Re:
John-Erik Persson
- Time dilation is not physics - metaphysics
- Instead, clock speeds depend on the ether wind
- Space bending is not physics - metaphysics
- Instead, gravity is caused by the ether wind
CornelisYou are wrong.My article describes how the frequency in atomic clocks depends on the ether wind. Time dilation is an illusion.This is clearly explained.There are more errors in physics.No wave-particle duality.The Lorentz transform conflicts with the wave model.John-ErikOn Sat, May 2, 2026 at 7:09 AM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, the light clock is a thought experiment used to illustrate the principle of time dilation.
Atomic clocks, however, are real physical systems and are one of many types of clocks that demonstrate time dilation. Their advantage is their extremely high precision, which allows us to measure the very small differences in elapsed time that occur at everyday velocities and under gravitational influences.
The key point is that time dilation is not specific to any one type of clock. It applies to all physical processes equally. Atomic clocks are simply a particularly accurate way of observing it.
Referring to this as “clock dilation” instead of time dilation doesn’t change the underlying physics. What is observed is that all processes—atomic transitions, particle decay, and other physical phenomena—are affected in the same way, which is why the effect is understood as time dilation rather than a property of a specific mechanism.
What I think abouit aether wind and particle based aether has already been shared with you.I also thing you have never explained your purpose for interjecting your unjustified statement to me and if youi agreed with my repies to Franklin and Akinbo about the theoretical behavior of the light clock based on what we know of lights behavior.John-Erik
On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 5:39 AM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:John-Erik,What I think is you disrespectfully interupted the conversation about "A bit on clock retardation vs advancement " in order to divert attention to you pet theory.You fail to explain you purpose for interjecting your unjustified statement to me,On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 3:03 PM John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:CornelisExcuse me for interrupting againI think that the light clock is just a thought experimentInstead, atomic clocks are real and working, but not as perfect as assumed. They do not demonstrate time dilation, but their frequency depends on the ether wind as demonstrated in the attachment.Tell me what you thinkJohn-ErikOn Fri, May 1, 2026 at 5:39 AM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:John-Erik,What I think is you disrespectfully interupted the conversation about "A bit on clock retardation vs advancement " in order to divert attention to you pet theory.You fail to explain you purpose for interjecting your unjustified statement to me," The Earth is also entrained by the ether (adapts to ether motion). Therefore, the contribution from distant bodies appears to be zero, and we only see the contribution from Earth. "in response to my email correcting Franklin and Akinbo concerning the light clock behavior.You now continue to send spam under the lable of "John-Erik Persson har delat Turmoil med dig" instead of jusfifying your reason for the disruption.I have already shared my views on your theory, and others like it based on a particulate eather.Cornelis VerheyOn Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 3:58 PM John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:What do you think?John-Erik--Cornelis Verhey--Cornelis Verhey
John-Erik Persson
--
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/CAECQJUCHd%2BJpWUY7YO6fQ_ZCC_jxmnYwyZpgcsZB7HWcvCUt9w%40mail.gmail.com.
Cornelis Verhey
Cornelis Verhey
Cornelis Verhey
John-Erik Persson
John-Erik Persson
- You; they are perfect.
- I; they change frequency due to the ether wind.
Cornelis Verhey
John-Erik,
You’re misrepresenting my position. I never said atomic clocks are “perfect.” I said they are extremely precise physical systems that allow us to measure how the rate of physical processes changes under motion and gravity.
Time, operationally, is nothing more than the rate at which physical processes proceed. Atomic clocks are just one very stable example of such a process.
If your claim is that “ether wind” changes the frequency of atomic clocks, then the issue is not the existence of some proposed mechanism, but whether it matches experimental reality.
What I think abouit aether wind and particle based aether has already been shared with you.
I’m not interested in debating hypothetical “ether particles.” That approach has been explored extensively and has not produced a model that matches observations.
Please do not respond anymore unless you wish to address the comment you made after my communication to Franklin and Akinbo about the theoretical behavior of the light clock based on what we know of lights behavior.
Cornelis
John-Erik Persson
Cornelis Verhey
John-Erik,
You’re still misrepresenting my position by quoting fragments out of context. My statement was not that atomic clocks are “perfect,” but that they are precise physical systems used to measure how the rate of processes changes under motion and gravity.
More importantly, you have not addressed the specific point I raised regarding the theoretical behavior of the light clock based on what we know about light’s behavior.
That was the subject of my comment to Franklin and Akinbo, and it remains the issue in question.
If you want to continue this discussion, please address that point directly and explain your reasoning clearly. Otherwise, I’m not interested in continuing a parallel discussion about ether or atomic clocks that does not engage with the original topic.
If you choose not to address it, then let’s end the exchange here.
Cornelis