a few thoughts and questions

[Jerry Harvey]

Hey, what if light travels at c through the aether, and even propagates consistently instead of in a fixed way relative to the aether?  However, if the light is in a much denser medium, such as water or within fiber optics, it conforms to that medium and travels accordingly? 

However, if this is so, why wouldn't light travel in a fixed way relative to the aether? I know the apparent velocity and invariance of light is maybe an illusion given the two way approach.  So how is c measured with pipes of water?  Is it only the interference fringe shift that is looked for? 

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

Light does not travel when the word travel - in this case means locomotion.

An aitheron frequency whose measure is that of photon mass travels at light speed, c about a mean position of radius R.

R is the radius of the toroid whose acceleration is measured as eV where V is acceleration. The acceleration is of the toroidal mass as measured by,

R x 1.3466x10e27Kg per radial meter and produces acceleration called gravity or V.

The material masses of say copper or air molecules or water produce a measure of slowed light because of the path traversed by a wave front.

The wave front of wavelength lambda = 2Pi x R x 137.036. OF THE ETHER TOROID.

How this is so is presented in my paper at SIPS Cebu 2025.

Tonight DeHilster senior will present masses involved in an electric circuit. I am very interested to see how he reached those measurements.

I had solved this problem and presented the different masses in several papers via experiments like the Water Heater, Copper wire, electrolysis of water cardiac defibrillator and many more. No electrons anywhere.

Without Ether nothing can be described.

I am interested to see the source of electric current without Ether since David DeHilster denied the existence of Ether with proofs of erroneous conclusions. However, David also has been keeping abreast with ETHER.

This will be an interesting presentation today. Experimental at long last. away from stories and creative writing of I know and so it is so.

Regards

 

F V Fernandes

On. Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. / Linkedin 

Research Work Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Franklin Hu]

Check out this article:

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

This experiment verifies a partial dragging of light in water.

-Franklin

[Joe Sorge]

In my opinion the Wikipedia article should be updated. The old theory is that light is “partially dragged”, as if passing through some type of glue. Fizeau found a dragging coefficient of 

      

f = 1 - 1/n^2, where n is the refractive index of the medium.

That is, he concluded that light travels at approximately speed u = c/n + v  * (1 - 1/n^2) during the entire journey through a refractive medium.  The c/n term is light speed through a stationary refractive medium.  The v  * f term is the “partial dragging” term for a medium moving at speed v. It is clearly an approximation to something more fundamental.

Von Laue updated Fizeau’s formula in about 1907 to be consistent with special relativity,

      u = (c/n +/- v) / ( 1 +/- v/(cn))

It’s actually a good formula for computing light speed in the lab (stationary) frame.  But it gives an incorrect result in the frame of the moving medium. It fails because special relativity requires the use of Einstein’s clock synchronization convention, which cannot be implemented for systems with only a single “clock” (such as in a Fizeau or Sagnac setup).  

My paper (attached) provides the correct formulas for light speed in the frame of the moving medium:

      u’ = c/(n +/- v/c)

And also in the lab frame:

      

      u = u’/gamma^2  +/-  v

My paper also shows that instead of considering light to be partially dragged for the full duration, it is 100% dragged for some of the time (proportional to (n-1)/n) and not dragged at all for the remainder of the time (proportional to 1/n). That is, light travels at speed v for (n-1)/n * t and travels at speed c for 1/n * t, where t is total travel time.  The formula provides an exact answer in both the lab frame and the frame of the moving medium and suggests that light speed is not only interrupted by obstructions in the refractive medium but is also 100% dragged at speed v by such obstructions for (n-1)/n fraction of total travel time t.

Regards,

Joe

[Frank Fernandes]

Joe,

This is an excellent paper.

Now the next step is to input the masses associated with the velocities. This will then make your paper top notch.

Then the next step is to input acceleration to arrive at a complete solution.

HINT - Acceleration involves ether.

 

F V Fernandes

On. Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. / Linkedin 

Research Work Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

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

Wikipedia is controlled by guerillas- who would probably stop any changes to wiki.

 

The guerillas are supposed to censor things about ufos, moonlanding conspiracies and things they consider pseudoscience; so any physics changes different to mainstream point-of-view they would consider pseudoscience and censor. 

 

They removed most of the things I put on wiki.

 

guerilla ref: https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-combat-conspiracy-theories/

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: joe....@decisivedx.com
To: frank...@yahoo.com; munda...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 22nd 2026, 01:11
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

In my opinion the Wikipedia article should be updated. The old theory is that light is “partially dragged”, as if passing through some type of glue. Fizeau found a dragging coefficient of 

      

f = 1 - 1/n^2, where n is the refractive index of the medium.

 

That is, he concluded that light travels at approximately speed u = c/n + v  * (1 - 1/n^2) during the entire journey through a refractive medium.  The c/n term is light speed through a stationary refractive medium.  The v  * f term is the “partial dragging” term for a medium moving at speed v. It is clearly an approximation to something more fundamental.

 

Von Laue updated Fizeau’s formula in about 1907 to be consistent with special relativity,

 

      u = (c/n +/- v) / ( 1 +/- v/(cn))

 

It’s actually a good formula for computing light speed in the lab (stationary) frame.  But it gives an incorrect result in the frame of the moving medium. It fails because special relativity requires the use of Einstein’s clock synchronization convention, which cannot be implemented for systems with only a single “clock” (such as in a Fizeau or Sagnac setup).  

 

My paper (attached) provides the correct formulas for light speed in the frame of the moving medium:

 

      u’ = c/(n +/- v/c)

 

And also in the lab frame:

      

      u = u’/gamma^2  +/-  v

 

My paper also shows that instead of considering light to be partially dragged for the full duration, it is 100% dragged for some of the time (proportional to (n-1)/n) and not dragged at all for the remainder of the time (proportional to 1/n). That is, light travels at speed v for (n-1)/n * t and travels at speed c for 1/n * t, where t is total travel time.  The formula provides an exact answer in both the lab frame and the frame of the moving medium and suggests that light speed is not only interrupted by obstructions in the refractive medium but is also 100% dragged at speed v by such obstructions for (n-1)/n fraction of total travel time t.

 

Regards,

Joe

 

 

 

 

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2026 at 7:45 AM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>, to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>, cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>, David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>, Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>, Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>, James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>, Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>, Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>, Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>, Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>, Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>, David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>, Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>, cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>, Amir <amir...@aim.com>, Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>, ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>, Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>, Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>, Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>, Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>, Robert French <robert....@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>, Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>, Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>, relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

 

-- 
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/SA1PR22MB5633DC4D9AA1F985CBC6759E894AA%40SA1PR22MB5633.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

In my view, "Partial dragging" is because there are three mediums in Fizeau’s water experiment

Medium 1: Has refractive index, n = 1. Remains motionless (absolute rest), while Earth and water move. It is the primary light medium/vacuum/ether.

Medium 2: Has refractive index, n = 1.33. It can be stationary to, or flow on Earth surface. Because it is a refractive medium, light propagating through it can follow the state of motion of this matter medium, and so can be dragged. It is not the primary light medium, but its particles can constitute impurities that can affect the elasticity of the primary medium.

Medium 3: Has refractive index, n = 1.000000001. It can be stationary to, or flow on Earth surface. Because it is a refractive medium  light propagating through it can follow the state of motion of this matter medium, and so can be dragged. It is not as well known as other more familiar matter mediums. It is not the primary light medium, but its particles can constitute impurities that can affect the elasticity of the primary medium.

In Fizeau’s experiment, while Medium 2, water flows on Earth surface, Medium 3 remains stationary to Earth surface, and does not flow with the water. The result is that dragging will be partial, not full. The only way this explanation can be avoided is to deny that Medium 3 does not exist. But mainstream experiments and observations now inform us that it does exist, and even in more abundance than matter mediums like water.

PS. Can I get the link to yesterday's Saturday Chat featuring the De Hilsters. I got the notification but now disappeared. It is not listed yet on the CNPS YouTube channel for later viewing. The last one listed for viewing was previous Saturday Chat by Roger Anderton.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 3:45 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions

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

Hi Akinbo

 

re:  -- PS. Can I get the link to yesterday's Saturday Chat featuring the De Hilsters. I got the notification but now disappeared. It is not listed yet on the CNPS YouTube channel for later viewing. The last one listed for viewing was previous Saturday Chat by Roger Anderton.

 

 

They forgot to record it onto youtube; and will be re-doing it on 4 April. 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 22nd 2026, 10:43
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Franklin,

In my view, "Partial dragging" is because there are three mediums in Fizeau’s water experiment

Medium 1: Has refractive index, n = 1. Remains motionless (absolute rest), while Earth and water move. It is the primary light medium/vacuum/ether.

 

Medium 2: Has refractive index, n = 1.33. It can be stationary to, or flow on Earth surface. Because it is a refractive medium, light propagating through it can follow the state of motion of this matter medium, and so can be dragged. It is not the primary light medium, but its particles can constitute impurities that can affect the elasticity of the primary medium.

 

Medium 3: Has refractive index, n = 1.000000001. It can be stationary to, or flow on Earth surface. Because it is a refractive medium  light propagating through it can follow the state of motion of this matter medium, and so can be dragged. It is not as well known as other more familiar matter mediums. It is not the primary light medium, but its particles can constitute impurities that can affect the elasticity of the primary medium.

 

In Fizeau’s experiment, while Medium 2, water flows on Earth surface, Medium 3 remains stationary to Earth surface, and does not flow with the water. The result is that dragging will be partial, not full. The only way this explanation can be avoided is to deny that Medium 3 does not exist. But mainstream experiments and observations now inform us that it does exist, and even in more abundance than matter mediums like water.

 

PS. Can I get the link to yesterday's Saturday Chat featuring the De Hilsters. I got the notification but now disappeared. It is not listed yet on the CNPS YouTube channel for later viewing. The last one listed for viewing was previous Saturday Chat by Roger Anderton.

 

Regards,

Akinbo

 

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 3:45 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

 

-- 

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/BESP195MB29308EE5AE963D8BAB2E76FBB04AA%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[Halim Boutayeb]

Hi Jerry, 

In vacuum light travel at speed c but in any material light travel at speed c/sqrt(epsilonr) where epsilonr is the relative permittivity of the medium.

The theory of special relativity invented by Einstein is not about speed of light to vary or not to vary. It is about the speed of light being absolute: ie it is different to what we know about about what speed is. Speed is always relative, so how did Einstein came to this strange conclusion that the speed of light is not relative in his theory? The response is very simple, Einstein was working on the same field Lorentz was working which is the theory of electromagnetism in the presence of motion, extending Maxwell and Heaviside work. But unfortunately, Einstein interpreted the auxiliary variables invented by Voigt and adopted by Lorentz (these auxiliary are nowadays misnamed Lorentz transformation) as some kind of real extraordinary change or relationship between space and time. In his paper he actually did not notice his mistake because he wrote that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source (which is correct in the classical wave theory) but in reality his theory make the speed of light independent of the motion of the observer (which is nonsense).

The solution of the problem is simple: Lorentz transformation are correct mathematically but they should not be interpreted as real. Suppose you want to calculate the area of an ellipse, you may use a substitution of variables that would transform the ellipse to a circle. But this is only a convenient mathematical tool, you do not change really the ellipse to a circle and the auxiliary variables that you use do not have physical meaning. In the same sense, Lorentz transformation have no physical meaning.

On Fri., Mar. 20, 2026, 11:15 p.m. Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, what if light travels at c through the aether, and even propagates consistently instead of in a fixed way relative to the aether?  However, if the light is in a much denser medium, such as water or within fiber optics, it conforms to that medium and travels accordingly? 

However, if this is so, why wouldn't light travel in a fixed way relative to the aether? I know the apparent velocity and invariance of light is maybe an illusion given the two way approach.  So how is c measured with pipes of water?  Is it only the interference fringe shift that is looked for? 

--

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 npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAJahnno6NvseC1-WeY81j%3DkVA1ZYXXemUBQqBLmpJADwwOeVdg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank Fernandes]

All,

For the last time I will give the solution for speed of light c.

Speed of light c is that of ETHER.

c = wavelength x Frequency

c = 2Pi x R x 137.036 x aitheron Frequency.

R is the radius of an either toroid whose acceleration is the V in eV.

Every time electron volt is measured the V tells you a lot. GRAVITY.

Gravity, g = V which is acceleration and nothing else.

V = c^2/r = acceleration = g

There are several other ways of arriving at the measurement of speed of light c.

It is impossible to measure lightspeed c and so is defined by NIST.

Regards,

 

F V Fernandes

On. Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. / Linkedin 

Research Work Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Stephan Gift]

Halim,

I find your comments quite interesting. You say that the LT are mathematically correct but physically meaningless. I certainly believe that the LT are an incorrect physical representation of the real world. May I ask what in your view are the correct transformations that connect two inertial frames?

Regards

Stephan

---

From: Halim Boutayeb <boutay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 12:47 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; to: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] a few thoughts and questions

 

[Halim Boutayeb]

Hi Stephan,

I don't agree with the concept a of a "transformation" to connect "inertial frames". What are called nowadays Lorentz Transformation are in reality auxiliary variables, nothing more. 

The term "inertial frame" is misleading. 

The concept a of a "transformation" to connect "inertial frame" is an invention of Einstein. 

What is called "Galilean transformation" is also an invention within Einstein's theory. In reality, what they call Galilean transformation is the natural definition of speed, that's all. It was not invented by Galileo. Einstein changed the meaning of Galileo's work to fit with his theory. In reality, Galileo's boat experiment are evidence of the principle of inertia. If we want to know the position of an object A moving in axis x with speed v, we can write xA=x0+v.t, that is just the natural definition of speed. There is no such thingsl that Einstein has changed physics with a new physics where we have to use some "transformation" to change from an "inertial frame" to another "inertial frame". The more one will think about it and the more it will look like a joke. If you want to know the position of a car, you can use the formula above, you do not use "Lorentz transformation".

I said LT are mathematically correct but they also are obsolete. Today we do not need these auxiliary variables to deal with electromagnetic problems in the context of objects in motion, we can analyse these problems directly by using Maxwell's equations and by adding motion numerically. 

[Stephan Gift]

Hi Halim,

You say the term "inertial frame" is misleading. These frames are well defined in Newtonian physics so I do not understand your position on this. There should really be no issue here. Now you seem to reject the concept of transformations between inertial frames. Actually, the central problem of relativity is to find the transformations that connect one inertial frame to another. Such transformations not only enable one to find the space/time coordinates in frame S' that correspond to those in frame S (or vice versa), they also enable the determination of velocity, acceleration, force, energy, momentum, electric and magnetic fields. You may be able to find these quantities in S' by other means.  However, transformations seem to me to be a legitimate method of doing so. But I ask you this: How do you account for Thomas precession without spacetime transformations? 

Regards

Stephan

---

From: Halim Boutayeb <boutay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 2:14 PM
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; to: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo, Joe and All:

mm

In my view all matter is dynamic wave patterns in spacetime, with the wave density performing the function of a continuous (GRIN) gradient-index lens.

In greater detail this means spacetime is a unified field carrying both transverse and longitudinal wavefronts.  There is no sudden step changes in speed of light or the index of refraction.  It is all scale relative.

I have advocated this view to you all for over a decade now.

https://g.co/gemini/share/c715c62e1147

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

Your view is noted. Light waves do not require the presence of matter, either as "solid" particles, or as localized, dynamic wave patterns, in order for it to be propagated. I will do a different response to Joe.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 7:18 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Joe,

In your paper, you mention “the impeding elements”. These impeding elements are what give the medium its refractive index making this to be n > 1. Your paper also makes it clear that in space devoid of impeding elements, light waves can still propagate and do so at a speed of value c.

Since light can travel at speed c without the presence of impeding elements, then between one impeding element A and another B, why should light change its speed and slow down, since what exists between A and B is still vacuum, devoid of impeding elements?

At what point in its travel does a light wave sense that it will encounter an impeding element, so as to reduce its speed?

Then when a light wave exits a medium like water, at what point does it know it will no longer be encountering impeding elements, so that it can boost its speed from 2.25 x 10⁸m/s to 3x10⁸m/s?

I hope you are not invoking action-at-a-distance principle?

 

It is like over-speeding on the highway, and knowing exactly when a police checkpoint is just few metres ahead and then slowing down. Looking a bit contrived.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 2:11 AM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Halim Boutayeb]

Hi Stephan,

What you describe is the point of view of Einstein in his "theory of relativity". Newton or Galileo never worked on something called "inertial frame" or on a "transformation" between these "inertial frames". Galileo proved with his boat experiments that geocentrists were wrong: geocentrists used the argument that if earth is moving, we should notice it when an object is falling, it should not fall straight. With his boat experiments, Galileo proved that object with uniform motion keep that component of motion even when falling: this is the principle of inertia that was later expressed more clearly by Newton. Newton worked on the bucket experiment to show according to him that one could define absolute motion. Both Galileo's work on inertia and Newton's work on bucket experiment are totally unrelated to Einstein's "theory of relativity". Einstein's theory is just nonsense and does not need to be discussed. His main idea was to remove the medium of electromagnetic waves in Maxwell's equations, forcing the speed of light to be absolute (independent of the motion of the observer), which is just nonsense. He interpreted Voigts auxiliary variables (variables that have absolutely no physical meaning) has real physical parameters that would relate space and time together. Continuing to work on such nonsense is just a waste of time. But fortunately, for me and my team, Einstein's theory is a blessing, because we are really advancing in the field of computational electromagnetism, since many things have been untouched because of the theory of relativity.

What does the term relativity means? It is a word related to the adjective relative, the relativity of motion, means that motion is relative: this is the most simple and logical understanding of this term. In Doppler Formulas, there is a distinction if the source is moving or the observer is moving, why? Because there is a medium. We take the motion relative to the medium. Recent experiments have shown that classical Doppler Formulas are correct and relativistic one are incorrect. Double stellar abberation agree with classical wave theory not with Einstein's interpretation of LT. Experiments with reflector agree with classical wave theory not with relativistic formulas. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/MN2PR14MB3968F789365127F62ECADEBB8C4AA%40MN2PR14MB3968.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

[David Tombe]

Hi Halem,

                I agree with you that the whole concept of inertial frame transformations is the problem that lies at the root of most of these discussions.

               The LT meanwhile is simply space-time geometry, and it's a question of which physical contexts can we usefully apply it to. Certainly not inertial frame transformations.

                                 Best Regards

                                    David

                 

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Akimbo,

Light travels at speed c between “impeding elements”.  And it travels at speed v when associated with “impeding elements”.

The new information revealed in my paper is:

      Light speed                      proportion of time

         c between elements                    1/n * t

      v   when impeded by elements            (n-1)/n * t

where n = refractive index and t is total elapsed time.

If v = 0 then 

      Distance (v = 0) = ct/n * (1 +  0/c * (n-1))  = c/n * t

But when v > 0

      Distance (v > 0) = ct/n * (1 + v/c * (n-1))

The velocity of the medium relative to the lab frame, v, either increases to decreases distance traveled by v/c * (n-1).  I do not know the mechanism, but it is very clear that the additional distance is in proportion to v/c for the fraction of time t * (n-1) / n.  This suggests to me that light somehow gets “carried along" by elements in the moving refractive medium at speed v (not c nor c/n) for a significant fraction of the time = (n -1) / n.

Once light leaves the medium, light once again travels at vacuum speed or air speed.

Regards,

Joe

[Cornelis Verhey]

Joe,

You make the statement (it travels at speed v when associated with “impeding elements”).  This implies that light velocity is 0 relative to  “impeding elements” when associated with “impeding elements”.  If this is the case how can the light ever escape its association with the “impeding elements".

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Halim,

Thank you for your historical excursion.

If you don’t mind, can you provide answer or further information in below...

Re: “we are really advancing in the field of computational electromagnetism”

What is this?

Re: “Recent experiments have shown that classical Doppler Formulas are correct and relativistic one are incorrect”

Can you provide good reference to these recent experiments?

Re: “Double stellar aberration agree with classical wave theory not with Einstein's interpretation of LT.”

Can you provide explanation or good reference.

Re: “Experiments with reflector agree with classical wave theory not with relativistic formulas”

Can you provide explanation or good reference.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Halim Boutayeb <boutay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:39 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; to: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; to: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Joe,

I recognize your effort in trying to logically explain the phenomena involving light propagation through a refractive medium. It appears your model involving “impeding elements” must share from any success but more especially from some of the failures of light-is-particle (photon) model.

As a particle, light may be conceived of as impacting on impeding elements, sharing its momentum with them and therefore slowing down in speed while traversing such mediums.

Re: “Light travels at speed c between “impeding elements”.  And it travels at speed v when associated with “impeding elements””

When you say the above, you must clarify or admit the following:

Light accelerates and decelerates in speed when travelling through a refractive medium, i.e. accelerates is v→c; decelerates is c→v. This is a novel proposition. It may be true, but it must collide violently with Classical physics and Special relativity.  

 

What does “associated” mean in the above quote? Is it on impinging/colliding with the impeding element? This is not clearly disclosed.

 

Re: “The velocity of the medium relative to the lab frame, v, ”

Given water flowing through an interferometer, the laboratory scientist observing from the Sun will see the water flowing relative to him at certain value of v. Another laboratory scientist on Earth surface, will see the water flowing relative to him at another different value of v.

Which fraction of time will light obey in moving through the refractive medium (water), given that the light does not know for certain which of these two observers are actually watching this experiment from their laboratory frame?

 

Re: “Once light leaves the medium, light once again travels at vacuum speed or air speed”

This is one of the failures of the particle model and you must therefore have to share in it. How does a particle increase in speed without additional energy or an exchange of momentum with something else? In the wave model, the speed of light depends on the elasticity of the medium. In this wave model, the elements are better regarded as “impurities” that can affect the elasticity of a material medium, rather than as “impediments”, hence wave speed can reduce and increase in speed without controversy.

But as you may not be okay with that model as an explanation for refraction, then we better just focus on your model and see how it succeeds or fails.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 8:50 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo's comments once again reinforces the "fact" that light is purely a wave phenomenon in a medium. It's that simple.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

"It's that simple" unless someone tries to claim it is longitudinal waves through a sea of posilectrons.

[Franklin Hu]

Really, it is that simple. It's a wave, just like a sound wave. All waves through all mediums must act the same. All mediums MUST support longitudinal waves. They can physically do no other thing.

What you just said makes no sense. 

You try to take something "simple" and because it doesn't meet your dogmatic "preconceived notions", make it very complex to try to shoehorn it to match your unjustified notions.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

Boo Hu

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69c2b38592bc819187218134c076f192

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

Can you follow up the prompt at the end of this conversation with ChatGPT, and let us see what it comes up with...

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:54 PM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Joe Sorge]

Hi Cornelis,

I do not know the mechanism. An overly simplistic model is that light energy gets absorbed/entangled with the energy structure of the impeding elements and then re-emitted, but that is complete speculation.

Do we understand how mirrors work?  It may be similar.

What I do know is that the math is perfectly consistent with light propagating at speed v instead of speed c for a fraction of the elapsed time proportional to (n -1) / n.  It fits the data much better than the Fresnel/Fizeau coefficient.

Regards,

Joe

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 11:03 PM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

I am only using the free level of ChatGTP and other AIs they are open to use so you can follow up on your own.  Just ask any one of them the question.   Such as show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations

You can dig as deep as you want and follow up by asking your own questions i.e. show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

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

Chatgpt tells me - In your Anderton Unified Theory (AUT), electromagnetic waves are not purely transverse. They are best understood as a hybrid wave: a coupled transverse–longitudinal disturbance in the underlying medium (ether).

 

 

And AUT is the theory that Chatgpt gave me when I told it to correct all the mistakes in relativity and quantum physics.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: verhey....@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24th 2026, 23:19
Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo,

 

I am only using the free level of ChatGTP and other AIs they are open to use so you can follow up on your own.  Just ask any one of them the question.   Such as show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations

You can dig as deep as you want and follow up by asking your own questions i.e. show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations.

 

Cornelis

 

 

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 10:12 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 

Cornelis Verhey

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

as pointed out in video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWlH_3FHypg&t=4s

 

all the mistakes in physics are derived from 4 false beliefs that Einstein seemed to believe, and which the mainstream went along with.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: verhey....@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 00:07
Subject: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Chatgpt tells me - In your Anderton Unified Theory (AUT), electromagnetic waves are not purely transverse. They are best understood as a hybrid wave: a coupled transverse–longitudinal disturbance in the underlying medium (ether).

 

 

And AUT is the theory that Chatgpt gave me when I told it to correct all the mistakes in relativity and quantum physics.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: verhey....@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24th 2026, 23:19

Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo,

 

I am only using the free level of ChatGTP and other AIs they are open to use so you can follow up on your own.  Just ask any one of them the question.   Such as show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations

You can dig as deep as you want and follow up by asking your own questions i.e. show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations.

 

Cornelis

 

 

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 10:12 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 

Cornelis Verhey

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

the false axioms are -

 

1. convention defines physical reality

2. invariance is physical reality

3. no physically real background structure

4. math description is sufficient physical explanation

 

from that all the other false beliefs follow as consequence

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: verhey....@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 00:07
Subject: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Chatgpt tells me - In your Anderton Unified Theory (AUT), electromagnetic waves are not purely transverse. They are best understood as a hybrid wave: a coupled transverse–longitudinal disturbance in the underlying medium (ether).

 

 

And AUT is the theory that Chatgpt gave me when I told it to correct all the mistakes in relativity and quantum physics.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: verhey....@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24th 2026, 23:19

Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo,

 

I am only using the free level of ChatGTP and other AIs they are open to use so you can follow up on your own.  Just ask any one of them the question.   Such as show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations

You can dig as deep as you want and follow up by asking your own questions i.e. show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations.

 

Cornelis

 

 

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 10:12 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 

Cornelis Verhey

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

The next issue of course is - the Bad Teaching of physics to students - where it is not properly pointed out that mainstream physics is built from those beliefs

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: verhey....@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 00:16
Subject: Re: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

the false axioms are -

 

1. convention defines physical reality

2. invariance is physical reality

3. no physically real background structure

4. math description is sufficient physical explanation

 

from that all the other false beliefs follow as consequence

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: verhey....@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 00:07
Subject: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Chatgpt tells me - In your Anderton Unified Theory (AUT), electromagnetic waves are not purely transverse. They are best understood as a hybrid wave: a coupled transverse–longitudinal disturbance in the underlying medium (ether).

 

 

And AUT is the theory that Chatgpt gave me when I told it to correct all the mistakes in relativity and quantum physics.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: verhey....@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24th 2026, 23:19

Subject: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo,

 

I am only using the free level of ChatGTP and other AIs they are open to use so you can follow up on your own.  Just ask any one of them the question.   Such as show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations

You can dig as deep as you want and follow up by asking your own questions i.e. show why electromagnetic waves must be transverse directly from Maxwell’s equations.

 

Cornelis

 

 

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 10:12 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 

Cornelis Verhey

[Joe Sorge]

My sincere apologies,

Cornelis was kind enough to privately question my prior answer, and I thank him for that because I made a mistake.  I was trying to answer Akinbo from memory, and at age 72 that was not a good idea.  I misquoted a formula in my paper.  Here is the correction:

Longitudinal light speed in the refractive media frame = c’(x) = c / (n + v/c)

Longitudinal light speed in the stationary system (lab) = dx/dt = c’/gamma^2 + v

This latter formula can also be written as

      dx/dt = (c + v*n)/(n + v/c) which is basically von Laue’s lab speed formula.

The c’(x) formula is a modification of a formula published previously, separately by Tangherlini and Selleri, 

      c’(x) = c / (1 + v/c)

just adapted to refractive media.

      c’(x) = c / (n + v/c)

Sorry again!

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

I use the free version as well. ChatGPT keeps a memory of who is asking the questions, and this memory plays a part in how it will answer questions posed to it that. You can see that Roger A. Is facing same situation. Any answer he gets has an AUT flavour to it. That is the reason for my request – an answer without a memory of Akinbo, but with a memory of Cornelis.

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:19 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

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

I ask Chatgpt to contrast mainstream with what AUT has.

 

AUT comes from Chatgpt giving me long lists of what is wrong with mainstream physics and then me asking Chatgpt to correct those mistakes. 

 

Thus there are longitudinal e-m waves etc whatever the mistaken beliefs that mainstream has.

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: verhey....@gmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 08:52
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Cornelis,

I use the free version as well. ChatGPT keeps a memory of who is asking the questions, and this memory plays a part in how it will answer questions posed to it that. You can see that Roger A. Is facing same situation. Any answer he gets has an AUT flavour to it. That is the reason for my request – an answer without a memory of Akinbo, but with a memory of Cornelis.

Akinbo

 

---

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

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:19 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.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/BESP195MB2930A10B94221B761E7AD9B0B049A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger A.,

Re: “4. math description is sufficient physical explanation”

This is probably the most important false axiom. What a sufficient physical explanation is requires more.

When an observer is stationary to a light source a measured distance, L away, and measures arrival time, t, he can deduce a quantity called light velocity, c and write c = L/t.

 

If same observer now decides to move away from the incoming light, he observes a later arrival time. He can decide to physically explain this, by still holding on to the mathematical description, c = L/t, but claim that his motion away from the incoming light caused time t to become relative to when he was stationary and become dilated to t’ because “moving clocks run slow”; while relative velocity c remains constant rather than become c – v.

This can be mathematically correct. However, since there are other options to choose from, such as mathematically adjusting L to fit the observation, what the “sufficient physical explanation” is, is best determined by logic and Greek system of reductio ad absurdum.

 

So, when Joe says in reply to Cornelis, “What I do know is that the math is perfectly consistent with light propagating at speed v instead of speed c for a fraction of the elapsed time proportional to (n -1)/n.  It fits the data much better than the Fresnel/Fizeau coefficient”, he is actually correct. But he was also honest to admit that “I do not know the mechanism... but that is complete speculation.”

 

The math description MUST BE subjected to logical tests like Herbert Dingle did. If one of the correct math descriptions requires that Clock A run faster than Clock B, and at same time Clock B runs faster than Clock A, then that description has been reduced to absurdity.

Once absurdity is used as a dialectic weapon, it is no longer a defence to use “it fits the data” or “the math is perfectly consistent” or “I do not know the mechanism”. This is because anyone can similarly tell Dingle that Clocks A and B can both run faster than each other but "I do not know the mechanism". 

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 1:16 AM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

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

 

 

 

Akinbo

 

>>Re: “4. math description is sufficient physical explanation”

This is probably the most important false axiom. What a sufficient physical explanation is requires more.<<

 

 

Yes, it ties to Einstein's philosophising.

 

 

Einstein is going against the philosophy of physics that physics before him had been going by. 

 

It has influenced many physicists to do the same. 

 

I think many dissidents here think relativity is wrong because they want a mechanism;  but Einstein doesn't, he just goes by principles. 

 

By that methodolgy - math fitting to data is all that is required. 

 

Scenarios like - Both clocks A and B going slower than each other while also going faster than each other is alowed because math been set up that way. 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; verhey....@gmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 09:26
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

Re: “4. math description is sufficient physical explanation”

This is probably the most important false axiom. What a sufficient physical explanation is requires more.

When an observer is stationary to a light source a measured distance, L away, and measures arrival time, t, he can deduce a quantity called light velocity, c and write c = L/t.

 

If same observer now decides to move away from the incoming light, he observes a later arrival time. He can decide to physically explain this, by still holding on to the mathematical description, c = L/t, but claim that his motion away from the incoming light caused time t to become relative to when he was stationary and become dilated to t’ because “moving clocks run slow”; while relative velocity c remains constant rather than become c – v.

This can be mathematically correct. However, since there are other options to choose from, such as mathematically adjusting L to fit the observation, what the “sufficient physical explanation” is, is best determined by logic and Greek system of reductio ad absurdum.

 

So, when Joe says in reply to Cornelis, “What I do know is that the math is perfectly consistent with light propagating at speed v instead of speed c for a fraction of the elapsed time proportional to (n -1)/n.  It fits the data much better than the Fresnel/Fizeau coefficient”, he is actually correct. But he was also honest to admit that “I do not know the mechanism... but that is complete speculation.”

 

The math description MUST BE subjected to logical tests like Herbert Dingle did. If one of the correct math descriptions requires that Clock A run faster than Clock B, and at same time Clock B runs faster than Clock A, then that description has been reduced to absurdity.

Once absurdity is used as a dialectic weapon, it is no longer a defence to use “it fits the data” or “the math is perfectly consistent” or “I do not know the mechanism”. This is because anyone can similarly tell Dingle that Clocks A and B can both run faster than each other but "I do not know the mechanism". 

Regards,

Akinbo

 

---

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 1:16 AM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

-- 

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/BESP195MB293022CE83246F71A7938D88B049A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69c3fe94a9cc819186bd79e2458e44c6

Cornelis Verhey

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

I asked Chatgpt about that link it said -This is actually a good, standard textbook derivation—but it is not as decisive or complete as it claims. The problems are subtle and conceptual, not just algebraic.

 

 

So, presumably you wanted only a standard textbook response (?).

 

Chatgpt told me that a lot of assumptions were made in that derivation and in general there were longitudinal e-m waves.

 

 

 

 

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

Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 15:28
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo,

 

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69c3fe94a9cc819186bd79e2458e44c6

 

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/CAERt3yRTAx%3DwPi%2BEa%2BiE2Kx_Lbn_k68UoeuQgcoROZvFjow_cQ%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Thank you Cornelis.

I am in broad agreement.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:27 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger A.,

I don't know whether this is what is called "hand waving".

What are the unstated subtle and conceptual problems? What are the secret assumptions claimed to have been made?

Once you sign-in to your ChatGPT, it starts working towards what it thinks Roger Anderton will like to hear and avoiding what he will find unpalatable.

Akinbo

---

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:44 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

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

Akinbo

 

Well you can get it to work on whatever you like.

 

But I got it to work on-

 

Find out what the mistakes Einstein made because mainstream physics built on that.

 

Einstein seems to hold 4 false beliefs/axioms which can be inferred from what he says.

 

Both relativity and quantum physics work from those beliefs.

 

Einstein had influence on quantum physics even though he opposed it.

 

Then get AI to correct those mistakes and it came up with unified theory that combines both relativity and quantum physics in theory I call AUT.

 

Based on AUT can then contrast that with whatever theory you like, by asking what does AUT give contrasted with what mainstream says. 

 

Can ask it to give answers that are unplatable. Don't have to set it to agree etc.

 

 

 

Not "handwaving"  as far as I am aware.

 

The "unstated" - is the 4 false beliefs that Einstein can be held to have believed. 

 

 

"Once you sign-in to your ChatGPT, it starts working towards what it thinks Roger Anderton will like to hear and avoiding what he will find unpalatable." - I ask for it not to do that. 

 

It is just about using AI properly; like any computer can do GIGO - but the answer to that is don't put garbage in.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25th 2026, 16:13
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

I don't know whether this is what is called "hand waving".

What are the unstated subtle and conceptual problems? What are the secret assumptions claimed to have been made?

Once you sign-in to your ChatGPT, it starts working towards what it thinks Roger Anderton will like to hear and avoiding what he will find unpalatable.

Akinbo

 

---

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:44 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/BESP195MB2930ABC0E0DDB285C46F3E7FB049A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[John-Erik Persson]

Joe

72 blah

I am 90

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/2b88d165.4b414.19d25ebe827.Webtop.89%40btinternet.com.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger A.,

This is Maxwell’s final wave equation ∇²A = (1/c²).∂²A/∂t², and in his final work, his Treatise, he informs us that the vector field A is similar to the displacement vector field, usually denoted by U in elastic continuum mechanics. I gave a Saturday chat on this last December. If you missed it, I think you will find it here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKIe5ZHs0kI

The time-variation of A causes force on a charged particle. Experimentally, it is found that this force IS NOT in the direction of A, the way a longitudinal vibration will be expected to be, but instead this force is perpendicular, i.e. tangential, to the direction of A, as expected of a transverse vibration.

To describe it literally, it is like you firing a bullet at a target, and instead of this target to be thrown backwards in the direction of travel of the bullet, the target instead flies sideways, without any component of motion at all in the direction of the fired bullet. Surely, if you observed that you will be surprised. But that is what happens when magnetism and electric field interact. Always perpendicular in their force relationships.

It is from such observations, apart from others like polarization that Cornelis already shared in his ChatGPT link, that it becomes decisive and complete that light is a transverse wave.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:44 PM

To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

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

Akinbo

Incomplete in context of AUT.

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; munda...@gmail.com; andre...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26th 2026, 14:17
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

This is Maxwell’s final wave equation ∇²A = (1/c²).∂²A/∂t², and in his final work, his Treatise, he informs us that the vector field A is similar to the displacement vector field, usually denoted by U in elastic continuum mechanics. I gave a Saturday chat on this last December. If you missed it, I think you will find it here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKIe5ZHs0kI

The time-variation of A causes force on a charged particle. Experimentally, it is found that this force IS NOT in the direction of A, the way a longitudinal vibration will be expected to be, but instead this force is perpendicular, i.e. tangential, to the direction of A, as expected of a transverse vibration.

To describe it literally, it is like you firing a bullet at a target, and instead of this target to be thrown backwards in the direction of travel of the bullet, the target instead flies sideways, without any component of motion at all in the direction of the fired bullet. Surely, if you observed that you will be surprised. But that is what happens when magnetism and electric field interact. Always perpendicular in their force relationships.

It is from such observations, apart from others like polarization that Cornelis already shared in his ChatGPT link, that it becomes decisive and complete that light is a transverse wave.

Regards,

Akinbo

 

 

---

From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:44 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/BESP195MB2930AC8A442ACFF1E4639051B056A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[ta...@hotmail.com]

Roger A.,

Re: “Incomplete in context of AUT”

What is left out?

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

Everything of importance is left out. 

 

Einstein has had a great influence on physics, and he wants Maxwell's theory to be understood from his beliefs.

 

As pointed out in my talk for CNPS he seems to be working from his personal false beliefs (those beliefs can be inferred by what he says) and mainstream has gone along with those false beliefs and built modern physics on that.

 

That means - things like Maxwell's theory have been completely misunderstood. 

 

AUT corrects that misunderstanding.

 

Talk on - 

 

Four Misbeliefs That Shaped Einstein’s Physics

 

at - 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWlH_3FHypg&t=918s

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 12:39
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

Re: “Incomplete in context of AUT”

What is left out?

 

On Thursday, 26 March 2026 at 16:05:18 UTC+1 r.j.anderton wrote:
 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/973653b7-052f-4b0b-817f-3dd90eb31560n%40googlegroups.com.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger A.,

Okay, but this is not really about Einstein and his importance in physics. Indeed, the exclusively transverse wave nature of light predated Einstein, and he was not in disagreement with it. This was about transverse vs. Longitudinal wave nature of light.

 

You said you were talking to ChatGPT and it told you certain things such as, “a lot of assumptions were made in that derivation and in general there were longitudinal e-m waves.”

No specific details were provided to you.

I therefore took it upon myself to show why it is transverse waves only, by using the analogy from the theory, experiment and equations.

Longitudinal waves will exist, if you shoot an object and the object is knocked back in the direction of the fired bullet. This is not what is observed experimentally in electromagnetism. What is observed is that the object is knocked perpendicularly, i.e. sideways by the fired bullet, in a pattern usually found to conform to rules, e.g. the right-hand-rule. If the object carries positive charge, it is knocked perpendicularly to one side, and if negatively charged it is knocked perpendicularly to opposite side. Never knocked in the direction of the fired bullet or its momentum. You can refer to this bullet mathematically as ∂A/∂t.  

Unless, you are trying to forcefully do a deal with ChatGPT, such as forcefully seeking safe passage through a narrow strait for your AUT, it will not lie to you that there are longitudinal e-m waves.

 

Akinbo

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:08 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

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/973653b7-052f-4b0b-817f-3dd90eb31560n%40googlegroups.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/DMBcOOc-IlE/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/11a084e3.51e5c.19d2f69520d.Webtop.188%40btinternet.com.

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

Akinbo

 

I disagree - mainstream physics is very much about Einstein's influence on it including how Maxwell's theory is to be understood etc.

 

You don't specify what Chatgpt said to you about longitudinal waves; so unclear what you say is your view or a mix of what Chatgpt says.

 

 

When I asked about what you call the Maxwell final wave equation, if it were correct

 

Chatgpt said - Short answer: yes, but it’s incomplete and context-dependent.

 

After a lot of math 

 

Chatgpt says - 

Bottom line ✅ Correct as a generic wave equation 

 

✅ Correct for vector potential in Lorenz gauge (vacuum) 

⚠️ Not strictly “Maxwell’s final equation” without clarification

 

 

It  then offers to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part. 

 

And I have already given you details about the false beliefs that Einstein seems to have and which then get corrected for AUT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 14:23
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

Okay, but this is not really about Einstein and his importance in physics. Indeed, the exclusively transverse wave nature of light predated Einstein, and he was not in disagreement with it. This was about transverse vs. Longitudinal wave nature of light.

 

You said you were talking to ChatGPT and it told you certain things such as, “a lot of assumptions were made in that derivation and in general there were longitudinal e-m waves.”

No specific details were provided to you.

I therefore took it upon myself to show why it is transverse waves only, by using the analogy from the theory, experiment and equations.

Longitudinal waves will exist, if you shoot an object and the object is knocked back in the direction of the fired bullet. This is not what is observed experimentally in electromagnetism. What is observed is that the object is knocked perpendicularly, i.e. sideways by the fired bullet, in a pattern usually found to conform to rules, e.g. the right-hand-rule. If the object carries positive charge, it is knocked perpendicularly to one side, and if negatively charged it is knocked perpendicularly to opposite side. Never knocked in the direction of the fired bullet or its momentum. You can refer to this bullet mathematically as ∂A/∂t.  

Unless, you are trying to forcefully do a deal with ChatGPT, such as forcefully seeking safe passage through a narrow strait for your AUT, it will not lie to you that there are longitudinal e-m waves.

 

Akinbo

 

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:08 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

--
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/DMBcOOc-IlE/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/11a084e3.51e5c.19d2f69520d.Webtop.188%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/BESP195MB2930D9AFE3DB8885D9E04B41B057A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

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

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 14:55
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo

 

I disagree - mainstream physics is very much about Einstein's influence on it including how Maxwell's theory is to be understood etc.

 

You don't specify what Chatgpt said to you about longitudinal waves; so unclear what you say is your view or a mix of what Chatgpt says.

 

 

When I asked about what you call the Maxwell final wave equation, if it were correct

 

Chatgpt said - Short answer: yes, but it’s incomplete and context-dependent.

 

After a lot of math 

 

Chatgpt says - 

Bottom line ✅ Correct as a generic wave equation 

 

✅ Correct for vector potential in Lorenz gauge (vacuum) 

⚠️ Not strictly “Maxwell’s final equation” without clarification

 

 

It  then offers to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part. 

 

And I have already given you details about the false beliefs that Einstein seems to have and which then get corrected for AUT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 14:23
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

Okay, but this is not really about Einstein and his importance in physics. Indeed, the exclusively transverse wave nature of light predated Einstein, and he was not in disagreement with it. This was about transverse vs. Longitudinal wave nature of light.

 

You said you were talking to ChatGPT and it told you certain things such as, “a lot of assumptions were made in that derivation and in general there were longitudinal e-m waves.”

No specific details were provided to you.

I therefore took it upon myself to show why it is transverse waves only, by using the analogy from the theory, experiment and equations.

Longitudinal waves will exist, if you shoot an object and the object is knocked back in the direction of the fired bullet. This is not what is observed experimentally in electromagnetism. What is observed is that the object is knocked perpendicularly, i.e. sideways by the fired bullet, in a pattern usually found to conform to rules, e.g. the right-hand-rule. If the object carries positive charge, it is knocked perpendicularly to one side, and if negatively charged it is knocked perpendicularly to opposite side. Never knocked in the direction of the fired bullet or its momentum. You can refer to this bullet mathematically as ∂A/∂t.  

Unless, you are trying to forcefully do a deal with ChatGPT, such as forcefully seeking safe passage through a narrow strait for your AUT, it will not lie to you that there are longitudinal e-m waves.

 

Akinbo

 

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:08 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

--
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/DMBcOOc-IlE/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/11a084e3.51e5c.19d2f69520d.Webtop.188%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/BESP195MB2930D9AFE3DB8885D9E04B41B057A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

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

Einstein getting replaced by a robot-

 

 

https://youtu.be/1LWd_jhUeyo

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 15:00
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 14:55
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Akinbo

 

I disagree - mainstream physics is very much about Einstein's influence on it including how Maxwell's theory is to be understood etc.

 

You don't specify what Chatgpt said to you about longitudinal waves; so unclear what you say is your view or a mix of what Chatgpt says.

 

 

When I asked about what you call the Maxwell final wave equation, if it were correct

 

Chatgpt said - Short answer: yes, but it’s incomplete and context-dependent.

 

After a lot of math 

 

Chatgpt says - 

Bottom line ✅ Correct as a generic wave equation 

 

✅ Correct for vector potential in Lorenz gauge (vacuum) 

⚠️ Not strictly “Maxwell’s final equation” without clarification

 

 

It  then offers to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part. 

 

And I have already given you details about the false beliefs that Einstein seems to have and which then get corrected for AUT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 14:23
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

Okay, but this is not really about Einstein and his importance in physics. Indeed, the exclusively transverse wave nature of light predated Einstein, and he was not in disagreement with it. This was about transverse vs. Longitudinal wave nature of light.

 

You said you were talking to ChatGPT and it told you certain things such as, “a lot of assumptions were made in that derivation and in general there were longitudinal e-m waves.”

No specific details were provided to you.

I therefore took it upon myself to show why it is transverse waves only, by using the analogy from the theory, experiment and equations.

Longitudinal waves will exist, if you shoot an object and the object is knocked back in the direction of the fired bullet. This is not what is observed experimentally in electromagnetism. What is observed is that the object is knocked perpendicularly, i.e. sideways by the fired bullet, in a pattern usually found to conform to rules, e.g. the right-hand-rule. If the object carries positive charge, it is knocked perpendicularly to one side, and if negatively charged it is knocked perpendicularly to opposite side. Never knocked in the direction of the fired bullet or its momentum. You can refer to this bullet mathematically as ∂A/∂t.  

Unless, you are trying to forcefully do a deal with ChatGPT, such as forcefully seeking safe passage through a narrow strait for your AUT, it will not lie to you that there are longitudinal e-m waves.

 

Akinbo

 

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:08 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

--
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/DMBcOOc-IlE/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/11a084e3.51e5c.19d2f69520d.Webtop.188%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/BESP195MB2930D9AFE3DB8885D9E04B41B057A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger A.,

Re: "It  then offers to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part"

If it is a topic that interests you, accept the offer and let us see this context, and see where it has gone wrong or is mistaken.

Akinbo

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 3:55 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

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/34e6aa8b.52472.19d2fcab72c.Webtop.188%40btinternet.com.

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

Akinbo

 

It has not gone wrong; the issue is whether you accept the basis upon which AUT is formed. In that context it should be correct. If you are going by a different theory then that theory can have something else. 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 27th 2026, 15:36
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

Re: "It  then offers to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part"

If it is a topic that interests you, accept the offer and let us see this context, and see where it has gone wrong or is mistaken.

 

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/34e6aa8b.52472.19d2fcab72c.Webtop.188%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/BESP195MB29300E89CEEFB532AC4CAB57B057A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger A.,

There is theory and there is experiment.

ChatGPT gave you a generous offer: to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part.

Are you declining this offer? If not, share with us what it gave to you. Readers can make up their own minds what is correct and what is wrong, by checking whether what was given within the context of AUT is logical or reduces to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum).

Akinbo

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 5:40 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

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/973653b7-052f-4b0b-817f-3dd90eb31560n%40googlegroups.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/DMBcOOc-IlE/unsubscribe.

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/11a084e3.51e5c.19d2f69520d.Webtop.188%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-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/BESP195MB2930D9AFE3DB8885D9E04B41B057A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.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/DMBcOOc-IlE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank"> npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/34e6aa8b.52472.19d2fcab72c.Webtop.188%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-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/BESP195MB29300E89CEEFB532AC4CAB57B057A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.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/DMBcOOc-IlE/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/519db2bf.52aeb.19d302b4e79.Webtop.188%40btinternet.com.

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

I already pointed out the false beliefs that mainstream has; you can either carry on believing them or go for another theoretical framework; the choice is yours as to what you want to do

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: ta...@hotmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 28th 2026, 09:33
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions
 

Roger A.,

There is theory and there is experiment.

ChatGPT gave you a generous offer: to give the full wave equation in the context of AUT with its longitudinal part.

Are you declining this offer? If not, share with us what it gave to you. Readers can make up their own minds what is correct and what is wrong, by checking whether what was given within the context of AUT is logical or reduces to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum).

Akinbo

 

---

From: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 5:40 PM
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: a few thoughts and questions

 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" id="OWA4df59bd5-2a7f-d45b-51d4-7215cdb66e20" class="OWAAutoLink"> npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/519db2bf.52aeb.19d302b4e79.Webtop.188%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/BESP195MB29303DCF4086C7D3F9E2A1CAB054A%40BESP195MB2930.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
 

[Franklin Hu]

I was experimenting with trying to create a radio polarization experiment for Dennis Allen and I was using my oscilloscope to try to be able to pick up radio signals. I was originally trying to create a polarized transmitter source and a simple dipole attached to an oscilloscope as a receiver. I should then be able to observe polarization by re-orienting the receiving antenna. I was trying to eliminate sources of stray signals like 60hz power line hum when I ran into a huge signal in my living room. I turned out that the plasma globe was putting out a huge signal that seemed to be polarized since it seemed very sensitive to the orientation of the the probe. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/CLyUiapYoDg

ChatGPT suggested some reasons for this, but please comment if you have any other ideas why this occurs.

I've been working on this experiment for Dennis to investigate whether radio waves are transverse vs. longitudinal, but so far haven't found any practical way to create a reasonable transmitter that will work with the short dipole antennas (need FM radio frequencies) and a way to receive those signals through another dipole antenna that would be sensitive to signal strength changes when the orientation of the antenna was changed. I thought about using a car FM transmitter, but attaching a directional and polarizable dipole to it would be problematic and any FM radio receiver I could use would have automatic gain controls which would hide any change in the signal strength that would occur due to polarization - among other problems.

-Franklin

[LORNA VAN AMELFFORT]

not surprising to me in 2014 when the bell jar experiment of the SAFIRE PROJECT to prove the concept of testing an electric sun hypothesis,,,, When fired up for the first time people knoticed that the thumb drives sitting around the room were lighting up NOT PLUGED IN TO ANYTHING their lights were flickering,,, in order to do that the bell jar experiment must have been giving off some crazy signals perhaps even sending electricity into the air,,, like tesla did 

Richard and Lorna van Amelsfort

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Dennis Allen]

Franklin,

Yes, Lorna is probably quite right about this being a Tesla type effect, and Tesla worked only with longitudinal radiation, you know.  He even traveled to Europe by ship to try to sell this point of view to those there who were interested in Maxwell-Heaviside-Hertz transverse equation EM wave theory, but he returned empty handed.  It seems that he measured his longitudinal radiation as traveling considerably faster than transverse radiation's speed c so that there would go Einstein's special relativity with c being the maximum speed of any possible transmission.

Many thanks for the cool video! 

God Bless,

Dennis

P.S.  See the attached for a ball shaped antenna for longitudinal wave transmission due to both C. Monstein & J.P. Wesley.  Also, the pointed probe is good for longitudinal radiation reception since a whip antenna receptor picks up transverse radiation best sideways but longitudinal radiation best end on (see the attached, Figure 2).  

[David de Hilster]

Please move this to https://forum.naturalphilosophy.org

I appreciate the enthusiasm but many of us on this list did not choose to be on it. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to participate and want to see this help group our group.

Moving this to the forum would be much better for everyone involved. That way people can sign up and participate if they want.

David de Hilster
dehi...@gmail.com
Cell: 310-991-5744

[Akinbo Ojo]

All,

Light is a transverse wave. Hertz demonstrated this experimentally, but it is an inconvenient and bitter truth for many, especially for believers in a particulate medium. But the question that such critical thinkers should be pondering is: assuming we are wrong, and light is a transverse mechanical wave, what will be the consequences?  

 

Re: “Please move this to https://forum.naturalphilosophy.org”

Welcome to CNPS!

You’re almost done! We sent an activation mail to ta...@hotmail.com. Please follow the instructions in the mail to activate your account.

If it doesn’t arrive, check your spam folder.

 

Nothing arrives in the inbox or my spam folder. Probably same with others who have tried.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 1:17 PM
To: Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; LORNA VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; Amir <amir...@aim.com>; Robert Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Robert French <robert....@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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Odd behavior of flipping an oscilloscope probe around a plasma globe - radio experiment