Make physics great again-----------MPGA

[John-Erik Persson]

All

We must do something about the chaos in physics

See below

John-Erik

[vladimir netchitailo]

Dear John-Erik,

I agree with you. 

Vladimir

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Hi John-Erik

      I like your MPGA slogan and the basic thrust!

      I agree with your Bohr's Mistakes section

      I agree with your Einstein's Mistakes section, BUT I'd insist on rewording your

"Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on Lorentz mistake and therefore also wrong."

To something like:

"Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on his misinterpretation of Lorentz theory when he plagiarized Lorentz's equations and is entirely wrong due to that misinterpretation."

    I disagree with your Lorentz Mistake section:

First of all, when you discuss the "LTs", you must make clear whether your referring to Lorentz's original "LLTs" or Einstein's "SR LTs", as they not only are NOT the same, but instead also the opposites of each other despite appearing to be the same mathematically.

    For Lorentz (LET, LAT), there is one correct physics model for the physics effects he is describing, namely, the model where the base frame is the single, preferred aether rest frame. The LLTs transform between that single physics model and other fictitious, observer- dependent models which are based on naive, non-preferred frame observations/observers. (In contrast, SR claims all the different (inertial) observer frame views are equally valid physics views.) Hence, LAT/LET/LLTS do NOT claim to transform light motion! For them, it says the medium for light is the aether and the LLTs do NOT imply in any way what you infer.   

           All the best,

                            Nick

[John-Erik Persson]

Vladimir

Thank you very much for your opinion.

Nicholas

Thank you very much for your interesting views.

I also think that we have an aether and that it is better to use physical terms like aether frame and observer frame instead of just mathematical frames. 

However, I still have the opinion that Lorentz made an error in 1887, that remains until today by stating that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX. The change in motion between observer frame (equipment) and aether frame falls inside the unchanged planes of equipment and wave fronts and therefore there is no reason for light to change behavior. Light direction is defined by mirror orientations, and unchanged light behavior means that there is no effect in the reference arm in MMX, and therefore MMX has been misunderstood from 1887 until today by conflicting the wave model. So, we find that no effect in MMX is explained by no effect in the reference arm and compensated (length contraction) effect in the measuring arm. So, an important error has existed since 1887, and light does not take a longer way, as Lorentz said, and the Lorentz transforms are wrong since a long time ago.

Compensation by length contraction is reasonable, since length is defined by two anti-parallel forces and two-way light speed is also explained by two anti-parallel forces.

Regards from John-Erik ----------- MPGA

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

>>However, I still have the opinion that Lorentz made an error in 1887, that remains until today by stating that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX. <<

 

This highlights why we dissidents can't get anywhere; we can't agree.

 

 

Mainstream says the math of Lorentz transformation works.

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: joer...@gmail.com
To: nper...@snet.net Cc: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; netchit...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 6th 2026, 19:42
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Make physics great again-----------MPGA
 

Vladimir

Thank you very much for your opinion.

 

Nicholas

Thank you very much for your interesting views.

I also think that we have an aether and that it is better to use physical terms like aether frame and observer frame instead of just mathematical frames. 

However, I still have the opinion that Lorentz made an error in 1887, that remains until today by stating that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX. The change in motion between observer frame (equipment) and aether frame falls inside the unchanged planes of equipment and wave fronts and therefore there is no reason for light to change behavior. Light direction is defined by mirror orientations, and unchanged light behavior means that there is no effect in the reference arm in MMX, and therefore MMX has been misunderstood from 1887 until today by conflicting the wave model. So, we find that no effect in MMX is explained by no effect in the reference arm and compensated (length contraction) effect in the measuring arm. So, an important error has existed since 1887, and light does not take a longer way, as Lorentz said, and the Lorentz transforms are wrong since a long time ago.

Compensation by length contraction is reasonable, since length is defined by two anti-parallel forces and two-way light speed is also explained by two anti-parallel forces.

 

Regards from John-Erik ----------- MPGA

 

 

On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 3:20 AM NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:
 

 

-- 
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/CAECQJUCVs71Ez_3mEgT-fQtk1K4yLV3o639Sg%2Bf31p0iCFRtkA%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

John-Erik

      I agree with you completely when you write "I also think that we have an aether and that it is better to use physical terms like aether frame and observer frame instead of just mathematical frames" below.

      I also agree when you write, "The change in motion between observer frame (equipment) and aether frame falls inside the unchanged planes of equipment and wave fronts and therefore there is no reason for light to change behavior." However, I disagree that Lorentz thought in terms of "light changing behavior". Instead, Lorentz interpreted it in terms of the reference arm physically contracting due to the reference arm's absolute motion with respect to the aether causing an EM effect, with that EM effect physically contracting the reference arm. (Hence, Lorentz was explaining why observers (e.g., Michelson & Morley) would come to the wrong conclusion of what's going on physically if they were unaware of the "new" length contraction and clock retardation effects.)

        Incidentally, I have focused purely on Lorentzian clock retardation (NOT "time dilation") which I contend has been supported by GPS data to a very high degree of precision. However, I am NOT a supporter of Lorentz's detailed explanation of his EM effect that causes (atomic) clock retardation.  

                   Nick     

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Roger

   You write, "Mainstream says the math of Lorentz transformation works." Yes, and the greater error is that mainstream does NOT differentiate between the physics meaning of the LLTs versus the very different physics meaning of SR's LTs. So YES, we dissidents must stop making the same error as mainstream (Please note, SG).

                          Nick

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

Nick

 

But when pressed the mainstream admits to Lorenzian interpretation of the Lorentz transformations as possible , just that they prefer the Einsteinian interpretation.

 

"They" start defining -  special relativity (SR) as having both a Lorentzian interpretation and Einsteinian interpretation. 

 

 

Instead of there being a Lorentz  theory (with Lorentzian interpretation of the Lorentz transformations) and SR (with Einsteinian interpretation of the Lorentz transformations).

 

Then dismiss talking of different interpretations as philosophy - and deem should ignore philosophy;  and then stick to just the Einsteinian interpretations. 

------ Original Message ------
From: nper...@snet.net
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: netchit...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 6th 2026, 23:12
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Make physics great again-----------MPGA
 

 

Roger

   You write, "Mainstream says the math of Lorentz transformation works." Yes, and the greater error is that mainstream does NOT differentiate between the physics meaning of the LLTs versus the very different physics meaning of SR's LTs. So YES, we dissidents must stop making the same error as mainstream (Please note, SG).

                          Nick

 

On Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 05:43:54 PM EDT, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1425474482.4618350.1778105563796%40mail.yahoo.com.
 

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

Mainstream says that Lorentz math works.

That is not an argument, since we know that different theories can give the same prediction.

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/1f99b595.15336.19dff6d39b7.Webtop.152%40btinternet.com.

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

John-Erik

 

If you are talking about different theories can use the same math that is called underdetermination, and mainstream prefers Einsteinian interpretation of the Lorentz transformations, and not bothered with other interpretations.

------ Original Message ------
From: joer...@gmail.com
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com Cc: netchit...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 6th 2026, 23:47
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: Make physics great again-----------MPGA
 

Roger

Mainstream says that Lorentz math works.

That is not an argument, since we know that different theories can give the same prediction.

John-Erik

 

On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 12:34 AM 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' via npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 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/1f99b595.15336.19dff6d39b7.Webtop.152%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/CAECQJUCgOY6hD%3DWt0s%3DE-7PAmMtH0pSoDku0AdH2pstEEzwy0w%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[John-Erik Persson]

In 1887 Lorentz assumed that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX due to the transverse ether wind.

This conflicts with the wave model and light takes the same way independent of ether wind.

The Lorentz transform was wrong in 1887 and is wrong today. So, we should give up the Lorentz transform.

So, we should Make Physics Great Again.

In 1887 we should have listened to what Michelson said.

MPGA

John-Erik Persson

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/69cb55d5.15371.19dff8b8f14.Webtop.152%40btinternet.com.

[Roger Munday]

Make Physics Great Again!

So all you have to do is to provide an absolute proof that an "interatomic" vacuum exists.

Go ahead.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUDoEd0L51eCDg63%3DwAwtpvDdkhvZ0xi_AQ-cFHM__JnXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Nick

How do you like this article?

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfvi8bMsdWQoHcmbgmOvtY38wsTRHZ6e9mGHF8afLTQwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

So, you will all carry on believing that your hypothetical "vacuum" exists, and your hypothetical "gravity" propagates within this "empty space".

There is one, and only one force that is observed to act continuously in the Earth's atmosphere and this is the observed interatomic continuity of magnetism.

Which force field is observed to act continuously N-S in all magnetic compasses placed  between the Sun and the Earth and between the Earth and the Moon.

Grow up.

Roger Munday

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUDqSieUrCsB9JQsWcsyu34soWmt_FLOk_ciP_2aLdOzsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

Light and “Gravity”

It is stated by physicists that “Light and gravity prove an aether’s existence”.

However if an aether existed, i.e. a hypothetical, non-atomic, non-interactive and nonmaterial “space”, then no force could possibly be transmitted between observed and existent material bodies of any dimension within it (e.g. the Earth and the Moon).

But it is observed that magnetic fields are transmitted within the Earth’s atmosphere and are observed to be continuous, no interatomic vacuum is experimentally observed to “exist”.

But you collective “theoretical physicists” believe the unobservable nonsence you were taught in early education, in that “kinetic atoms are in motion in vacua”.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

https://ebesco.com/research-starters/technology/vacuum

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

The observed perfectly continuous transmission of magnetic forces prove the existence of continua of solid liquid and gaseous atoms in these states.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

I repeat - Neither you nor any theoretical physicist can explain how the universe ultimately functions.

Instead you collectively believe the nonsense you were taught in early education, in that "kinetic atoms are in motion in vacua".

If such a collective condition "existed" universally  in reality then no force could possibly be transmitted between two physical bodies of any dimension.

Grow up.

Roger Munday

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

Grow up yourself.

I have repeatedly stated that no forces exist between two bodies.

Do not accuse me of that.

Instead, gravity images inside matter.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwe5j7GfS-G6PaLQm%2B2NWwvuZwL%3Dw7OD%3DOJHna944ZQguw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You assert - "I have repeatedly stated that no forces exist between two bodies."

So - How does the Moon orbit the Earth?

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUBRujmboi9mvx2cPAZ9_K2H_4-d1Z_0eNCPF3Zp4kVEFw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

I have answered that question many times in articles to ResearchGate and Academia and also in more details in the article that I have sent to you.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vweLorHFmKkw%2BpegsdfN%2Br8HgRRHROwDuh0AK4wkAd5f6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik

Yes, I recall that you assume that vacuum and/or nonatomic media "exist". 

Roger

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUA1dHEsh7t_F3NeUO2Duuj3kfyHdKD_1-YyghkB164p%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

Yes, I assume a subatomic ether based on particles.

No, this means no real vacuum, although it looks like a vacuum.

We have:

Light waves

No light particles

Ether particles

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwea-TH_SwUQWDR%2B4aHTfML6TWbZ9QAnv7ZLaBPWKABRyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

These are electromagnetic images of drawn out and continuous wires of gold atoms.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUBOMjmC0zoaduof%3DJkVP8bfoPTJoDoeddwdtTpGEYnKLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

My opinion is:

• Ether is extremely small and fast particles moving in all directions.
• Matter absorbs and emits ether particles.
• Absorption distorts spherical symmetry in the flow.
• No magical force between two bodies.
• Instead, forces emerge inside matter.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfUkXeDWZwgB%3DopbDOEBMSNM18PgOV_YiFLYO0L3hL-rw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

You have no evidence whatsoever that your "ether particles" exist.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUDYrsR-aCPgTP6LVLpSMhVfudWVRzYZ16DhV-sLVh5gUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

The only thing that exists is a universal continuum of atomic matter, i.e. physically continuant and totally material atoms.

Which spherically acting atoms expand and contract with inputs and emissions of energy.

Roger Munday

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

You say that I cannot prove the ether.

You think that you can prove no ether, and that is worse.

No one cannot prove anything not to exist and not have properties to demonstrate it

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfivZKJWV6ZSUZCqpVr-kFiMnE1%2B9Cwi8GZhbykSkCpuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

You have no evidence whatsoever that your "ether particles" exist.

I wrote that you believe the nonsence you (and all TP’s) were taught in early education, in that “kinetic atoms are in motion in vacua”.

I know that it is generally accepted by theoretical physicists that “vacua/aethers” exist, but it is not possible to create an absolute vacuum in extensive and expensive experiments.

So, you have no experimental proof of the “existence” of a vacuum or an “ether”.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUDK%3DABU8Edk0ACHnwMnrM3vjzuOPrXaKqKB1nfyimfN2w%40mail.gmail.com.