Re: Cosmology Discussion Gropu Sunday September 21

[John-Erik Persson]

To all

I give you two ideas:

• The Lorentz transform is wrong, and in conflict with the wave model.
  So, SRT is also wrong.
• The idea of duality in light is wrong,
  and the particle model is not needed.

What is your opinion?

See attachment!

John-Erik

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 11:41 PM Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would guess that, even though one light wave has a further distance to travel, it would take more time for the light to initially reach the sensor, however, once it "finally" gets there, that c would have to stay invariant, the equal velocity of light, each direction. So I think I see your point.  I don't know if I'm 100% convinced yet though. lol  Anyway, thanks for clearing things up!  

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 4:26 PM Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Joe.  

I see what you're saying with how the Sagnac effect challenges Einstein's idea that c is invariant in any frame.  I had thought that since a light wave would take more time to reach the sensor than the other one in rotation, that is possibly why the fringe shift occurs.  However, it would seem that once the light sends its continuous stream, that it should measure as c regardless, so I think I see your point.  I maintain a level of skepticism though.  You know how if one arm is shorter than the other on MMX's original interferometer, that a fringe shift would result?  That's because of different distances, which is possibly similar to how the Sagnac effect gets the fringe shift.  If they could find out precisely the difference in distance, they could more readily estimate how much of a fringe shift would occur.  Aren't there quite a few other experiments which had one reflector "stationary" and the other in motion, yet they were inconclusive?  I think I heard that Michelson had developed one.  

Also, to clarify (I should've been way more clear!), I don't agree with time dilation or length contraction.  I was just stating that IF they were true, why wouldn't those additional effect occur.  

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 4:02 PM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

The bug needs his instruments and an alternate source of light to measure the distant to the objects the test beams are passing by.  He must use the two way speed light to measure the distance to those objects.  He has to do this in both directions.  If he does so when there is no rotation and again when there is rotation he will believe the distance in either direction has changed.

Cornelis Verhey

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 1:48 PM Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com> wrote:

Hi Jerry, 

I agree with you entirely about light traveling different distances - that is what creates the fringe shift in the stationary frame.  But neither von Laue nor Einstein were able to explain the fringe shift from the perspective of moving frame observers. Imagine you are a bug spinning with Sagnac’s turntable. You witness two counter-propagating light signals travel exactly the same distance, as measured from your moving perspective, yet the signals arrive at the beam splitter at different times, creating a fringe shift that you can observe. Different travel times covering the same (moving frame) distance = different light speeds as perceived by observers in the moving frame. This result challenges Einstein’s constant light speed in any frame postulate. This is the essence of the Michelson Gale experiment. The observers were on the rotating earth. The signals traveled over identical light paths as measured on the earth. And yet a fringe shift was observed.  Yes, an observer out in space would have declared the light signals to have traveled different distances in the frame of space, but to the observers on the earth, the light signals traveled the same distances at different speeds. There is no contradiction in the underlying explanation, merely different perspectives. Yet the result invalidates Einstein’s postulate and reveals that a system that uses only a single clock (the beam splitter) can reveal moving-frame anisotropy in light speed.

Regards,

Joe

From: Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2025 at 11:17 AM
To: Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, to: Matt <mguin...@gmail.com>, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>, cc: Alexius <alexdf...@gmail.com>, Amir <amir...@aim.com>, Andy <andre...@gmail.com>, Bob Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>, Greg <gr...@stakesby.com>, Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>, ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>, James Arathoon <james.a...@symdex.net>, James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>, Jeff Baugher <jpbaug...@gmail.com>, Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>, Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>, John_Erik <joer...@gmail.com>, Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>, Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>, Rick <wist...@rogers.com>, Robert French French <robert....@gmail.com>, Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>, Yohannes <natan...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cosmology Discussion Gropu Sunday September 21

You had mentioned how light travels at c in accordance with how fast its medium travels (I'm paraphrasing of course).  This seems to make sense, such as also with the Wang experiment, where we could possibly consider the fiber optics that the light travels through classify as a medium.  It seems a much different experiment than the Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments, where there isn't a medium at all (with the exception of air).  I'd say I actually side with the "mainstream" point of view in this instance, that the interference fringe shift occurs because one light wave has a further distance to travel in the rotating system. At least this is what I currently think. 

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 12:35 PM Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com> wrote:

Hi Matt,

We have one full-time engineer who runs the studio and manages the animators. A second engineer mainly works on other projects but is available for recording sessions. We also have two part-time animators.  We farm out music composition (my son Andy) and sound design (various contractors scattered around L.A.).  It’s all very expensive but given that the peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish anything that might challenge Einstein, and that the non-peer-reviewed publications get little attention, I see it as new a way to potentially reach a broader audience. So far that has not been wildly successful, primarily because most young people either want to watch videos that will help with their schoolwork or that postulate sci-fi fantasies about multiverses or holographic models or time-travel. I hope that my videos will become useful teaching tools someday, but as the saying goes “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”

Before answering your question about time, can you expand on what you mean by Einstein’s "clearly uncalled for redefinition of time”?

Regards,

Joe

From: Matt <mguin...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2025 at 9:26 PM
To: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Alexius <alexdf...@gmail.com>, Amir <amir...@aim.com>, Andy <andre...@gmail.com>, Bob Gray <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>, Greg <gr...@stakesby.com>, Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>, ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>, James Arathoon <james.a...@symdex.net>, James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>, Jeff Baugher <jpbaug...@gmail.com>, Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>, Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>, Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, John_Erik <joer...@gmail.com>, Jorgen Monkerud <jorgenm...@gmail.com>, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>, Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>, Rick <wist...@rogers.com>, Robert French French <robert....@gmail.com>, Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, Vladimir Netchitailo <netchit...@gmail.com>, Yohannes <natan...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cosmology Discussion Gropu Sunday September 21

Joe Sorge, what was the budget on your Ask Us Whatever series? That was some darn good video work. Also, why are you so hung up on Einstein's clock synchroniztion process? Why not focus on his clearly uncalled for redefinition of time?

On Friday, September 19, 2025, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi, I have added some members to our list for the invitation this Sunday Sept 21

You are invited to participate in the Cosmology Discussion Group this Sunday September 14 at 10AM EDT. This week Roger Anderton will be presenting: Galilean relativity updated to deal with two way lightspeed.  Roger's description is that: because of Stephan Gift's talks - I have looked at Selleri transformations. I don't think he has been dealing with things properly. Anyway, looking at things from my perspective: Selleri transformations seem an update to Galilean transformations, and might be called neo-Galilean relativity (?) to indicate it is an updated Galilean relativity.

You are all reminded that you can view recordings of the Cosmology Discussion Group at the Roger Anderton YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@rogeranderton418

There are three meeting sessions using Free Zoom. The meetings or sessions last 40 minutes. At the end of each session lick on the next meeting to open the next Zoom meeting session. The links to the meetings follow:

First meeting :https://us05web.zoom.us/j/88246380048?pwd=G2nHWombLsRCx2tTR7BbSri6JnM2N6.1

Second meeting:https://us05web.zoom.us/j/86345990628?pwd=QbOZAj3UIFyi4WvWYZCaHIemr6t7Ha.1

Third meeting:https://us05web.zoom.us/j/87684077806?pwd=tal687zFXAE7cbHNZL98VEoau4pQF0.1 

. 

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

Well picking up on wave-particle duality issue.

 

A wave is just a disturbance in a medium.

That medium could be continuous or discrete.

 

Why is that idea so hard to grasp?

 

 

-- 
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/CAECQJUA5Jsxh6OR0OZmvh7H3YxvmUceObJs94gMTZzZSS%2BdPJw%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Cornelis Verhey]

"That medium could be continuous or discrete."

In my opinion the medium can not be discrete.  There must be a binding energy connecting it throughout to provide a restoring force.

Cornelis Verhey

[matterdoc]

What is (binding) energy? What is its substance, and where does it exist? How does it provide restoring force? And what is force?

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

philosophy - modern physics is built on is atomism so is not continuous

------ Original Message ------
From: verhey....@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; jerry...@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; mguin...@gmail.com; kc...@yahoo.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; gr...@stakesby.com; ianco...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; james.a...@symdex.net; james...@gmail.com; jpbaug...@gmail.com; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; natan...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, September 21st 2025, 14:37
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Cosmology Discussion Gropu Sunday September 21
 

"That medium could be continuous or discrete."

 

In my opinion the medium can not be discrete.  There must be a binding energy connecting it throughout to provide a restoring force.

 

Cornelis Verhey

On Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 5:52 AM r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:
 

[John-Erik Persson]

Sorry

Attachment was missing

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/1921721c.3420f.1996c1e2bdf.Webtop.51%40btinternet.com.