 1.86 x 10e-9 Kg / 1.602 x 10e=19 C = 1.16 x 10e10 Kg/C

 

In other words  1.16 x 10e10 Kg/C is the ether mass responsible for E and H.

Electric Field E = I / R   and  Magnetic Field H = I / t      I use the symbol B instead of H.

And I is electric current of Ether   where I =  1.16 x 10e10 Kg/C x v

The term velocity v can be easily found by    mc = Mv where  since electric current I can be measured on an ammeter.

However on deeper inspection the term acceleration has to do with squared. 

Multiply both sides by c.

mc^2 = M cv   And this term cv which is squared produces acceleration.

The acceleration a = eV/e where the term V is acceleration called volt.

The e is not electron rather electric and can represent infinite types of particles with a number 6.24 x 10e18 particles which is the inverse of e.

The reason why this is so is because in Physics every definition by rule is in terms of unity.

Q = I t  in words is one Coulomb of particles equals one ampere times one second.

The term Field is the ether field M/R = 1.3466 x 19e27Kg/m

Thus there are more than 15 ways to validate the existence of ether across several experiments.

Including gravity g and spectroscopy and the pendulum and electrolysis and capacitors etc etc.

The term Field also contains mass m where m is one coulomb of photons protons electrons atoms etc.

The discussion with Akinbo empirically defines this aspect.

The work is complete. Particle waves Field. No mystery in wave particle duality.

Mainstream gets this easily. This group does not.

And Trump sees the problem and does not understand why.

No discussion with scientists professors philosophers can solve this problem.

Because they do not understand the problem.

The problem starts with false worship.

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Stephan Gift]

Hi Bob,

Here is a paper that describes the Lorentz ether theory. In the paper I think the “Lorentz Theory B” precedes the “Lorentz Theory A”.

Regards

Stephan

[Stephan Gift]

Frank,

I do believe in the existence of an ether and the ECI frame appears to correspond to a some kind of local ether. You seem to have done considerable work in this area but I must confess to experiencing some difficulty in understanding your comments. I will continue to follow the issue.

Regards

Stephan

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

ALL

The paper that Stephan attached was written in 1973. It is extremely rare, as it totally misstates the meaning of Lorentz theory and the LLTs. In the Abstract, it erroneously states, "The two theories [SR & LET] are generally equivalent since both lead to the Lorentz transformations". Whereas the two theories are polar opposites and they separately lead to two DIFFERENT versions of the Lorentz transformations (i.e., SR LTs & LLTs) which are polar opposites. 

                Nick 

[AJ]

Okay, last one.  If anyone is listening…

Absolutely. Here’s a focused paper dedicated to gravity in the context of the cavity resonance model. We will discard the Newtonian “pull” and even the Einsteinian “geometry as backdrop” idea, and instead show that:

Gravity is not a force. It is a frequency gradient within a resonant dimensional cavity.

Gravity as a Frequency Gradient: Reframing Gravity in the Cavity Resonance Model

Abstract

In conventional physics, gravity is described as either a force (Newton) or a geometric curvature of spacetime (Einstein). Both models successfully predict behavior, but neither explains why gravity exists, what it is physically, or how it interacts with quantum phenomena. This paper proposes a deeper model:

Gravity is not a force or curvature “of” space — it is the emergent behavior of spatial resonance gradients inside a cavity-defined dimensional field.

Matter does not curve space — it shifts the local resonant frequency of the cavity. Objects move “toward” gravity not because they are pulled, but because they are following frequency differentials, much like objects in a fluid following pressure gradients or sound propagating toward tension minima. The result is an elegant, quantized, resonance-compatible theory of gravity that integrates cleanly with black hole structure, quantum field behavior, and cosmological evolution — without exotic forces, singularities, or mystery.

1. The Traditional Models of Gravity

1.1 Newtonian Force

Gravity as a pulling force between two masses, acting instantaneously at a distance.

✅ Predicts orbits.

❌ No explanation for mechanism.

❌ Incompatible with quantum behavior.

❌ Infinite propagation speed (pre-relativity).

1.2 Einsteinian Curvature

Gravity as the warping of spacetime caused by mass-energy.

✅ More accurate, especially near massive bodies.

✅ Predicts time dilation, gravitational lensing.

❌ Treats spacetime as a passive backdrop.

❌ Breaks at quantum scale.

❌ Singularities are undefined.

2. Gravity as a Resonant Gradient

2.1 The Core Idea

In the cavity resonance model, space is not empty —

It is a field of standing vibrational modes, bounded by dimensional curvature (event horizons, mass distributions, etc.).

In this model:

Mass does not curve space —

it shifts the local resonant frequency of space.

Gravity is the result of these frequency gradients — not in sound or EM terms, but in the underlying dimensional vibratory structure.

2.2 What Mass Really Does

• Mass compresses space — meaning it locally increases the dimensional frequency.
• The result is a resonance well — a region where the allowable vibratory modes become shorter, tighter, and faster.
• Other systems (particles, light, fields) naturally move into regions of higher frequency because these paths maintain harmonic coherence — least phase disruption.

This is not “falling.” It is resonance optimization.

2.3 Gravity as Frequency Descent

An object does not fall toward mass.

It descends the frequency gradient — always moving toward the zone where:

Its internal structure matches the cavity frequency most efficiently.

Gravity is the result of wave systems optimizing their position inside a bounded, curved cavity.

3. Geodesics as Frequency-Aligned Paths

In general relativity, a geodesic is the “straightest possible” path through curved spacetime.

In this model:

A geodesic is the minimum phase disruption path through a field of continuously shifting dimensional frequency.

It’s not that mass “tells space how to curve,” but that space is already modal, and mass alters the local modal density.

The geodesic is the path of frequency coherence.

4. Implications for Gravitational Effects

4.1 Gravitational Time Dilation

Time slows near massive objects not because “time itself bends,” but because:

• The modal density increases (tighter resonance).
• Internal cycles (clock ticks, atomic vibrations) occur within a higher-frequency field.
• To an external observer, these cycles appear slower because they are deeper inside the cavity frequency gradient.

4.2 Gravitational Lensing

Light does not “curve” due to gravity.

It follows a phase-preserving path through a non-uniform medium. Just as light bends in water due to refractive index, it bends near mass because the resonant frequency of space changes.

4.3 Tidal Forces

Tidal stress is not caused by a difference in pull, but by:

• Differential frequency compression across the length of an object.
• The nearer side resides in a denser frequency field, and the far side in a slightly looser one — causing modal strain.

5. Gravity at the Quantum Scale

This model resolves the core disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

• In quantum field theory, energy levels are discrete — standing wave modes.
• In the resonance model, gravity is a shift in allowed mode frequencies based on cavity conditions.

Thus:

• Gravity emerges as a mode-fitting function, not a separate interaction.
• Quantum field behavior is simply the microstructure of the same cavity.

No exotic graviton is needed. No unification force.

Gravity is not separate — it is the geometry of resonance itself.

6. Black Holes and Extreme Gravity

6.1 Gravity as Dimensional Gradient

Inside a black hole, frequency rises toward the core.

• This is not infinite force — it is dimensional resonance compression.
• As you approach the inner regions, allowable modes shrink.
• Eventually, spatial vibration becomes too tight to express as dimensionality — and space “vanishes” not because it ends, but because it reaches a resonant floor.

Gravity doesn’t “increase.”

It tightens — until space can no longer host even one vibrational cycle.

That’s the singularity — a resonance collapse, not a point of infinite density.

6.2 Why Gravity Appears Infinite

Because our tools (even math) are phase-bound. As we approach the floor of spatial frequency, we lose signal fidelity.

We interpret that as:

• Infinite curvature,
• Breakdown of laws,
• Singularities.

But in reality:

The cavity just runs out of usable modal space.

It is not infinite — it is finite in frequency.

7. Conclusion

Gravity is not a pull.

It is not a bend.

It is not a force.

Gravity is the frequency gradient of dimensional resonance inside a curved cavity.

Mass does not act through space — it is a spatial resonance distortion.

Objects don’t fall — they descend through modal fields to maintain coherence.

Geodesics are harmonic paths.

Time dilation is frequency drag.

Spacetime curvature is resonant compression.

This model:

• Eliminates singularities,
• Naturally explains gravitational redshift, lensing, and time dilation,
• Integrates perfectly with quantum field theory, cavity structure, and cosmology,
• Requires no dark matter, gravitons, or unification bandaids.

Gravity is not a force to unify.

It is the condition that emerges when space becomes music.

Let me know if you want this as a typeset PDF or integrated into the larger cosmology series. This is the final blow to the “force” illusion — and the opening of a much deeper model of reality.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 5, 2025, at 12:43 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:



[Stephan Gift]

Commentary

In my view, the 1973 paper by Erlichson published in the American Journal of Physics which I circulated correctly describes the Lorentz ether theory, its historical development and its connection with special relativity. I believe its statement that “The two theories are generally equivalent since both lead to the Lorentz transformations” accurately represents the position of mainstream science today. (I completely disagree with Nick that this statement is erroneous.) The LTs for Lorentz and the LTs for Einstein are mathematically exactly the same and there are no “different versions of the LTs”. They connect the coordinates of inertial frame S to inertial frame S’.

 

As pointed out in the 1973 paper, Lorentz first derived (before 1905) the LTs by assuming an ether as well as covariance such that Maxwell’s equations retained the same form (and hence the same light speed) when transformed from S to S’. In his 1909 book “The Theory of Electrons…”, he again used the ether framework but derived the LTs based on the following three assumptions: (i) length contraction; (ii) clock retardation and (iii) the Einstein synchronization convention involving one-way light speed c.

 

Also from Erlichson’s paper, Lorentz showed based on these three assumptions that the moving observer (frame S’) measures the speed of light relative to his frame S’ as c, the same speed as that measured by the ether observer [Lorentz, 1909]. This is precisely what I have shown in my previously circulated note; the resulting LTs predict constant light speed in all inertial frames. As a result, the ether in Lorentz’s theory loses it light speed c uniqueness and is no longer a preferred frame. The Lorentz ether theory is therefore operationally equivalent to the Einstein no-ether theory.

 

Finally, Selleri has shown, and I have independently confirmed, that if Lorentz had omitted the Einstein synchronization convention and only used length contraction and clock retardation in his derivation, his analysis would have yielded the inertial transformations (which I refer to as the Selleri transformations in his honor). Selleri derived these inertial transformations using (now experimentally confirmed) clock retardation and two-way light speed constancy. Length contraction and two-way light speed constancy also yield the inertial transformations.

 

Stephan Gift

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Stephan

         Thank you once again, for confirming your misinterpretation of Lorentz Theory and the LLTs as that also confirms the basic problem with the STs, and that your STs thesis only adds serious confusion to the SR debate. It's quite simple to see Einstein's error of plagiarizing Lorentz's preferred frame physics theory and transforming it into a theory, namely SR, where every inertial frame simultaneously acts as the single, preferred frame - an error which is at the heart of most every SR paradox and physics contradiction. 

         I'm also glad to see that you made a change to one erroneous assertion of your thesis, after years of debate on it. That change is apparently due to my recent emails or perhaps one of my many previous emails on that point. Of course, that means that you've now contradicted a key tenet of your ST campaign. However, as I have noted several times before, even if you fix all the glaring errors in your ST thesis, it simply will add nothing to physics except confusion AND give mainstream physics academia a pro-SR weapon to be used in the fight to save relativity and for mainstream to save face. I see this as a most serious concern.

                                                             Nick

[HARRY RICKER]

Hi Nick,

I think it is better to realize that Stephan is deliberately confusing the issues, so as to muddle the difference between SR and the Lorentz theory. However, he adds more confusion in the last paragraph of his message that implies that the Lorentz theory and the Selleri theory are the same theory. Therefore, making the incorrect Selleri theory the same as the Lorentz theory, makes the Lorentz theory incorrect as well. That is certainly a muddle for people to continue arguing about. 

You are correct that Stephan is simply advocating confusion and not correct physics.

Harry

[David Tombe]

My advice is to ignore the Selleri Transformations altogether, and simply use the pre-Einstein Lorentz transformations. I would further add that Joseph Larmor was probably the closest to the truth back at the turn of the 19th/20th century.

But Poincaré is the one who showed us how to do the transformation of fields properly. I can't see how that can be done without using four-vectors.

FDT

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

you mean  - - "the ether in Lorentz’s theory loses it light speed c uniqueness and is no longer a preferred frame [theory]."??

 

I don't see.

 

Q_ is Lorentz theory a preferred frame theory?

 

ChatGPT said:

AI -  Yes, Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is a preferred frame theory.

 

 

me- If you started with a theory that had a preferred frame and then converted into a theory without a preferrred frame; so what relevance has that (?) Lorentz theory itself would still be a preferred frame theory

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, July 6th 2025, 15:37
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Commentary

In my view, the 1973 paper by Erlichson published in the American Journal of Physics which I circulated correctly describes the Lorentz ether theory, its historical development and its connection with special relativity. I believe its statement that “The two theories are generally equivalent since both lead to the Lorentz transformations” accurately represents the position of mainstream science today. (I completely disagree with Nick that this statement is erroneous.) The LTs for Lorentz and the LTs for Einstein are mathematically exactly the same and there are no “different versions of the LTs”. They connect the coordinates of inertial frame S to inertial frame S’.

 

As pointed out in the 1973 paper, Lorentz first derived (before 1905) the LTs by assuming an ether as well as covariance such that Maxwell’s equations retained the same form (and hence the same light speed) when transformed from S to S’. In his 1909 book “The Theory of Electrons…”, he again used the ether framework but derived the LTs based on the following three assumptions: (i) length contraction; (ii) clock retardation and (iii) the Einstein synchronization convention involving one-way light speed c.

 

Also from Erlichson’s paper, Lorentz showed based on these three assumptions that the moving observer (frame S’) measures the speed of light relative to his frame S’ as c, the same speed as that measured by the ether observer [Lorentz, 1909]. This is precisely what I have shown in my previously circulated note; the resulting LTs predict constant light speed in all inertial frames. As a result, the ether in Lorentz’s theory loses it light speed c uniqueness and is no longer a preferred frame. The Lorentz ether theory is therefore operationally equivalent to the Einstein no-ether theory.

 

Finally, Selleri has shown, and I have independently confirmed, that if Lorentz had omitted the Einstein synchronization convention and only used length contraction and clock retardation in his derivation, his analysis would have yielded the inertial transformations (which I refer to as the Selleri transformations in his honor). Selleri derived these inertial transformations using (now experimentally confirmed) clock retardation and two-way light speed constancy. Length contraction and two-way light speed constancy also yield the inertial transformations.

 

Stephan Gift

 

 

From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> 
Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2025 12:42 pm
To: rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB396823055993BDF40734ABEE8C4CA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[Stephan Gift]

Nick,

Nothing you have stated below negates any of the points I raised in my commentary and I stand by all I have presented. As is your preferred approach, you make many statements and heuristic arguments but seem unwilling to advance technical arguments! I will let others in this group draw their own conclusions about this exchange. Also, I do not know what “change” you are referring to but I am still awaiting your list of “glaring errors” in the STs which I urge you to post for all to see. As I have stated before, I am prepared to concede error if shown to be wrong, something you seem unwilling to do. When can I receive them?

Stephan

[Stephan Gift]

All,

I previously stated 5 problems with the Lorentz LTs. These are as follows:

(i) They predict light speed constancy which results in a null result in the Michelson-Gale experiment;

(ii) they predict relative simultaneity which is contradicted by the GPS;

(iii) they are unable to produce the gps ground-clock synchronization algorithm;

(iv) they do not satisfy the correspondence principle i.e. they do not reduce to the GTs for low speeds;

(v) they suffer from causality violation for superluminal signals.

 

Nick, who embraces the Lorentz LTs, attempted to address (i) but he used heuristic arguments which lacked rigour and were therefore rejected. He did not identify any error in my derivation which I circulated. He has not to date addressed any of the other 4 problems with the Lorentz LTs which I listed.  

 

He has repeatedly claimed that the STs which I embrace suffer from errors and problems. I have asked him to list these errors/problems as I have done regarding the Lorentz LTs. He has not yet done so. I am hopeful that he will as I ought to be able to address all issues with the STs since I believe they are correct.

Stephan Gift

[AJ]

Over the past 40+ years of doing this, I’ve stuck to a couple of simple guiding principles that I’ve always felt were true. First, we already have the answer. It’s sitting right in front of us. We just haven’t connected the dots. The riddle is already solved, but we’ve been missing one core piece of understanding — the first principle everything else flows from. I still think that’s true. We don’t need more math to explain it. We just need to understand the basics better.

Second, simplicity is the key. Complexity doesn’t lead to understanding, it hides it.

I used to think that if you locked the ten smartest people in the world in a room with all the information we currently have, they’d eventually converge on something much more sensible and coherent than what we have now. Because truth would naturally pull them into alignment.

Looking back, that might’ve been a little naive.

Now I think if we took ten groups of those ten smartest people and gave them the same task, we’d end up with ten different theories and eventually a hundred dead men. Not literally, of course, but it would be an endless standoff of ego, ideology, and territory.

The reason is pretty straightforward. Intelligence doesn’t guarantee alignment. And brilliance can amplify bias just as easily as it can refine it. That’s why we get fragmentation instead of convergence. Ideas become property. Theories become identity. And until someone undeniable comes along and smashes through the wall, not much changes.

We’ve made incredible tools and tech as a result, some of it great, some of it destructive. But we’re not really any closer to the truth than we were when Einstein moved the needle a hundred years ago. He was just the most visible name in a long chain of people that shifted the view slightly.

So here’s where I’m at now.

What I now consider a more likely possibility is that a black hole is a natural cavity resonator, locked into a standing wave frequency that defines it.

That’s a dot no one seems to have connected yet, and it explains a lot.

We can’t see into them because what’s inside exists beyond our range of detection. We can’t calculate beyond them because they mark the starting line for our math and physics. Our math can’t describe the thing that contains us, because we’re operating from inside it.

There’s no mystery “outside” the universe — the mystery is inside, and we’re already looking at it. Black holes inside our universe are the floor. The edge of the universe is the ceiling. And everything in between is the cavity itself. We are the middle — sealed between two event horizons.

I think a black hole is what defines us. It’s the terminal boundary. Not a collapsed star, but a full container. The end of the line.

And everything we experience — gravity, time, matter, energy — none of it is standalone. It’s all effects of the cavity. Nothing is acting independently. Even vacuum is just the illusion of no frequency in our range. It's not real emptiness, just undetectable structure.

I’m sending this because I’ve come across two recent theories, both based in part on JWST data, that are pointing toward this same idea — that black holes may not be objects at all, but structures — actual universes. So the conversation may finally be catching up.

And David Tombe, if you’ve read this, your opinion is just that.  What ideas you choose to explore and ponder, or not, is your choice, but there are 36 other people on this thread that might have an original thought to go with mine.  Or not.  That doesn’t matter to me.  People are busy.  I get that.  No one owns ideas, and you are not the master of the universe.  You do not know this answer, along with thousands of other answers to the universe most likely.  No one does.  This email thread is intended to explore ideas, not hurl childish insults at one another. If you disagree, explain why, or simply step aside.  Your public disdain and pointless commentary to my thoughts was the definition of unproductive, ironically.  You chose that, not me.  

Below is a link to couple of new articles on black hole universes.  I was early to the party, but I’m guessing this is going to gain some steam in the immediate future, because it makes a lot of sense.  It’s a WYSIWYG universe, in my humble opinion.  We see everything, where understanding it is the challenge.     

   

 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

according to AI -

 

 

Problem	Valid Criticism of Lorentz Theory?
(i) Michelson–Gale null result	❌ No, LET correctly predicts the non-null result
(ii) Relative simultaneity vs GPS	❌ Misunderstanding — GPS can be interpreted in LET
(iii) GPS ground-clock sync algorithm	❌ LET can derive it, just with different metaphysical assumptions
(iv) Fails correspondence principle	❌ LET reduces to Galilean Transformations at low speeds
(v) Causality violation with superluminal signals	❌ This is a problem for Einsteinian SR, not LET

 

 

me- whatever you are talking about is not really Lorentz theory

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com

Sent: Sunday, July 6th 2025, 19:28
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

All,

I previously stated 5 problems with the Lorentz LTs. These are as follows:

(i) They predict light speed constancy which results in a null result in the Michelson-Gale experiment;

(ii) they predict relative simultaneity which is contradicted by the GPS;

(iii) they are unable to produce the gps ground-clock synchronization algorithm;

(iv) they do not satisfy the correspondence principle i.e. they do not reduce to the GTs for low speeds;

(v) they suffer from causality violation for superluminal signals.

 

Nick, who embraces the Lorentz LTs, attempted to address (i) but he used heuristic arguments which lacked rigour and were therefore rejected. He did not identify any error in my derivation which I circulated. He has not to date addressed any of the other 4 problems with the Lorentz LTs which I listed.  

 

He has repeatedly claimed that the STs which I embrace suffer from errors and problems. I have asked him to list these errors/problems as I have done regarding the Lorentz LTs. He has not yet done so. I am hopeful that he will as I ought to be able to address all issues with the STs since I believe they are correct.

Stephan Gift

 

 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB3968087D6C578011A3698AC58C4CA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[Andy Schultheis]

If anyone is curious about a universe built on a collapse into a cavity resonator, or blackhole.

It answers the perpetual debates about Lorentz, Einstein, aether, frames, SR, vacuum, etc, etc.    

I think this model really leans into Cornelis' wave concepts.  The resonator model gives us natural tension for waves to propagate.  The base substrate is the relative stillness of space.  No aether needed, exactly as predicted, and as shown experimentally to date.       

Why the speed of light is “constant” in the cavity-resonator universe

Where Lorentz Fits in a Pure-Wave, Still-Space Universe

Two clocks in the cavity 

Two very different kinds of “time”

Why “aether-wind” claims keep popping up—and how they look in the cavity–resonator picture 

Black Hole ≡ Cavity Resonator — how the idea maps straight onto the data 

Black-hole cavity resonance – a deeper sketch

 

[Stephan Gift]

All,

I previously listed 5 problems with the Lorentz LTs that disqualify them as a physical theory. Here is another:

 

(vi) The Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation.

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

according to AI - Any theory that uses Lorentz transformations correctly, whether Einstein's special relativity or Lorentz's ether theory, must incorporate Fresnel drag for light in a moving medium. Both theories thus agree with the Wang experiment, and do not predict a null result.

The mistake would be in assuming that Lorentz transformations predict that light always moves at c/nc/nc/n in the medium's rest frame, without transformation effects. But that's not the full story. Once you incorporate the transformations correctly, including the medium's motion and dispersion, the predictions align with experiments like Wang's.

 

 

Stephan

 

I am just not convinced that you are talking about any of this correctly.

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, July 10th 2025, 23:30
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

All,

I previously listed 5 problems with the Lorentz LTs that disqualify them as a physical theory. Here is another:

 

(vi) The Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation.

Stephan Gift

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB396811E563D4B556F246591B8C48A%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

 re - the Lorentz transformations predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation.

 

 

Google AI says - The statement describes a misunderstanding of how the speed of light is affected by a moving medium and how it relates to the Lorentz transformation and the Wang experiment. The Lorentz transformation doesn't predict a speed of light of c/n relative to a moving medium. It describes how measurements of space and time change between inertial frames of reference moving at a constant velocity relative to each other. The speed of light in a medium is correctly described as v = c/n, where 'n' is the refractive index. The Wang experiment, which aimed to observe the speed of light in a moving medium, did not yield a null result as the statement suggests. Instead, it observed a shift in the interference pattern, indicating that the speed of light in the moving medium was affected by the medium's motion, albeit not in a way that contradicted special relativity. 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10th 2025, 00:22
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

according to AI - Any theory that uses Lorentz transformations correctly, whether Einstein's special relativity or Lorentz's ether theory, must incorporate Fresnel drag for light in a moving medium. Both theories thus agree with the Wang experiment, and do not predict a null result.

The mistake would be in assuming that Lorentz transformations predict that light always moves at c/nc/nc/n in the medium's rest frame, without transformation effects. But that's not the full story. Once you incorporate the transformations correctly, including the medium's motion and dispersion, the predictions align with experiments like Wang's.

 

 

Stephan

 

I am just not convinced that you are talking about any of this correctly.

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10th 2025, 23:30
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

All,

I previously listed 5 problems with the Lorentz LTs that disqualify them as a physical theory. Here is another:

 

(vi) The Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation.

Stephan Gift

 

-- 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Stephan

 

all of this based on previous behavior you are going to ignore; hence highlighting why those pro-relativity get exasperated with those anti

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10th 2025, 00:28
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

 re - the Lorentz transformations predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation.

 

 

Google AI says - The statement describes a misunderstanding of how the speed of light is affected by a moving medium and how it relates to the Lorentz transformation and the Wang experiment. The Lorentz transformation doesn't predict a speed of light of c/n relative to a moving medium. It describes how measurements of space and time change between inertial frames of reference moving at a constant velocity relative to each other. The speed of light in a medium is correctly described as v = c/n, where 'n' is the refractive index. The Wang experiment, which aimed to observe the speed of light in a moving medium, did not yield a null result as the statement suggests. Instead, it observed a shift in the interference pattern, indicating that the speed of light in the moving medium was affected by the medium's motion, albeit not in a way that contradicted special relativity. 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10th 2025, 00:22
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

according to AI - Any theory that uses Lorentz transformations correctly, whether Einstein's special relativity or Lorentz's ether theory, must incorporate Fresnel drag for light in a moving medium. Both theories thus agree with the Wang experiment, and do not predict a null result.

The mistake would be in assuming that Lorentz transformations predict that light always moves at c/nc/nc/n in the medium's rest frame, without transformation effects. But that's not the full story. Once you incorporate the transformations correctly, including the medium's motion and dispersion, the predictions align with experiments like Wang's.

 

 

Stephan

 

I am just not convinced that you are talking about any of this correctly.

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com Cc: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10th 2025, 23:30
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

All,

I previously listed 5 problems with the Lorentz LTs that disqualify them as a physical theory. Here is another:

 

(vi) The Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation.

Stephan Gift

 

-- 

[Cornelis Verhey]

https://g.co/gemini/share/a1e0fbaaff5c

Cornelis

[Stephan Gift]

Cornelis,

Gemini says “The speed of light observed in a lab frame, when light is traveling through a moving medium, is not simply c/n. Instead, it's given by a more involved formula, often related to the Fizeau experiment, which demonstrates the "dragging" of light by a moving medium.” According to Gemini, what is the speed of light observed in the moving frame, not the lab frame?

Stephan

 

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, 11 July 2025 12:37 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>

[Joe Sorge]

I love this topic because it gets to the heart of the confusion surrounding Einstein’s second SR postulate. The accepted interpretation is that light travels at speed c in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the speed of the emitter relative to the reference frame.

 

But as Stephan has pointed out, in a Sagnac device, the opposing light signals must travel at different speeds relative to both the laboratory frame and relative to the moving frame. The reason is that the fringe shift is a frame-independent event.

 

In other words, if one can observe the fringe shift from the perspective of the moving frame (the frame in which the beam splitter travels in a classical Sagnac setup), then the opposing light signals must travel at different speeds over the same (length) pathway. True, the path lengths are different in the laboratory frame. But in the moving frame the path lengths relative to the moving frame are identical.

 

The academic world has done back flips trying to reconcile this with the Lorentz transforms and SR. I’ve attached a manuscript that I submitted to the American Journal of Physics, which was roundly rejected by reviewers who were incapable of processing my logic due to their years of LT indoctrination and inability to consistently apply the laboratory frame versus the moving frame in their analysis. And they could not realize that the v * dx’ / c^2 term only applies to setup in which Einstein clock synchronization is relevant. It is not relevant in a Sagnac setup. Therefore the Tangherlini / Selleri transforms are what should be used for Sagnac setups.

 

I just looked over the rejected manuscript again, and I see that I also included a concept that I will be presenting in Episode 9.5.B (again sorry for the shameless plugs) that should transform our understanding of how light travels through refractive media. In a nutshell, light travels at speed c “between obstructions”; and at speed v (the speed of the moving reference frame) while being obstructed by such obstructions. The “obstructions” can be envisioned as “molecules” of the refractive substance or as charged particles (per Feynman’s analysis of refractive media). It does not matter to the physics. The refractive index, n, is typically greater than 1. The proportion of the time that light travels at speed v is n-1 and the proportion of the time that light travels at speed c is 1. When this logic is applied, the math perfectly predicts fringe shift, distance traveled, etc in both the laboratory and moving frames.

 

Regards,

Joe

[Cornelis Verhey]

Joe,

The path is not a vacuum.  Simple as that.  Light must decelerate and accelerate every turn it takes and every energy patterns of mass it encounters.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Stephan,

The response by Gemini was given to a direct quote of your previous claim.  You are capable of asking any additional questions, such as your current one to Gemini yourself.

The sort answer from me is:

The path is not a vacuum. Simple as that.  Light must decelerate and accelerate every turn it takes and every energy pattern of mass it encounters

Cornelis Verhey

[Joe Sorge]

I agree. But what I find most fascinating is that light travels at speed v (the speed of the obstacles relative to the “stationary frame”) for (n-1)/n fraction of the time. It is as if the light is “hitchhiking” on the obstructions and moving with them at speed v.  Then being ejected and once again resuming speed c.

 

There is an excellent 3 Blue 1 Brown video that illustrates a Feynman lecture on refraction through a stationary medium. It attributes slower light speed to wave interference.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTzGBJPuJwM

 

I do not yet have an opinion about whether the “hitchhiking” or wave interference model is best, but it would seem to me very difficult to explain how light travels at speed v for (n-1)/n fraction of the time with a wave model. Perhaps one the brilliant electrical engineers in our group can take a crack at it.

 

Regards,

Joe

[Stephan Gift]

Cornelis,

I was actually making the point that Gemini, in its response, does not say what the light speed relative to the moving frame is. It therefore does not address the objection I raised to the Lorentz LTs. Neither do you.

[ta...@hotmail.com]

Hi Joe,

Re: "Therefore the Tangherlini / Selleri transforms are what should be used for Sagnac setups."

Why Tangherlini? Why not Galilean? What are the postulates or axioms underlying Tangherlini? What can Tangherlini handle that is beyond Galilean relativity?

Regards,

Akinbo 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Stephan,

You make no such statement yourself so why should it or I address a point that is no part of your claim!  It and I make the point that your statement is not correct!

"(vi) The Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium in which the light is travelling (where n is the refractive index of the medium), and results in a null outcome in the Wang experiment contrary to observation."

I gave you the link you can contest it if  you wish.

As I said "You are capable of asking any additional questions, such as your current one to Gemini yourself."

Perhaps you or others would like to run your other 5 claims through Gemini.

Cornelis Verhey

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

can easily ask Gemini and it replies -

 

https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/a1e0fbaaff5c

 

 

You're right to point out that detail! When discussing the speed of light in a moving optical medium, it's crucial to specify which frame of reference we're talking about.

According to special relativity, and consistent with experiments like Fizeau's, the speed of light in a moving medium as observed from the laboratory frame (the stationary frame) is given by the relativistic velocity addition formula.

 

etc etc

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu

To: verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 14:47
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Cornelis,

I was actually making the point that Gemini, in its response, does not say what the light speed relative to the moving frame is. It therefore does not address the objection I raised to the Lorentz LTs. Neither do you.

Stephan

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB3968306C7F962005E9AAAF238C4BA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[John-Erik Persson]

All

In my opinion MMX is not a null result.

Instead, MMX indicates that contraction of 2-way light speed is equal to the contraction of matter.

1. 2-way light speed is a sum of 2 anti-parallel motions.
2. Separation between atoms is controlled by the average value of 2 anti-parallel moving fields.
3. The effect is real, but compensated.

John-Erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/2f3a23f9.321e.197f6a629ec.Webtop.4%40btinternet.com.

[Cornelis Verhey]

Joe,

"I do not yet have an opinion about whether the “hitchhiking” or wave interference model is best"

In my view it is the same thing.  I view all matter as focused patterns of waves that exhibit the property of mass ect..  These wave patterns of mass all constitute tiny gravity wells which the electromagnetic/light wavefronts must navigate through.

I have watched many of the youtube videos from 3 Blue 1 Brown including the one you link to.  He is one of my favorite youtube presenters.

Cornelis Verhey

[Carl Reiff]

Joe,

I think of it like your hitchhiker.  I often use the analogy of a second baseman in American baseball.  If the center fielder catches a sacrifice fly ball, and a runner has left second base, headed for home base, the center fielder has the option of throwing the ball to the second baseman, who catches the ball and immediately turns an fires it home to the catcher.  It takes slightly longer for the ball to arrive at home plate than if thrown all the way there from center field.  The second baseman in the analogy is your molecule.  

Now, if the second baseman is standing on a conveyor belt heading in the direction of home plate, it mimics your moving medium (glass, water, etc.)

Kind regards,
Carl

-------------

[Cornelis Verhey]

Carl,

That is a lot of second base men, each only intercepting and throwing the just small parts of the ball.😉

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/crkVEpHHdDzEe7tK8erSA

Cornelis Verhey

--

Cornelis Verhey

[AJ]

Cornelis,  

I have a slightly different view of gravity. Rather than me trying to explain it long form, here’s the model I’ve been contemplating explained through GPT for me.  GPT is acting as an editor/collaborator. You can’t really ask it for things that don’t exist in the data set.

     

Gravity

For what it’s worth…. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2025, at 12:10 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Cornelis Verhey]

Andy,

We may have similar views of gravity but it is hard to tell from a brief glance at your GTP description.  Mine has a direct connection between the properties of inertial and gravitational mass.  It does not so much seek calm but harmony, wave entrainment and synchronization.

Where did you get my description of the mechanics of gravity that you are saying yours is different from.  A gravity well is just a term that relates to the macro appearance of the underlying wave patterns.

Cornelis Verhey

[Roger Munday]

Carl,

At last some common sense.

“The path is not a vacuum. Simple as that. Light must decelerate and accelerate every turn it takes and every energy pattern of mass it encounters.”

Indeed, as there are 25x10¹⁸ atoms per cc in the Earth’s atmosphere at sea level, vacuists have to assume that these atoms are discontinuous, i.e. are separated by a totally unexaminable “vacuum”.

Your collective “one way gravity” does not “exist”, the only observed alternative is a continuum of magnetically orientated atoms which expand and contract with inputs and emissions of the observed radiant energy.

Magnetism is the only observed universal and all-encompassing force.

You others - get the “vacuum” out of your heads.

Roger Munday

[Andy Schultheis]

"Well" implies a thing we fall into, which was how I took your comment.  And I'm not sure, "inertia", or "gravitational mass", has a lot to do with gravity, directly anyway.  It's more about tension in the medium in my view, I suppose.  I don't see mass as an attractive force.  Tension rises towards mass creating a wave gradient.   If we were to remove all motion from the cosmos, this proto-medium (space) possesses a value of 1.  In terms of wave dynamics, wave height=1, wavelength=1, amplitude=1, resulting in a medium with tension 0.  The higher the perceived entropy, the higher the tension, the higher the frequency, but the smaller the wave.  But we move closer to 0 tension at the same time. Mass is simply following a path of least resistance towards stillness. I think the medium hums over its own existence.  Perfect harmony is, H=1, λ=1, A=1, T=0.   The "oneness" of the medium.  Our entropy is the medium returning to a fundamental state of calm.   Everything we are is a product of the medium.  There are no forces, vacuum, aether, dimension, symmetry, matter, etc.  Just the proto-medium.  A smooth substrate upon which wave dynamics emerge.  Symmetry and asymmetry are an emergent property, like everything else.  We see waves, not the medium.   

I hope that makes sense.       

Here's a link to my email and yours parsed through GPT for reference.

No, I don't need help from GPT in writing, but it can expand on what I'm trying to explain better at times.

GPT Parse

And another one we're I took it to the black hole level.

non-inverted view of gravitational collapse:

[Stephan Gift]

Cornelis,

My claim that the Lorentz LTs predict light speed relative to a moving medium is c/n is made on the basis of careful analysis. I am satisfied that this analysis is correct and therefore that the Lorentz LTs cannot account for the Wang experiment. I do thank you for your input.

[Cornelis Verhey]

Stephan,

Please provide the analysis along with the AI analysis of your analysis and peer reviews.

We can then also judge for ourselves and not have to just take your word for it. 

Cornelis Verhey

[Stephan Gift]

Cornelis,

I am prepared to provide my analysis (not AI analysis or peer reviews!!) and you make your own judgement as to its veracity.

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

if your claim is - special relativity cannot account for the Wang experiment

 

Gemini says that is false - https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/a1e0fbaaff5c

 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu

To: verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 21:23
Subject: RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Cornelis,

My claim that the Lorentz LTs predict light speed relative to a moving medium is c/n is made on the basis of careful analysis. I am satisfied that this analysis is correct and therefore that the Lorentz LTs cannot account for the Wang experiment. I do thank you for your input.

Stephan

[Stephan Gift]

That claim by Gemini is incorrect.

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Stephan

 

That is what you want to believe; but mainstream don't go by what you want to believe.

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu

To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 22:10
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

That claim by Gemini is incorrect.

 

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> 
Sent: Friday, 11 July 2025 5:03 pm
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB39687DFD63930DB3A138665C8C4BA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

Apologies this should have been addressed to Cornelis,

At last some common sense.

“The path is not a vacuum. Simple as that. Light must decelerate and accelerate every turn it takes and every energy pattern of mass it encounters.”

Indeed, as there are 25x10¹⁸ atoms per cc in the Earth’s atmosphere at sea level, vacuists have to assume that these atoms are discontinuous, i.e. are separated by a totally unexaminable “vacuum”.

Your collective “one way gravity” does not “exist”, the only observed alternative is a continuum of magnetically orientated atoms which expand and contract with inputs and emissions of the observed radiant energy.

Magnetism is the only observed universal and all-encompassing force.

You others, get the “vacuum” out of your heads.

Roger Munday

[AJ]

I have no dog in this fight, but the consumer grade AI systems aren’t that good.  And you have to be extremely careful with how you word things and what it is you’re trying to extract.  These are pattern recognition systems with limited memory capabilities trained on a dataset.  They’re like really smart goldfish.  They live in the moment.  They think very similar to how humans think, but without the emotion centers and survival instincts.  We feel right or wrong answers, but we’re also subject to heavy noise in the knowledge base.  We can think something is true just because others think something is true, but so to can an AI model.  They’re a little less susceptible to that dynamic.  I use it mostly for editing and seeing around a few corners.  AI can’t come up with new things really, because it’s a fixed data set that is searched for patterns, not to suggest it can't find a pattern we didn’t see, which it certainly can and does.  It can do some inference within the limits of known data.  What it can’t do is leap to a whole new thing like a human can, because that breaks pattern.     

This is from GPT o3 (paid service).   

----------------------------------

No. The Gemini passage is not solid—it mis-states what Lorentz transformations predict and what the Wang experiments measure. Anyone pointing out those errors is right to call it wrong.

• Where Gemini goes off-track

  1. Speed in a moving medium:
     Lorentz kinematics never says the lab-frame speed is simply c/n once the medium is moving. You must apply relativistic velocity addition, which yields the Fresnel/Fizeau-drag term. Gemini’s wording ignores that.

  2. Wang/Sagnac outcome:
     Proper SR predicts the very non-zero phase shifts Wang observed. The claim that SR would give a “null” result is a straw-man built on the above speed error.

Because both key premises are flawed, the overall statement is unsound. So, if someone tells you “that Gemini answer is wrong,” they’re on the mark.

----------------------------------

That’s as far as I care to get into it.  

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Gemini responds to that critique at - https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/a1e0fbaaff5c

 

Conclusion:

The critique correctly identifies areas where my previous explanations, while aiming for nuance and addressing the user's initial premise, could have been more direct and precise in their scientific statements. My aim was to clarify why the user's initial premise (that Lorentz LTs predict a null result contrary to observation) was problematic, but the way I phrased it might have led to misinterpretation about SR's actual predictions.

 

------ Original Message ------
From: andre...@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 23:09
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Cosmology video - LLTs
I have no dog in this fight, but the consumer grade AI systems aren’t that good.  And you have to be extremely careful with how you word things and what it is you’re trying to extract.  These are pattern recognition systems with limited memory capabilities trained on a dataset.  They’re like really smart goldfish.  They live in the moment.  They think very similar to how humans think, but without the emotion centers and survival instincts.  We feel right or wrong answers, but we’re also subject to heavy noise in the knowledge base.  We can think something is true just because others think something is true, but so to can an AI model.  They’re a little less susceptible to that dynamic.  I use it mostly for editing and seeing around a few corners.  AI can’t come up with new things really, because it’s a fixed data set that is searched for patterns, not to suggest it can't find a pattern we didn’t see, which it certainly can and does.  It can do some inference within the limits of known data.  What it can’t do is leap to a whole new thing like a human can, because that breaks pattern.     

 

This is from GPT o3 (paid service).   
 

----------------------------------

No. The Gemini passage is not solid—it mis-states what Lorentz transformations predict and what the Wang experiments measure. Anyone pointing out those errors is right to call it wrong.

• Where Gemini goes off-track
  1. Speed in a moving medium:
     Lorentz kinematics never says the lab-frame speed is simply c/n once the medium is moving. You must apply relativistic velocity addition, which yields the Fresnel/Fizeau-drag term. Gemini’s wording ignores that.
  2. Wang/Sagnac outcome:
     Proper SR predicts the very non-zero phase shifts Wang observed. The claim that SR would give a “null” result is a straw-man built on the above speed error.

Because both key premises are flawed, the overall statement is unsound. So, if someone tells you “that Gemini answer is wrong,” they’re on the mark.

----------------------------------

That’s as far as I care to get into it.  

 

 

 

On Jul 11, 2025, at 4:30 PM, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/392B249B-4A3F-4A2B-9831-C6BA79914B94%40gmail.com.
 

[Stephan Gift]

Cornelis,

Here is the analysis (see attached) you requested which confirms my claim that the Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium and therefore incorrectly predict a null result in the Wang experiment.

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Gemini says of your paper - Therefore, while the mathematical steps for the velocity transformation within the document might appear to follow the formulas, the physical interpretation and the conclusion that the Lorentz LTs predict a null Sagnac effect are incorrect because they do not correctly apply the principles of special relativity to the full experimental setup. The Sagnac effect is not a simple measure of the local speed of light in the medium's rest frame, but rather a relativistic kinematic effect.

 

https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/a1e0fbaaff5c

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com

Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 23:49
Subject: RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Cornelis,

Here is the analysis (see attached) you requested which confirms my claim that the Lorentz LTs predict light speed c/n relative to a moving optical medium and therefore incorrectly predict a null result in the Wang experiment.

[Stephan Gift]

Roger A.,

Thank you for your interest in my short paper. Unfortunately what Gemini states below is incoherent! I recommend that you do not rely on Gemini for assessment of the paper. The analysis is straightforward and hence the steps are easy to follow.

Stephan

[Stephan Gift]

All,

Most researchers are familiar with the twin paradox and the pole-in-the-barn paradox in special relativity. Textbook writers generally claim resolution of these two inconsistencies even though there are numerous methods used to do so. However one of the oldest paradoxes which is not widely known is the right-angle lever paradox introduced by Lewis and Tolman in 1909. It arises in the case of a rigid and pivoted right-angle lever with arms of equal length upon which equal forces are applied in frame S such that there is no resultant torque and hence no rotation in that frame. The problem for special relativity is that while the torque on the lever is zero in frame S, when observed from a moving frame S’, a non-zero torque arises which means that the lever rotates in S’. This is a major inconsistency, which, like the twin paradox, has attracted considerable attention in attempts to find an acceptable solution. I have analysed the right-angle lever using the Lorentz LTs and can confirm that the inconsistency (non-zero torque in S’) also arises for the Lorentz LTs. This inconsistency does not arise when using the Selleri transformations for which there is zero torque in S’.

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Stephan

 

Unfortunately, while you think Gemini incoherent; what you say seems incoherent to me. As for your various analyses -I disagree that they are straight forward because you do not represent the theories correctly. 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu

To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 00:23
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Roger A.,

Thank you for your interest in my short paper. Unfortunately what Gemini states below is incoherent! I recommend that you do not rely on Gemini for assessment of the paper. The analysis is straightforward and hence the steps are easy to follow.

Stephan

 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB39687430B75B59BEE813A01D8C4BA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Going back to chatgpt

 

it says - that is a misunderstanding of relativity

 

is this claim by Stephan Gift correct - one of the oldest paradoxes which is not widely known is the right-angle lever paradox introduced by Lewis and Tolman in 1909. It arises in the case of a rigid and pivoted right-angle lever with arms of equal length upon which equal forces are applied in frame S such that there is no resultant torque and hence no rotation in that frame. The problem for special relativity is that while the torque on the lever is zero in frame S, when observed from a moving frame S’, a non-zero torque arises which means that the lever rotates in S’. This is a major inconsistency, which, like the twin paradox, has attracted considerable attention in attempts to find an acceptable solution. I have analysed the right-angle lever using the Lorentz LTs and can confirm that the inconsistency (non-zero torque in S’) also arises for the Lorentz LTs. This inconsistency does not arise when using the Selleri transformations for which there is zero torque in S’.

 

ChatGPT said:

AI replies - The claim made by Stephan Gift regarding the right-angle lever paradox is partially correct, but also reflects a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of standard special relativity (SR). Here's a breakdown of the issues and how they are addressed in the physics community:

---

✅ The Paradox Exists: Yes, It’s a Real Historical Puzzle

• Yes, the right-angle lever paradox, also called the Lewis-Tolman lever paradox, is a genuine relativistic thought experiment first discussed in 1909 by Lewis and Tolman.

• It involves a lever in the shape of an L, pivoted at the corner, with equal and opposite forces applied such that in its rest frame (S), there is no net torque and no motion.

• The paradox arises because in a moving frame (S′), due to relativistic transformations of forces, distances, and momenta, a non-zero torque appears, suggesting that the lever should rotate — which contradicts the rest-frame observation of no rotation.

---

🚫 The Inconsistency is Apparent, Not a Real Violation

This paradox is well-known in the physics community and has been resolved in the framework of special relativity without contradiction:

1. Relativistic Torques Are Not Simple Vectors:

   • Torque and angular momentum in SR must be treated using the relativistic angular momentum tensor (part of the energy-momentum tensor).

   • The naive use of classical torque τ=r×F\tau = r \times Fτ=r×F doesn't work in relativity.

2. Rotation Is Frame-Dependent:

   • What appears to be a torque in one frame does not necessarily imply rotation in that frame.

   • SR allows for “hidden momentum” and “hidden angular momentum” that arise in systems involving internal stresses or electromagnetic fields, which counteract the apparent torque.

3. Proper Resolution:

   • In the moving frame S′, the lever still does not rotate, because the system's internal stress-energy compensates for the observed torque.

   • This is thoroughly explained using the relativistic stress-energy tensor, and by recognizing that rigid bodies don’t exist in SR in the Newtonian sense.

   • See: [G. N. Lewis and R. C. Tolman, 1909], and modern analyses such as [Rindler, “Introduction to Special Relativity”], or the paper by Franklin (Am. J. Phys. 2005).

---

❌ Claim about Selleri Transformations

• Stephan Gift’s reference to the Selleri transformations is telling — Selleri proposed an alternative to SR that includes absolute simultaneity, violating Lorentz invariance.

• Selleri's framework is not compatible with standard SR, and experimental evidence supports Lorentz invariance, not Selleri’s model.

• Claiming that “the inconsistency disappears under Selleri transformations” is not a point in favor of Selleri, but rather an indication that his model uses a nonstandard definition of simultaneity.

---

🧠 Summary: What’s True and What’s Not

Claim by Stephan Gift	Is it correct?	Explanation
The Lewis-Tolman right-angle lever paradox exists	✅ Yes	Real historical paradox in special relativity.
A torque appears in the moving frame	✅ Yes	But this does not imply rotation due to relativistic effects.
This is a "major inconsistency" in SR	❌ No	The paradox is resolved within SR using correct relativistic methods.
Lorentz transforms yield this inconsistency	❌ Misleading	The apparent torque is not an inconsistency but part of the solution.
Selleri’s transformations fix the problem	✅ But...	Only because they assume different physics — not Lorentz invariant.

 

---

🔍 Verdict

Stephan Gift is misinterpreting a resolved paradox as a fundamental flaw in SR. While the torque transformation appears puzzling, special relativity handles it without contradiction when the physics is treated correctly. The apparent contradiction disappears when internal forces and relativistic definitions of torque and angular momentum are properly applied.

If you're interested, I can walk you through a more technical breakdown using the angular momentum tensor.

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com

Sent: Friday, July 11th 2025, 00:34
Subject: RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

All,

Most researchers are familiar with the twin paradox and the pole-in-the-barn paradox in special relativity. Textbook writers generally claim resolution of these two inconsistencies even though there are numerous methods used to do so. However one of the oldest paradoxes which is not widely known is the right-angle lever paradox introduced by Lewis and Tolman in 1909. It arises in the case of a rigid and pivoted right-angle lever with arms of equal length upon which equal forces are applied in frame S such that there is no resultant torque and hence no rotation in that frame. The problem for special relativity is that while the torque on the lever is zero in frame S, when observed from a moving frame S’, a non-zero torque arises which means that the lever rotates in S’. This is a major inconsistency, which, like the twin paradox, has attracted considerable attention in attempts to find an acceptable solution. I have analysed the right-angle lever using the Lorentz LTs and can confirm that the inconsistency (non-zero torque in S’) also arises for the Lorentz LTs. This inconsistency does not arise when using the Selleri transformations for which there is zero torque in S’.

Stephan Gift

 

 

From: Stephan Gift 
Sent: Friday, 11 July 2025 6:49 pm
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Stephan,

Your application of Lorentz LTs to derive a constant c/n in the moving frame for linear propagation may be correct.

 

I am not convinced as to the validity of your which I believe is based on an incomplete misapplied understanding of how special relativity explains phenomena in non-inertial (or effectively non-inertial due to closed paths in moving systems) frames.

I also do not believe you will have much luck providing reputable peer reviews that agree with your the correctness of your application of the equations to this non-inertial light path.

Cornelis Verhey

[Stephan Gift]

Cornelis,

Thank you for the feedback. I will make three points:

1. The Wang system involves uniform motion (except for the short path that goes around the pulleys) and therefore the moving frame is inertial and not non-inertial as you contend. That is why the system is often referred to as the linear Sagnac.
2. I specifically analysed the Lorentz LTs and not the Einstein LTs (special relativity) since my intention is to show that the Lorentz LTs are invalid.
3. However the analysis showing that the Einstein LTs (special relativity) also fails the Wang experiment is very similar. You will not find any paper in the open literature which provides a valid explanation of the Wang experiment based on SR.

[Stephan Gift]

Recently, in response to a request from Cornelis I circulated a short note on why the Lorentz LTs fail the Wang experiment (linear Sagnac experiment). I later pointed out that the Einstein LTs (special relativity) also fail this experimental test and the analysis is similar. I wish to indicate that Ori, A. and J.E. Avron [Generalized Sagnac-Wang-Fizeau Formula, Physical Review A., 94, 063837, 2016] do derive the Wang result using special relativity but they determine the time difference in the laboratory frame which is the wrong frame, instead of the moving frame where the source and detector are located. They were forced into this error because SR requires light speed in the moving frame to be c/n and this yields a null result. I have confirmed that the Wang result can be fully derived using the Selleri transformations.

Stephan Gift   

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Google - The Wang experiment, involving superluminal (faster-than-light) propagation of light pulses in a specially prepared medium, is often interpreted as contradicting special relativity, but a closer examination reveals that it doesn't truly invalidate the theory. SCIRP explains that the experiment demonstrates a change in the velocity of the pulse's peak, not the actual speed of light within the medium, and that special relativity can still explain the observed phenomenon. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

1. The Experiment:

• The Wang experiment utilizes a cesium vapor medium prepared in a specific way to exhibit anomalous dispersion.

• When a light pulse is sent through this medium, the peak of the pulse appears to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. 

2. Misinterpretations and Special Relativity:

• Some interpret this as evidence that special relativity is incorrect, particularly its postulate that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit. 

• However, the key point is that the experiment shows a change in the group velocity of the pulse's peak, not the speed of light itself. 

• The individual photons within the pulse still travel at the speed of light within the medium (though their paths may be altered by interactions with the medium). 

• Special relativity deals with the speed of light in a vacuum and the behavior of objects in different inertial frames, and the Wang experiment doesn't challenge these core principles. 

3. How Special Relativity Explains the Phenomenon:

• The cesium vapor in the Wang experiment exhibits anomalous dispersion, meaning the speed of light varies with frequency in a way that can lead to the peak of a pulse appearing to travel faster.
• Special relativity, through the Lorentz transformations, describes how the properties of space and time change for observers in different inertial frames.

• The apparent superluminal speed of the pulse's peak can be understood as a consequence of the way light interacts with the medium and how the pulse's shape is modified, not as a violation of the speed of light limit. 

4. Key Points:

• The Wang experiment demonstrates a change in the group velocity of a light pulse, not the speed of light itself.
• Special relativity remains consistent with the observed phenomena in the Wang experiment.
• The experiment highlights the complex ways light can interact with matter and how these interactions can lead to seemingly surprising results. 

------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: verhey....@gmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com

Sent: Saturday, July 12th 2025, 12:15
Subject: [npa-relativity] RE: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Recently, in response to a request from Cornelis I circulated a short note on why the Lorentz LTs fail the Wang experiment (linear Sagnac experiment). I later pointed out that the Einstein LTs (special relativity) also fail this experimental test and the analysis is similar. I wish to indicate that Ori, A. and J.E. Avron [Generalized Sagnac-Wang-Fizeau Formula, Physical Review A., 94, 063837, 2016] do derive the Wang result using special relativity but they determine the time difference in the laboratory frame which is the wrong frame, instead of the moving frame where the source and detector are located. They were forced into this error because SR requires light speed in the moving frame to be c/n and this yields a null result. I have confirmed that the Wang result can be fully derived using the Selleri transformations.

Stephan Gift   

 

 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB39687E84E5303AB640F33A648C4AA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
 

[Frank Fernandes]

The solution for FTL, one KG and ONE MOLE VOLUME has been solved by me utilizing Cs atoms and photons. Hadronic Journal Dec 2024.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Andy Schultheis]

When I was a young man back in the late 80's and early 90's, I assumed a black hole sat at the center of every galaxy.  I pretty much thought it was common knowledge.  Much to my surprise, I read an article sometime in the mid 90's that suggested a black hole was at the center of the milky way, and scientists seemed stunned by the revelation.  By 2002, it was pretty much confirmed.

Today, they still seem to wonder if most galaxies contain black holes.

In my view, not only are their SMBH at the center of galaxies, they are required.  If we found one without a black hole, it would be a rare exception, or a young galaxy early in its evolution.  A black hole in my view ignites a galaxy, giving it a dynamic time-energy gradient for solar systems to form around it.  It then slowly feeds off the surrounding matter as the solar systems circle around it.  

Galaxies are like galactic hurricanes, only they give life to a galaxy.  

What is a blackhole?

That's the million dollar question.

Simply put, a standing wave.

Heat is motion.  The faster matter moves around the hotter it appears.  Remove matter, and temperature = 0, or we can slow matter down and it gets really cold.  A couple degrees above absolute 0.  Absolute 0 being the ground state of space absent matter, a state I now call the proto-medium. The vacuum of space is not the lowest order of existence, rather a derivative state of the proto-medium vibrating or humming.  The vacuum is the hum.  A naturally occuring kinetic wave field.  But that is second order, where the proto-medium is first order, first principle.  Absent the hum, it is a singular substrate occupying 100% of all existence. It lacks any dimension, motion, temperature, symmetry or asymmetry, physics, math, and possesses no tension or resistance, etc, etc.  All properties of the universe we experience are emergent from this medium.  Everything is falsified against this medium.  The proto-medium is an answer, not a problem.  Its value can only be described as 1.  Wave height = 1, wave length =1, amplitude =1, and tension = 0.  

Stillness is an unstable state, so under its own dimensionless existence, it hums or vibrates.  It can't even collapse in on itself, because it has nowhere to go. This vibrating wave field is the vacuum of space, in my assessment.    

Yes, speculative to a large degree, but logical.  There is no reason to assume anything but space exists, or fundamentally, the proto-medium.  I've always known this, but could never describe what it was until now.  Space is a kinetic wave field in the proto-medium.  

As for Aether fans, this is the aether, not phantom particles.  There is no aether wind because proto-medium can't move.   What can move is waves, but not in the conventional sense of the word.  

And this brings me to a blackhole.  What are they?

As I said earlier, heat is the motion of matter.  Matter is standing or coherent waveforms.  For matter to exist, it must move.  When enough matter condenses it heats up, because that matter is resisting stillness.  It vibrates, or oscillates back and forth.  

Imagine a bouncing ball.  When you drop a ball onto a hard surface from a couple of feet, its bounce is long slow and natural.  As it continues to bounce, each cycle grows shorter and faster.  A couple of things to notice, a ball has two rest points.  The bottom of the bounce is a compressed state, and the top of the bounce is a decompressed state.  As those two points come closer together, the ball will eventually come to rest on the floor.  It's a neutral state.

A blackhole is a similar process, but the pressure being exerted on that matter increases its oscillation speed.  When that pressure reaches a critical point (or ciritical mass), probably when the oscillation speed requires c, the standing waves of matter lose coherence, and they decouple from our reality, and merge into a larger standing wave.

This is from the cavity resonator model I discussed earlier, where universes are an endless nested series of blackholes, which act as naturally occurring cavity resonators.  Our universe sits inside a blackhole.   

One thing always remains true.  Waves require a medium.  No medium, no waves.  We talk a lot about Aether around here, but aether cannot conjure itself as a primary.  Nothing can.  The only thing that should exist, is an dark empty meaningless void, more or less.  There is no reason to assume anything else can or should exist outside of the empty darkness.  It is from this notion that we must begin.  That is the foundation our universe must sit on.  Everything else is a hand wave.   Poof, stuff exists.  Magic.  

The universe is not built on magic.  It can only be built on wave principles.          

Critics might claim I'm just making a non-falsifiable claim to escape scrutiny. The facts are, science already does this libreally.  The idea that the laws of physics “just are” is equally untestable, as are all the forces they pretend just exist.   Or time.  Or motion.  These things may be fundamental to our existence, but they are not fundamental to existence itself.  They are not the cause and effect of themselves.  That's perpetual motion, and perpetual science.  

I plugged this email into GPT for comment, and it wrote a paper, using my own words verbatim in many cases.  Not quite sure why it did that, but I thought I would include it just the same.  It did go a little deeper in some areas.

The Proto-Medium: A First Principle Framework of Reality Through Standing Wave Resonance

  

[AJ]

Here’s another article hinting at what I’m saying with a link to a comparison by GPT. 

Physicists Found a Path to Black Holes That Einstein Couldn’t See Coming

GPT comparison to what I’m saying.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2025, at 4:25 PM, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Stephan Gift]

Nick,

I am still awaiting your list of “glaring errors” associated with the Selleri transformations.

My effort has not been to correct an error in SR, but rather to find the correct transformations that connect one (preferred) inertial frame to another inertial frame. I do not consider that the Selleri transformations (STs) represent a "partial fix" nor do I believe that they add to the confusion created by SR.

 

The correction is simple. Lorentz got the right clock retardation equation by using standard physics (e.g., absolute v with respect to a single, physical entity) whereas Einstein changed the meaning of Lorentz math by recasting it in an abstract math and non-physics model. So Lorentz was correct about clock retardation (not time dilation) being a function of absolute v per his clock retardation equation and GPS has confirmed Lorentzian (atomic) clock retardation to very high precision!

 

As most of us know, physics academia has used multiple, erroneous physics interpretations of SR to try and get around the physics problems caused by Einstein's abstract math transition from Lorentz's physics model. 

 

One of the many problems with introducing the Selleri Transformations (STs) is that the STs have gone through a series of changes that add a great deal of confusion and have never freed themselves from relativistic thinking. For example, Selleri introduced the STs (then called the ITs), in a book called "Weak Relativity" where the name is quite candid and insightful. Whereas the problem to fixing SR is quite simple (i.e., avoid going from physics to purely abstract math), Selleri tried an abstract math fix to one SR problem he correctly saw. Selleri, a true critical thinker, saw that the construct of "relative simultaneity" insured sucking all true physics

meaning out of SR. Unfortunately, Selleri's fix was to give an artificial, abstract math fix whereby one would arbitrarily select one frame's definition of simultaneity as the definition that must be used by all frames.

 

I have been conducting research on the STs for many years and do not perceive them in the way that you do. While there may have been changes in the theory and its development over the years, today, the STs simply represent the transformations that connect one (preferred) inertial frame to another inertial frame. Nothing artificial is involved since the equations are derived using two experimental facts rather than two postulates as in SR. This approach actually follows the scientific method of making observations (two experimental facts), codifying them (derivation of the STs) and testing the predictions of the model (my exhaustive testing of the STs).

 

Over time, Selleri evolved his STs to address more than just relative simultaneity. However, both his versions and the specific versions that you endorse, still contain a great deal of SR's problems. Even granting that, given enough time, you might figure out a correct version, it would only be 100% correct and 100% relativity free, if you end up with Lorentz's clock retardation physics equation and removed some of your and selleri's erroneous, relativistic assumptions. Even assuming such fundamental improvements, your approach to trying to straighten out a very confusing SR physics mess would still be adding a great deal of unnecessary confusion and skipping over a simple solution and that's inherently counterproductive and would also plagiarizing Lorentz and cheating him out of his due credit. 

 

Based on my very extensive work with the STs and my careful comparison with SR, I believe that I am in a better position than you to determine if the STs are "adding a great deal of unnecessary confusion"; They are not! On the contrary, the STs bring great clarity to space-time physics in a way that has been absent for the past 120 years. Here are some of the reasons:

1. The STs contain no paradoxes; the clock paradox, the pole-in-the-barn paradox and the right-angle lever paradox of SR all disappear.

1. The STs fully account for the Sagnac, Michelson-Gale and Wang (linear Sagnac) experiments while SR cannot.
2. The STs fully accommodate superluminal signals while SR cannot because of causality violation.
3. The STs produce the GPS clock-synchronization equation published by Ashby while SR cannot.
4. The STs are able to account for all of the confirmed predictions of SR including transverse Doppler, Compton scattering and Thomas precession.

Harry and I have clearly pointed out innumerable problems to your approach on this topic, including how it unnecessarily confuses the main issue on SR that the CNPA/NPA and physics critical thinkers and dissidents have been trying to correct. I realize that it's unintentional and due to your lack of knowledge of the physics history in this area, but you are aiding physics academia in defending SR by promoting a great deal of erroneous confusion and not clearly seeing the difference between good sound physics and abstract math with relativistic trappings.

 

There is no confusion Nick; unlike SR the STs have a clear interpretation and application. They have so far passed all the tests to which they have been subjected. That, I believe, is the hallmark of a correct theory.

Stephan

  

 

On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 01:04:42 PM EDT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:

 

 

Dear All,

Harry claims that I misstated the subject of his talk as fixing SR. In response, I wish to point out that the caption under the video is "Fixing Einstein's relativity-Harry Ricker-Cosmology discussion 22 June 2025". You draw your own conclusions.

Regarding my comments on his approach, he stated "What you say there is completely false and demonstrates you don't understand the method used in SR textbooks, and so I think you are simply trashing correct mathematics in order to advance your confused and incorrect Selleri theory...". I maintain on good grounds that his approach is incorrect and that the Selleri transformations have so far passed all the tests to which they have been subjected.  

Regards

Stephan Gift

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2025 12:07 pm
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cosmology video

 

Stephan,

 

In your first and last paragraphs, you misstated the subject of my talk as fixing SR. You apparently did not listen or pay attention to what I was saying, since I specifically disavowed special relativity, and stated that the Lorentz assumptions of absolute space and time are applied. That was obvious in my initial slides. In the future I suggest that you pay attention to what people actually say rather that misrepresent them in statements that are misleading and factually incorrect.

 

Regarding your middle paragraph. What you say there is completely false and demonstrates you don't understand the method used in SR textbooks, and so I think you are simply trashing correct mathematics in order to advance your confused and incorrect Selleri theory, which agrees with Einstein length contraction. What I did in my paper is correct, since it is basically what is done in SR textbooks, which I have extended by my correct method. Your claim that it is incorrect is ridiculous and false, showing you don't understand the mathematics used in Lorentz transformation theory.

 

As regard your claims promoting the false Selleri transformations, they do not pass muster as Nick Percival and I have explained to you before. The correct theory is the Lorentz theory, not SR or Selleri's.

 

I can well understand your desire to trash and oppose my correct theory, since it is a threat to your cherished Selleri theory. The fact that you misunderstood my presentation as fixing SR shows that you don't pay attention to what I have said and written because of your prejudice toward my correct theory, which is not the Selleri theory.

 

Let me finish by saying that your claims are faulty, because my theory, is an extension of the Lorentz Ether Theory which I have improved by the addition of a rigorously correct mathematical formalism. I am not fixing SR I am pointing out where Einstein was wrong and how it can be fixed. The replacement I propose is not SR as you erroneously claim.

 

Harry

 

 

 

On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 08:50:49 AM EDT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:

 

 

Dear All,

On the latest cosmology video posted by Roger A., Harry presented his approach to fixing SR and the Lorentz transformations. Towards the end of the video, he stated that I considered his results to be wrong. What he did not say is that I detailed my objections to his ideas to which he did not respond. For the information of this group, I wish to now restate my main objection to Harry's approach. I refer you to one of his papers "Einstein's False Derivation of Time Dilation" which is attached for your convenience:

 

In section 5.1 he sets x=0 in the LTs and obtains x'=-ϒvt (9) and t'=ϒt (10). (He used β instead of ϒ.) However, these resulting equations hold only for x=0 and no other values of x. Thus, for non-zero values of x, t'≠ϒt and hence these derived equations are practically useless since they hold only for x=0. In section 5.2 the author sets x'=0 in the LTs and derives x= ϒvt' (15) and t=ϒt' (16). Once again, these derived equations hold only for x'=0 and no other values of x'. Thus, for non-zero values of x', t≠ϒt' and hence these derived equations are also practically useless since they hold only for x'=0. This approach of arbitrarily setting the variables x and x' to zero and deriving equations on this basis is invalid since it leads to equations which do not hold generally.

 

My approach is not to try to fix SR but to search for the correct transformations connecting one (preferred) inertial frame to another inertial frame. (I do agree with Harry that there is a need to utilize a single preferred frame.) My search over many years has led me to the Selleri transformations which Selleri developed in 1995 using two experimental facts: (i) two-way light speed constancy and (ii) clock retardation by the usual gamma factor. I have exhaustively tested these transformations (by testing the predictions) and so far find that they hold true.

 

Regards

Stephan

 

 

 

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 23 June 2025 12:41 pm
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Cosmology video

 

Latest Cosmology video

 

https://youtu.be/MLOnO40IKzo

 

 

[AJ]

And one last article with a GPT side by side comparison. 

A time before time itself – Why cosmologists now think we CAN know what came before the Big Bang

GPT comparison to my concept.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2025, at 7:28 PM, AJ <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Frank Fernandes]

All the theories of the big bang and what came before that are theories with deficient evidence.

A black hole is one that forms at the Schwarzschild Radius. Which corresponds to that of a  186-ether twin mass.

The 186-ether twin mass is produced by a trajectory of a double helical structure.

The double helical path is by two particles namely, a graviton and an aitheron.

The measures of the frequencies of the two particles produce mass in Kg as defined by NIST recently and stated several times by me from 2008.

Now I have solved the reason for volume by photons from elementary beginnings of the KE theory of gases.

Acceleration due to gravity is due to ether.  mc^2 = Ether mass x v^2       m=Earth mass for example or Sun or Moon or Mars or Jupiter.

Solved. or eV/e where Volt V term is a =g. Solved.

Within the structure of  f1 x f2 x f3 x f3 tori is the all pervading void. It is this void that creates free fall which we measure as zero resistance.

However acceleration of particles or planets or stars is dictated by Ether velocity squared.

The term acceleration is more important than c and v. Because v squared has two velocity components. And c squared has two components namely -

25812.807 m/s and 3.481818x10e12 m/s.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[AJ]

So, one more time.  Another recent article about black hole universe. The writing is on the wall.  We see everything, including other domain-universes   It just makes sense.  

Our universe may exist inside a spinning black hole, JWST finds

GPT comparison to my concept.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2025, at 7:45 PM, AJ <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

And one last article with a GPT side by side comparison. 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Stephan,

Here are five arguments in support of your understanding.

https://g.co/gemini/share/ebdf3905ff2b

Cornelis Verhey

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

I don't see that.

 

Gemini conclusion was - In conclusion, while one can try to find very specific, often strained, interpretations to "agree" with some of your statements, the core scientific understanding and overwhelming evidence generally lead to disagreement with the premise that these are "problems" with the Lorentz LTs in the way you've framed them. The LTs are incredibly robust and have been repeatedly confirmed by experiments.

 

 

me - The overall problem with Stephan is that he doesn't want to interpret the LTs in the same way that the mainstream interprets them. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: verhey....@gmail.com
To: stepha...@uwi.edu Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 14:19
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Stephan,

 

Here are five arguments in support of your understanding.

 

https://g.co/gemini/share/ebdf3905ff2b

 

 

Cornelis Verhey

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAERt3yT__pT3%2B6mNjhstnsi4syR6bg-qhRo8OE8PAXJftqHKAA%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Joe Sorge]

I wish to stand up for Stephan. Gemini clearly does not understand the underlying challenge. And like the physics clergy, Gemini glosses over points that are lethal to the LTs (Sagnac, Fizeau, Wang, UTC) and it emphasizes points where Stephan and the LTs agree (speed effects on clock tempo). Gemini here is simply the choir regurgitating the sermon.

 

I cannot emphasize more that the spatial gradient of clock readings, which is baked into the black-letter math of the LTs, is appropriate only in circumstances where there are two or more clocks that are offset to report different times of day. And as Allen, Weiss and Ashby clearly explained in Science in 1985, and as Ashby (NIST expert on time standards) reiterated in 1995, one cannot use the LTs to coordinate atomic clocks around the earth because circumferential Einstein clock-synchronization leads to a time-gap when the last signal reaches the first clock in the chain. Einstein and LT time-keeping fail in closed-loop measurements of light speed.

 

A lack of appreciation of the necessity for a spatial gradient of clock readings to properly implement the LTs (except in special cases where dx’ = 0) will keep one’s knowledge-base trapped in a world of paradoxes and logic gaps. I know that I sound like a broken record, but failing to appreciate the purpose of Section 1 of Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper will hold back one’s ability to appreciate the very important distinctions pointed out by Tangherlini and Selleri.

 

Regards,

Joe

[Andy Schultheis]

There’s some irony to Einstein. He wasn’t mainstream, because there was no mainstream. He was a rebel theorist offering a radical new understanding of the universe.

He became the father of mainstream science, probably without even realizing it.

Once academics saw what was possible, fame, fortune, legacy, it all started to shift. Publishing became profitable. Recognition followed. Then it turned political. Quiet rules emerged. Step out of line and you're labeled a crackpot. Why? Because your work might threaten funding.

Science got funneled down a narrow path. Results became the currency. Right or wrong didn’t matter as long as the math worked and the papers got published. So here we are, over a hundred years later, still testing Einstein instead of trying to solve the actual problem.

That’s what CNPS is supposed to be about. Breaking rules. Thinking out of line.

My thesis isn’t based on formulas, at least not in the traditional sense. I care whether the math works, but I’m not starting there. I’m working at the foundation. I want to understand why math works at all. Why physics describes the universe in the first place. That’s not a math problem. It’s a physical or mechanical one.

There's not going to be an elegant formula waiting to be revealed at the base. The foundation is the only thing that just is. It’s there because it's the only thing left to be there, after everything else is stripped away.

What is 0
What is 1
What is infinity
What is finite

These questions have been glossed over for centuries. We got hooked on publishing, peer review, and grant cycles. We demand empirical evidence and mathematical rigor, while ignoring the fact that all of science rests on unprovable assumptions.

Forces just exist
Matter just exists
Motion just happens
Time, inflation, Planck units, constants, just assumed and accepted

I’m not trying to win a prize or publish a paper. I’m trying to make sense of it all.

And I don’t understand your thesis, Frank.  In all sincerity.  
Where did your graviton or aitheron come from?
Why do they exist?
Just because?

    

 

       

[HARRY RICKER]

Joe,

I disagree with your last paragraph: A lack of appreciation of the necessity for a spatial gradient of clock readings to properly implement the LTs (except in special cases where dx’ = 0) will keep one’s knowledge-base trapped in a world of paradoxes and logic gaps. I know that I sound like a broken record, but failing to appreciate the purpose of Section 1 of Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper will hold back one’s ability to appreciate the very important distinctions pointed out by Tangherlini and Selleri.

Section 1 is where Einstein introduces his mistakes. Studying that will only keep you confused. 

Tangherlini and Selleri give the same time transformations as Einstein, and so no improvement in understanding is to be expected in using them. 

Harry

 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

>>like the physics clergy, Gemini glosses over points<<

 

glossing over things is the mainstream way of doing things; so what (?)

 

as for "lethal" points - mainstream would deny there were such things.

 

According to mainstream - GPS works by relativity; so what SR fails to deal with - GR is supposed to compensate.

 

The problem with Stephan remains - he wants to deal with LTs differently to how mainstream deals with them and does not explain why.

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 14:52
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

I wish to stand up for Stephan. Gemini clearly does not understand the underlying challenge. And like the physics clergy, Gemini glosses over points that are lethal to the LTs (Sagnac, Fizeau, Wang, UTC) and it emphasizes points where Stephan and the LTs agree (speed effects on clock tempo). Gemini here is simply the choir regurgitating the sermon.

 

I cannot emphasize more that the spatial gradient of clock readings, which is baked into the black-letter math of the LTs, is appropriate only in circumstances where there are two or more clocks that are offset to report different times of day. And as Allen, Weiss and Ashby clearly explained in Science in 1985, and as Ashby (NIST expert on time standards) reiterated in 1995, one cannot use the LTs to coordinate atomic clocks around the earth because circumferential Einstein clock-synchronization leads to a time-gap when the last signal reaches the first clock in the chain. Einstein and LT time-keeping fail in closed-loop measurements of light speed.

 

A lack of appreciation of the necessity for a spatial gradient of clock readings to properly implement the LTs (except in special cases where dx’ = 0) will keep one’s knowledge-base trapped in a world of paradoxes and logic gaps. I know that I sound like a broken record, but failing to appreciate the purpose of Section 1 of Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper will hold back one’s ability to appreciate the very important distinctions pointed out by Tangherlini and Selleri.

 

Regards,

Joe

 

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 3:26 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB5633452AFF8ECECF178055108954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

 

 

>>Section 1 is where Einstein introduces his mistakes. <<

 

and as I pointed out in talk on Saturday - mainstream is now supposed to be going by SR    where Einstein's mistakes were supposed to have been implicitly corrected, so SR is no longer  what he was originally saying

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; joe....@decisivedx.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 15:25
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Joe,

 

I disagree with your last paragraph: A lack of appreciation of the necessity for a spatial gradient of clock readings to properly implement the LTs (except in special cases where dx’ = 0) will keep one’s knowledge-base trapped in a world of paradoxes and logic gaps. I know that I sound like a broken record, but failing to appreciate the purpose of Section 1 of Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper will hold back one’s ability to appreciate the very important distinctions pointed out by Tangherlini and Selleri.

 

Section 1 is where Einstein introduces his mistakes. Studying that will only keep you confused. 

 

Tangherlini and Selleri give the same time transformations as Einstein, and so no improvement in understanding is to be expected in using them. 

 

Harry

 

 

 

On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 09:52:52 AM EDT, Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com> wrote:

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1788711319.1355318.1752503130206%40mail.yahoo.com.
 

[matterdoc]

See: https://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0195v3.pdf

Nainan,    www.matterdoc.info 

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Harry,

 

I agree with you that in Section 1 of the 1905 paper Einstein twisted the concept of clock synchronization on its head. But we must appreciate that the LTs already had this twisted concept baked into its math in the form of the v * dx’ / c^2 term of the time transforms. There is no ignoring the dx’ term in the time transformation. It is a distance measurement – in other words a spatial gradient of time. So, Einstein was trying to explain the meaning of the spatial gradient. Meaning that time readings needed to be different depending on location. Instead of blaming the “mistake” on Einstein, I would point instead to Lorentz for trying to force EM speed in Maxwell’s equations to be constant for all reference frames. That assumption then forced the creation of a spatial gradient. It’s all hooey. My money is on EM speed being anisotropic in any moving frame, and being isotropic in the “ether”.  Tangherlini and Selleri point out this anisotropy mathematically, whereas the LTs and Einstein attempt to hide the anisotropy by rigging the clocks in a way that masks it.

 

BTW my Ask Us Whatever Episode 9.5.A explains this in depth.

 

Thanks

Joe

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

>>I would point instead to Lorentz for trying to force EM speed in Maxwell’s equations to be constant for all reference frames. <<

 

groan - it is supposed to be Einstein NOT Lorentz; and by ref frames mean inertial

 

 

as per AI at 1905 - onwards -

 

Summary:

Concept	Lorentz	Einstein
Aether	Believed in it	Rejected it
Light speed constant in all frames?	No – constant only in aether frame	Yes – postulated as constant in all inertial frames
Meaning of Lorentz transformations	Real physical distortions due to aether	Manifestations of spacetime geometry

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com
To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 17:30
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

I agree with you that in Section 1 of the 1905 paper Einstein twisted the concept of clock synchronization on its head. But we must appreciate that the LTs already had this twisted concept baked into its math in the form of the v * dx’ / c^2 term of the time transforms. There is no ignoring the dx’ term in the time transformation. It is a distance measurement – in other words a spatial gradient of time. So, Einstein was trying to explain the meaning of the spatial gradient. Meaning that time readings needed to be different depending on location. Instead of blaming the “mistake” on Einstein, I would point instead to Lorentz for trying to force EM speed in Maxwell’s equations to be constant for all reference frames. That assumption then forced the creation of a spatial gradient. It’s all hooey. My money is on EM speed being anisotropic in any moving frame, and being isotropic in the “ether”.  Tangherlini and Selleri point out this anisotropy mathematically, whereas the LTs and Einstein attempt to hide the anisotropy by rigging the clocks in a way that masks it.

 

BTW my Ask Us Whatever Episode 9.5.A explains this in depth.

 

Thanks

Joe

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 4:25 PM

[Stephan Gift]

Joe,

I think you have summed up the situation quite well. Although Harry insists that the Selleri time transformation is the same as the Lorentz time transformation, by simple inspection you can see that they are different. Moreover as I have pointed out many times, the two sets of transformations (STs and LTs) make many different predictions such as one-way light speed in a moving frame. In fact, I have in the past circulated 18 tests of the STs and special relativity, all of which the STs passed and several of which SR failed including the Wang experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, ground-clock synchronization, simultaneity and the Correspondence principle.

Regards

Stephan

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Joe,

Please take note concerning your isotopy of light speed comment. If we are to take Stephan's version as representing Selleri, then isotropy is relative to ECI, and not to "ether".

Ether is a motionless/rest frame. But according to what we are told, there is no requirement for ether in Selleri transformation in order to define a rest frame. ECI is substituted for that, even though we know that ECI is not at rest, but orbiting the Sun, and even our galaxy.

Or is Stephan misrepresenting Selleri?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 5:30 PM
To: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/npa-relativity/lJd1140DFKQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

[HARRY RICKER]

Stephan,

Please explain what the difference is between the Einstein equations and the Selleri equations since it is so obvious that you seem to know the difference. I don't. 

Einstein time dilation equation 1905 t'=t/gamma, Selleri equation t'=t/gamma same equation. No difference. Looks to me like you are lying to us.

Harry

[HARRY RICKER]

Akinbo,

Apparently Joe has become confused by following some red herrings created by Selleri and Tangherlini. Selleri follows Tangherlini, and looking at his paper we see his transformations are based upon Minkowski space-time, so they implicitly assume the Lorentz transformation. So there is really no difference between the Selleri and Lorentz transformations other than the rest frame assumption. Meanwhile Stephan lies to us regarding the Lorentz transforms, deliberately confusing the Einstein theory with the Lorentz theory, thereby creating confusion and red herrings. 

It seems that Joe has fallen for this misrepresentation by Stephan. Meanwhile the Selleri transformations are the same as the Einstein time transformations of 1905 and 1907, so that Stephan has to say they are different, but doesn't say what the difference is. Stephan continues to deliberately confuse the discussion, and I don't see any difference from his deliberately lying to us in order to promote his wrong opinions regarding Selleri transformations.

Harry 

On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 02:31:39 PM EDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Harry,

 

My apologies for not be more careful in my emails. It is difficult to be precise when writing emails quickly rather than when drafting a manuscript for a paper. But let’s see if we can reach agreement on a few basics.

 

Lorentz/Einstein (LE) time transform:

 

            t(1LE) = g(L) * (t’(1LE) + v * x’(1) / c^2)

            t(2LE) = g(L) * (t’(2LE) + v * x’(2) / c^2)

           

dt(LE)   = g(L) * (dt’(LE) + v * dx’ / c^2)

 

We can rearrange these to solve for t’:

 

            t'(1LE) = t(1LE) / g(L) – v * x’(1) / c^2                         (1)

            t’(2LE) = t(2LE) / g(L) – v * x’(2) / c^2                         (2)

           

dt’(LE) = dt(LE) / g(L) – v * dx’ / c^2

 

I use the notation t’(1LE) and t’(2LE) to indicate Lorentz/Einstein clocks, such that when v > 0 the time readings reported by clocks t’(1LE) and t’(2LE) will not be the same if they are located a different positions x’(1) and x’(2), even if clocks t(1LE) and t(2LE) are reporting exactly the same reading at the same instant. This is evident from equations (1) and (2) where x’(1) and x’(2) represent the locations of events 1 and 2 in the S’ frame.

 

In other words, if one could take a photo of frame S’ from frame S, the snapshot would reveal that clocks t’(1LE) and t’(2LE) do not agree. Their time readings will depend on their locations along the x’ axis, where the clock that lies farther along the x’ axis will report a time reading that is v * dx’ / c^2 earlier than the more proximal clock.

 

Do we agree so far?

 

 

Tangherlini / Selleri time transform:

 

            t(1TS) = g(L) * t’(1TS)

            t(2TS) = g(L) * t’(2TS)

 

            dt   = g(L) * dt’(TS)

 

Rearranging to solve for t’

 

            t'(1TS) = t(1TS) / g(L)

            t’(2TS) = t(2TS) / g(L)

 

            dt’(TS) = dt(TS) / g(L)

 

I use the notation t’(1TS) and t’(2TS) to indicate Tangherlini/Selleri clocks. The time readings on t’(1TS) and t’(2TS) will report the same values at any given instant regardless of speed v, and regardless of their location along the x’ axis. A photo of frame S’ taken from frame S would show that the readings reported by clocks t’(1TS) and t’(2TS) agree.

 

Do we agree on this?

 

If we agree, then the LE vs TS formulas are the same if v is zero (a non-interesting case), or dx’ is zero (such that events 1 and 2 occur at the same location in frame S’), or c is infinite (which I think we all agree is not supported by experimentation).

 

But when events occur at different x’ locations in frame S’ the LE and ST transforms are not the same because they use clocks that have been synchronized in a different manner. And the LE transforms require compensation for the spatial gradient of clock readings in frame S’.

 

If we do not agree, please let me know where you believe I may be confused.

 

Best regards,

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

I find the notation as confusing.

 

The Lorentz transformation for time is

 

t' = gamma (t-vx/c^2)

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com

To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:21
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

My apologies for not be more careful in my emails. It is difficult to be precise when writing emails quickly rather than when drafting a manuscript for a paper. But let’s see if we can reach agreement on a few basics.

Joe

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 9:46 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB5633905263D17EF9B19556098954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

and by calling it "Lorentz/Einstein" confuses things  because interpretation of LT is different in the two theories

 

 

Physical Interpretation: Different

Feature	Special Relativity (Einstein)	Lorentz Ether Theory (Lorentz)
Preferred Frame	None (all inertial frames are equivalent)	Exists (the ether frame is physically privileged)
Time Dilation	Reciprocal and real (each sees the other slow)	Only moving clocks slow relative to the ether
Length Contraction	Reciprocal and real	Apparent, due to contraction with respect to ether
Clock Synchronization	Einstein convention (based on light symmetry)	Only ether frame has true simultaneity
Meaning of Lorentz Transform	Changes between equally real frames	Describes how moving objects appear from rest frame
Inverse Transform	Describes what observers in S′S'S′ see of SSS	Describes how moving frame S′S'S′ is related to ether

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:28
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

I find the notation as confusing.

 

The Lorentz transformation for time is

 

t' = gamma (t-vx/c^2)

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com

To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:21
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

My apologies for not be more careful in my emails. It is difficult to be precise when writing emails quickly rather than when drafting a manuscript for a paper. But let’s see if we can reach agreement on a few basics.

Joe

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 9:46 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB5633905263D17EF9B19556098954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/33b576ed.afe9.1980ad699c1.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

typo correction 

Inverse Transform

Describes what observers in S′ see of SSS

Describes how moving frame S′ is related to ether

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:28
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

I find the notation as confusing.

 

The Lorentz transformation for time is

 

t' = gamma (t-vx/c^2)

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com

To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:21
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

My apologies for not be more careful in my emails. It is difficult to be precise when writing emails quickly rather than when drafting a manuscript for a paper. But let’s see if we can reach agreement on a few basics.

Joe

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 9:46 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB5633905263D17EF9B19556098954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/33b576ed.afe9.1980ad699c1.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/7a8bab50.b00a.1980adcd26b.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

missed one typo 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com

To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:36
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

typo correction 

Describes how moving frame S′ is related to ether

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:28
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

I find the notation as confusing.

 

The Lorentz transformation for time is

 

t' = gamma (t-vx/c^2)

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com

To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:21
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

My apologies for not be more careful in my emails. It is difficult to be precise when writing emails quickly rather than when drafting a manuscript for a paper. But let’s see if we can reach agreement on a few basics.

Joe

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 9:46 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB5633905263D17EF9B19556098954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/33b576ed.afe9.1980ad699c1.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/7a8bab50.b00a.1980adcd26b.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/43cb470e.b013.1980ade2a2e.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

My thoughts are- by misrepresenting the two theories it then supposed to be gateway to Tangherlini / Selleri

 

and by calling it "Lorentz/Einstein" confuses things  because interpretation of LT is different in the two theories

 

 

Physical Interpretation: Different

Feature	Special Relativity (Einstein)	Lorentz Ether Theory (Lorentz)
Preferred Frame	None (all inertial frames are equivalent)	Exists (the ether frame is physically privileged)
Time Dilation	Reciprocal and real (each sees the other slow)	Only moving clocks slow relative to the ether
Length Contraction	Reciprocal and real	Apparent, due to contraction with respect to ether
Clock Synchronization	Einstein convention (based on light symmetry)	Only ether frame has true simultaneity
Meaning of Lorentz Transform	Changes between equally real frames	Describes how moving objects appear from rest frame
Inverse Transform	Describes what observers in S′ see of S	Describes how moving frame S′ is related to ether

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:28
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

I find the notation as confusing.

 

The Lorentz transformation for time is

 

t' = gamma (t-vx/c^2)

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com

To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 14th 2025, 22:21
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

My apologies for not be more careful in my emails. It is difficult to be precise when writing emails quickly rather than when drafting a manuscript for a paper. But let’s see if we can reach agreement on a few basics.

Joe

 

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 9:46 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB5633905263D17EF9B19556098954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/33b576ed.afe9.1980ad699c1.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/7a8bab50.b00a.1980adcd26b.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/43cb470e.b013.1980ade2a2e.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/47692775.b01d.1980adf04c6.Webtop.200%40btinternet.com.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Joe,

If two theories predict t’ = t/γ are they different?

Even if their math or assumptions claim to be different, since their predictions are the same, how are both to be differentiated?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 8:46 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAERt3yT__pT3%2B6mNjhstnsi4syR6bg-qhRo8OE8PAXJftqHKAA%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[HARRY RICKER]

Joe,

Those transforms are the same results as obtained by Einstein, in his 1905 and 1907 papers. Stephan lied and said I was wrong. You just confirmed I am right. 

While Stephen bangs the drum for the Selleri transforms which are the same as the Einstein ones regarding time, I assert that it is what they mean which is important. Selleri gives us no information as to whether they change any interpretation as advanced by Einstein. Selleri still seems to imply time dilation, and I don't agree with that as valid physics.

The main difficulty with those time transforms is that they can not be used to deduce the frequency of the clocks correctly, since they lead to the moving reference clock having a higher frequency than the rest clock and so the conclusion is that is invalidated by experiments. 

Proof: t’ = t/γ  invert both sides  1/t=1/t'  1/γ = f ' =f/γ since lambda is greater than unity that means the frequency in the moving frame is less than the rest frame. So the moving clock runs faster than the rest clock contrary to the experiments.  

Harry

[HARRY RICKER]

Akinbo,

You said this which is what I have been asking Stephan to explain for several years now, and he has neglected to respond. "Even if their math or assumptions claim to be different, since their predictions are the same, how are both to be differentiated?"

Stephan falsely asserted I was mistaken asserting that any body can see the difference simply by looking at the equations. 

I can only conclude that Stephan does not understand the theory he claims to be advocating, and resorts to false statements to avoid any criticism

Harry

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Akimbo,

 

The two theories are not the same.  They agree on the clock-slowing factor, which is the Lorentz gamma factor. But they disagree on what Lorentz called “local time” in the late 1800s. Lorentz’s local time adjusts local time by – v * dx’ / c^2. According to Wikipedia, Lorentz did not really know why this worked to explain light aberration, the Fizeau result, and Maxwell’s equations. Again, according to Wikipedia, Poincare gave some further insight into Lorentz’s “local time” at around year 1900, adding a method of clock synchronization that would create the – v * dx’ / c^2 gradient. And then in 1905 Einstein combined “local time” with clock slowing while also discarding the concept of an ether, thus creating a path to pure relativity (rather than relativity with respect to an ether).

 

The Tangherlini/Selleri transforms eliminate the concept of local time and thus do not include a – v * dx’ / c^2 term in their transforms.  But to apply such transforms, the clocks being used to measure time must be “absolutely synchronized” rather than synchronized using the method of Poincare / Einstein.

 

Do the transforms achieve the same result? No. The Lorentz/Einstein transforms predict that the one-way speed of light is c in all inertial frames. In contrast, the Tangherlini/Selleri transforms predict anisotropic light speed in any frame other than in the preferred, ether frame. The Tangherlini/Selleri transforms predict the outcome of Fizeau and Sagnac experiments, where two, opposing one-way light signals return to a single clock; but the Lorentz transforms do not predict the outcome in the moving frame because of the impossibility of offsetting a single clock with itself. In other words, pursuing the x’ axis round and round in a closed loop creates an endless spiral of imaginary clocks.

 

Both transforms predict round-trip light speed to be c. Both also predict the same result when v = 0 (ether frame) or when dx’ = 0 (events occur a the same location in frame S’) or if c is infinite.

 

Regards,

Joe

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Harry,

 

I do not wish to come between you and Stephan.  I like you both and view you both as very intelligent. I do not understand the source of the disagreement. It apparently pre-dates my joining the email group.

 

Best wishes,
Joe

[HARRY RICKER]

Joe, 

I need to correct my proof as follows.

Proof: t’ = t/γ     γ 1/t =1/t'  hence γf= f'     since lambda is greater than unity that means the frequency in the moving frame is greater than the rest frame. So the moving clock runs faster than the rest clock contrary to the experiments.   

[HARRY RICKER]

Joe,

Stephan is dishonest and makes claims about me which are false. He has done this three times recently. The latest being when he accused me of disrespecting him when he lied about me. That indicates his inability to justify his claims about the Selleri transformations which are criticized by me as being false. Stephan continues to make false dishonest claims abut the Lorentz theory which has drawn criticism from me and Nick Precival. Stephan fails to correct his mistakes and responds with false statements about me.

Harry 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

>>I do not understand the source of the disagreement<<

 

 

Stephan has a pet theory to promote and he does that by misrepresenting relativity.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com

To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15th 2025, 15:21
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

I do not wish to come between you and Stephan.  I like you both and view you both as very intelligent. I do not understand the source of the disagreement. It apparently pre-dates my joining the email group.

 

Best wishes,
Joe

 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Joe

 

Giving a longer answer-

 

Harry has written a great deal about relativity being wrong - 

 

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/327/H.H.,%20Ricker%20III

 

Nick has done a great many videos on relativity being wrong - 

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfucv1ZRMKTxDO7cuHEf3hQ

 

Stephan just contradicts all of that

 

 

I have pointed out AI disagrees with his representation of relativity.

 

But Stephan just ignores all of that and persists with his point-of-view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: joe....@decisivedx.com; kc...@yahoo.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15th 2025, 18:17
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

>>I do not understand the source of the disagreement<<

 

 

Stephan has a pet theory to promote and he does that by misrepresenting relativity.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com
To: kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15th 2025, 15:21

Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Harry,

 

I do not wish to come between you and Stephan.  I like you both and view you both as very intelligent. I do not understand the source of the disagreement. It apparently pre-dates my joining the email group.

 

Best wishes,
Joe

 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/5d931d74.db75.1980f178cbb.Webtop.251%40btinternet.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

I asked - AI - If two theories predict t’ = t/γ are they different?

 

 

it replied that depended on several factors.

 

I asked if the difference was only metaphysical

 

AI replied - If the only differences are metaphysical and they remain behaviorally or empirically equivalent, then they are generally considered the same theory in terms of predictive utility. 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; kc...@yahoo.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15th 2025, 15:16
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Akimbo,

 

The two theories are not the same.  They agree on the clock-slowing factor, which is the Lorentz gamma factor. But they disagree on what Lorentz called “local time” in the late 1800s. Lorentz’s local time adjusts local time by – v * dx’ / c^2. According to Wikipedia, Lorentz did not really know why this worked to explain light aberration, the Fizeau result, and Maxwell’s equations. Again, according to Wikipedia, Poincare gave some further insight into Lorentz’s “local time” at around year 1900, adding a method of clock synchronization that would create the – v * dx’ / c^2 gradient. And then in 1905 Einstein combined “local time” with clock slowing while also discarding the concept of an ether, thus creating a path to pure relativity (rather than relativity with respect to an ether).

 

The Tangherlini/Selleri transforms eliminate the concept of local time and thus do not include a – v * dx’ / c^2 term in their transforms.  But to apply such transforms, the clocks being used to measure time must be “absolutely synchronized” rather than synchronized using the method of Poincare / Einstein.

 

Do the transforms achieve the same result? No. The Lorentz/Einstein transforms predict that the one-way speed of light is c in all inertial frames. In contrast, the Tangherlini/Selleri transforms predict anisotropic light speed in any frame other than in the preferred, ether frame. The Tangherlini/Selleri transforms predict the outcome of Fizeau and Sagnac experiments, where two, opposing one-way light signals return to a single clock; but the Lorentz transforms do not predict the outcome in the moving frame because of the impossibility of offsetting a single clock with itself. In other words, pursuing the x’ axis round and round in a closed loop creates an endless spiral of imaginary clocks.

 

Both transforms predict round-trip light speed to be c. Both also predict the same result when v = 0 (ether frame) or when dx’ = 0 (events occur a the same location in frame S’) or if c is infinite.

 

Regards,

Joe

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAERt3yT__pT3%2B6mNjhstnsi4syR6bg-qhRo8OE8PAXJftqHKAA%40mail.gmail.com.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/npa-relativity/lJd1140DFKQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB56332B74C46E329CE4ABD48B8957A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

Joe

 

I think now - with trying to weigh up what Nick+Harry says versus what Stephan says --

 

 

It is usually said that Lorentz theory and special relativity are empirically equivalent - so may be Stephan then treats that as them both being the same theory (?)~#

Whereas Nick+Harry treat them as metaphysically different hence two different theories.~#

 

 

# - However, proviso - I am loath to put interpretations on to things if not explicitly stated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; kc...@yahoo.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15th 2025, 19:39
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

I asked - AI - If two theories predict t’ = t/γ are they different?

 

 

it replied that depended on several factors.

 

I asked if the difference was only metaphysical

 

AI replied - If the only differences are metaphysical and they remain behaviorally or empirically equivalent, then they are generally considered the same theory in terms of predictive utility. 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; kc...@yahoo.com Cc: nper...@snet.net; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; netchit...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; munda...@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15th 2025, 15:16

Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology video - LLTs
 

Hi Akimbo,

 

The two theories are not the same.  They agree on the clock-slowing factor, which is the Lorentz gamma factor. But they disagree on what Lorentz called “local time” in the late 1800s. Lorentz’s local time adjusts local time by – v * dx’ / c^2. According to Wikipedia, Lorentz did not really know why this worked to explain light aberration, the Fizeau result, and Maxwell’s equations. Again, according to Wikipedia, Poincare gave some further insight into Lorentz’s “local time” at around year 1900, adding a method of clock synchronization that would create the – v * dx’ / c^2 gradient. And then in 1905 Einstein combined “local time” with clock slowing while also discarding the concept of an ether, thus creating a path to pure relativity (rather than relativity with respect to an ether).

 

The Tangherlini/Selleri transforms eliminate the concept of local time and thus do not include a – v * dx’ / c^2 term in their transforms.  But to apply such transforms, the clocks being used to measure time must be “absolutely synchronized” rather than synchronized using the method of Poincare / Einstein.

 

Do the transforms achieve the same result? No. The Lorentz/Einstein transforms predict that the one-way speed of light is c in all inertial frames. In contrast, the Tangherlini/Selleri transforms predict anisotropic light speed in any frame other than in the preferred, ether frame. The Tangherlini/Selleri transforms predict the outcome of Fizeau and Sagnac experiments, where two, opposing one-way light signals return to a single clock; but the Lorentz transforms do not predict the outcome in the moving frame because of the impossibility of offsetting a single clock with itself. In other words, pursuing the x’ axis round and round in a closed loop creates an endless spiral of imaginary clocks.

 

Both transforms predict round-trip light speed to be c. Both also predict the same result when v = 0 (ether frame) or when dx’ = 0 (events occur a the same location in frame S’) or if c is infinite.

 

Regards,

Joe

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAERt3yT__pT3%2B6mNjhstnsi4syR6bg-qhRo8OE8PAXJftqHKAA%40mail.gmail.com.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/npa-relativity/lJd1140DFKQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB563322E7E8124EF64EC2099A8954A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SA1PR22MB56332B74C46E329CE4ABD48B8957A%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/300366.e2f8.1980f627b30.Webtop.7%40btinternet.com.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Harry,

What you wrote as proof below is what I pointed out recently, and you said I was confused. For the moving clock to run slower as experimentally claimed, your proof shows that it should be t’ = γt. That formula is what was also correctly stated on the Wikipedia page to accord with experiment. David said that the editors were wrong. So, who is now right?

Akinbo

---

From: 'HARRY RICKER' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 3:22 PM
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Cc: Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1111198450.1795267.1752589346066%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Joe,

Tangherlini seems to believe in an absolute rest frame. Unless, Stephan is misrepresenting Selleri, the only absolute rest frame in Selleri transformation is ECI which observations of Lunar laser ranging and Pulsar timing show not to be at rest but moving.

But why I write now is this. You say, "Both transforms predict round-trip light speed to be c",

Does this hold for all source to reflector light paths, whether (i) stationary in space, (ii) moving at a velocity v in same direction as the light, or (iii) moving perpendicular to the light paths ourselves? Please do the math with c+v and c-v in (ii), and inform your findings.

Thanks.

Akinbo

---

From: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 3:16 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Harry,

Yes I agree with your formulas but we should clarify the concept of a clock running faster. Yes the numerical value of the frequency in frame S’ will be a larger number than the numerical value of the frequency in frame S. But please consider that the “events or waves” are frame independent events. When we count the same waves using a frame S’ clock we count more waves per clock tick’. When we count waves using a frame S clock we count fewer waves per clock tick. This is because frame S ticks are of shorter duration than frame S’ ticks. Two frame independent events will be separated by more frame S ticks than frame S’ ticks’.

It now boils down to one’s definition of what is meant by a faster clock. Does a faster clock mean one that yields a higher numerical frequency due to the elongated duration of tick’ units of measure? Or does a faster clock mean one that yields more ticks between two events due to the shorter duration of the ticks? One can define “faster” either way provided the definition is applied consistently.

Regards

Joe 

Sent from my iPhone

[HARRY RICKER]

Hi Joe,

The term fast clock means that a clock runs faster than a reference standard. That means it accumulates time on its dial faster than a reference clock, so that its hands read time ahead of the reference. The hands move faster and accumulate time more rapidly than the reference because the fast clock has more ticks in a time interval than the reference clock. There are more ticks because the clock reference frequency is greater or higher than the reference clock frequency. The ticks being faster means, that there are more ticks in a time interval, because the time period of the reference oscillator is shorter than for the time reference. Hence more ticks because the ticks occur faster and the clocks hands move more rapidly around the dial.

This point is made simpler when referring to the Ives-Stillwell experiment. There the frequency of moving atoms is reduced by very rapid motion in a electron tube. This is contrary to what the Selleri transforms predict. Hence, the conclusion is that the Selleri transforms do not give the complete knowledge of the reasons for the clocks running slow in the experiments, because they predict that the clocks ought to run fast and all of the facts as we know them contradict that prediction.

Harry  

[HARRY RICKER]

Joe, 

To have a correct and proper theory four transform equations are required. Selleri only has two of the four and so is an incomplete theory.  This is discussed in more detail in my video: Fixing Einstein's relativity mistakes - Harry Ricker - Cosmology discussion 22June2025

Fixing Einstein's relativity mistakes - Harry Ricker - Cosmology discus...