Re: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo Ojo
Hi Stephan,
Re: “Note that the contraction and retardation effects are always present.”
By this, I believe is meant that these compensating mechanisms are present in both the outbound and inbound journeys of a two-way light experiment.
According to Selleri transformation, in a one-way light experiment, there CAN be light speed non-invariance, manifest as c+v or c-v in observations. No length contraction or time dilation can prevent this from occurring.
According to Selleri transformation, in a two-way light experiment, there CANNOT be light speed non-invariance, and so c+v or c-v observations will not be manifest due to exactly compensating length contraction or time dilation, which we are now informed as in the quote above “are always present”.
Turning a one-way light experiment into a two-way experiment merely involves substituting the receiving detector with a reflecting mirror.
Are we then to say that the light knows in advance whether it will be encountering a mirror or a detector, so as to inform length contraction and clock retardation to switch on and off? Switching on, if it knows it will be encountering a mirror, and switching off if it will be encountering a detector!
Surely, this is worse that metaphysics!!
Regards,
Akinbo
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 6:47 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
It seems that in your last email, you have things backward. I think you meant to ask me to “show clearly how the mechanisms of length contraction and clock retardation FAIL to prevent light speed Non-invariance in one-way, but as soon as the path becomes two-way, the mechanisms are switched on and suddenly become effective in SUCCESSFULLY preventing light speed Non-invariance?”
In response to your request, please see the attachment. Note that the contraction and retardation effects are always present.
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 27 November 2025 10:53 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Can I respectfully request that you show clearly how the mechanisms of length contraction and clock retardation FAIL to prevent light speed invariance in one-way, but as soon as the path becomes two-way, the mechanisms are switched on and suddenly become effective in SUCCESSFULLY preventing light speed invariance? This is a major distinction between SR and ST, since in SR the two mechanisms act all the time and are not switched on and off, as seems to be the case with ST.
Regards,
Akinbo
NB. I have been starting my messages to you with Hi, and ending them with Regards, while you have stopped doing so in your replies. In spite of this, I have not accused you of disrespect, causing me irritation or similar allegations.
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 2:47 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff
<cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I must say that your responses and writing style continue to cause me some level of irritation! Apart from your usual deluge of questions which I generally try to answer, you have asked me to write out proofs of some of my claims which I have carefully done in the spirit of the discussion. I now ask you to write out this lunar ranging test in a short note since I am having difficulty following what you are writing. You simply will not do so, showing little patience, seeming to believe that because I have carried out many spacetime tests, I must be able to understand all scenarios described by you and others. This of course is completely ridiculous. I have not seen your lunar ranging test as a test of spacetime transformations in any SR text. If you deign to prepare the note, that would help the discussion.
Regarding two-way light speed invariance and the STs you state “Having discredited the fact of one-way light speed invariance. How can adding two ST statements that light speed is non-invariant, now sum up to a statement of light speed is invariant in the two-way? In my opinion, it is necessary for ST to inform or explain how the fact of two-way light speed invariance can come about.” The answer is simple: length contraction and clock retardation on the moving platform (moving relative to the preferred frame) result in 2l’/t’=c. If you would like me to prepare a short note demonstrating this, I am willing to do so. Thus, two-way light speed constancy is an experimental fact used in the derivation of the STs, and consistency demands that the STs also predict two-way light speed constancy, which they do.
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 27 November 2025 9:18 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff
<cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
It speaks volumes if you have conducted tests on highly sophisticated phenomena like relativistic beaming, angle paradox, transverse doppler shift, etc, and now complain of difficulty understanding the Lunar laser ranging (LLR) scenario, not as “I am describing”, but as has been described in scientific literature over more than four decades with extremely high precision results. The Wikipedia entry has references to journal and arXiv articles that are free to access.
Since you continue complaining of difficulty, let us leave LLR, and let us assume, what you say is an established experimental fact.
Special relativity (and LET) GAVE a mechanism that explains this established experimental finding/fact, which I have stated.
What is the Selleri transformation (ST) mechanism or explanation for this same established experimental fact? Or is it that it is a fact because it is a fact?
Note that in a two-way light speed experiment, there must first occur a one-way, before it becomes a two-way. And ST admits that in the one-way, light speed is non-invariant, i.e. ST admits of travel-time being l/(c-v) OR l/(c+v) in the one-way, depending on how the receiver is moving at velocity v.
This is unlike SR, which postulates light speed invariance in the one-way, irrespective of how the receiver is moving at velocity v, so that a two-way light speed invariance is a fait accompli for SR. That is, for SR, one-way is fact, so two-way travel must also be fact.
But this is not the case for ST. Having discredited the fact of one-way light speed invariance. How can adding two ST statements that light speed is non-invariant, now sum up to a statement of light speed is invariant in the two-way? In my opinion, it is necessary for ST to inform or explain how the fact of two-way light speed invariance can come about. We know the SR explanation, the least is for ST to give its own explanation and not merely refer to two-way light speed as an experimental fact.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 12:18 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I continue to have difficulty understanding the scenario you are describing. I therefore ask again that you please write out the test in a short note, properly defining the parameters involved, or cite a paper in which it is described in clear details. You continue to claim that the STs involve a postulate/axiom which is not the case. As I previously indicated, two-way light speed constancy is an established experimental fact. I am ready to apply the STs to your lunar ranging test.
Regards
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 27 November 2025 6:21 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
‘l’ is the distance between Earth and Moon. You can consider it analogous to the arm of an interferometer. It is fixed.
This should be differentiated and not mixed up with the path length of light which can vary.
In ALL two-way tests used to discuss transformations, including ST, ‘l’ is fixed physically or mathematically by various reduction methods.
In LLR, all measurements are carried out from one station, the Earth station, so there is no need to prime length (l’) or time (t’). If you go through the algorithms used to determine the Earth-Moon distance to very high precision, I don’t think you will find length contraction or time-dilation included for the simple reason that there is only one observer (measurer) and lengths and clocks are not being compared by differently moving observers. Let us not introduce such unnecessary complication into the discussion.
In deriving the transformation equations, including ST, while the ‘l’ geometric length is fixed, the path length is not fixed. For instance, in the to- part of the round trip, light can travel at c-v, and in the fro- part, light travels at c+v, so the path length is longer in the outgoing trip and shorter in the return trip.
The only time that geometric and path length are both fixed is if v = 0 and there is no motion through space.
But in ST, as I understand it, the total round-trip time T is not determined by T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v). This is an astonishing claim.
In Special relativity (and LET), the equation T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v) IS ACCEPTED! However, based on exactly compensatory mechanisms like time dilation and length contraction, the round-trip time comes out as T = 2l/c, instead of as T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v).
In Selleri Transformation, it appears that the equation T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v) IS NOT ACCEPTED! Based on a postulate/axiom, that offers no explanation and does not require us to know the implementing agency or mechanism, other than to decree that the round-trip time T will be 2l/c, instead of T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v). How can we agree with such an unexplained, zero mechanism decree? Or are you adopting the SR mechanisms as the ST explanation?
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:12 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I asked if l is constant. I see that the moon has a different velocity from the Earth. In that case it appears that l is not fixed. If it is not, then this two-way test is different from that used in the derivation of the STs and that predicted by the STs which is 2l’/T’=c.
Regards
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2025 10:16 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
In LLR, all measurements are done at the Earth-based station.
So we can assume that, as you say, in such two-way light experiments, the applicable equation will be T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v), or for clarity, T = l/(c-vmoon) + l/(c+vearth).
As I mentioned earlier, this contradicts Special relativity.
Selleri transformation also demands that as long as all measurements are done from the Earth station, which is fairly stationary to ECI during the experiment, two-way transit time T will be 2l/c. However, the observed data show that this is not so, and instead two-way transit time, T = l/(c-vmoon) + l/(c+vearth), which is different from 2l/c.
As a result of this, the relative motion between the Earth and Moon during the trip is one of the information that has to be corrected for in the obtained data, thereby making vmoon and vearth zero, in order to obtain the best fit value for ‘l’.
In ST, there would be have been no need for this correction, given the ST two-way light speed constancy postulate.
Please include this among the tests that ST must pass.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:02 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
That should be 2l’/T’=c.
Stephan
From: Stephan Gift
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2025 8:50 am
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
Your equation T = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v), according to the STs, represents the time T for light to travel out and back on a platform of length l, moving at velocity v relative to a preferred frame, where T and l are measured in the preferred frame and not on the platform. Light speed is c in the preferred frame.
Two-way light speed constancy means l’/T’=c where l’ and T’ are the length and out-and-back time measured on the moving platform. The result is not influenced by light speed variations c-v and c+v.
Because science demands that the STs pass all the tests, I need to be very clear about the test and your claim. This is why I asked you to write out the analysis in a short paper, as I have done for all of the tests I have discussed.
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2025 8:16 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
I am not clear which aspects of my approach you are having difficulty with.
At the risk of being accused of asking you too many questions...
*Is the dynamical equation for two-way light travel, TH = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v), clear to you?
*Am I correct in stating that it is a postulate of Selleri transformation, that in two-way light travel, the total travel time is not influenced by c-v and c+v considerations during the to and fro trip, thus resulting in a constant two-way light speed, or am I misrepresenting the theory?
If we are clear on these two aspects, I may see if I can dig up peer-reviewed references on the subject.
Probably, you are not very familiar with the LLR experiments, because you said you were guessing if it qualifies as two-way, and whether the path length is fixed or is changing. Given your skills in subjecting the SR, ST, LET transformations to 18 or more very complex tests, I don’t see why same skill cannot be brought to bear on this simple Lunar laser ranging scenario. You may wish to include it in your list of tests.
Even if ST fails, a score of 17 out of 18 will not be a bad result, unless you have planned that ST score must always be 100% Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Wikipedia article, “To compute the lunar distance precisely, many factors must be considered in addition to the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds. These factors include the location of the Moon in the sky, the relative motion of Earth and the Moon,...”
I believe AI may also help you to confirm or rule out, whether indeed the velocity of the Moon relative to the incoming laser beam from Earth, and the velocity of the Earth relative to the reflected light, are important parameters that go into determining the total two-way travel time or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 11:29 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I am not able to follow your development of this lunar ranging approach in this email. I am quite interested since you believe that I “may find it unpleasant that it also negates the Selleri transformation postulate that: two-way light speed is a constant and is not influenced by c-v and c+v considerations, which is the Selleri explanation for a null MMX result”. Please write out the analysis in a short paper that I could follow more easily.
Thanks
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2025 5:14 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Re: “I guess it qualifies as two-way. Is the path length fixed or is it changing?”
Thank you. The basic scheme in LLR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments, and references therein), is the same with that of MMX, meaning the path length is changing and is not fixed.
In one leg of travel, the light is moving towards a receding receiver (c-v), and in the second leg, the light is moving towards an approaching receiver (c+v), and arrival time data effects are collected for the two-way light travel.
The expectation is that travel-time will be longer due to c+v and c-v in a round-trip. Using my previous notation, TV < TH, and if an interferometer is used there will be a fringe shift.
In LLR, the dynamical equation is still the same TH = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v).
However, the parameter of interest is a value for ‘l’, the Earth-Moon distance.
To know this, it is necessary to know the value of the velocity of the moon moving away from Earth as the outward going laser is in transit, and velocity of Earth as the incoming laser is transiting on its return.
Let us rewrite the equation, putting values for Moon velocity assuming this is away from Earth during the outbound journey, and putting values for Earth velocity in the inbound journey assuming this is towards the incoming laser beam, i.e.
TH = l/(c-vmoon) + l/(c+vearth)
From the enormous amount of data collected and its analysis at various LLR stations, which data are available online, the value of ‘l’ has been found to great accuracy. In order to get this level of accuracy, the following are removed from the raw data obtained for TH.
1) The value of vmoon is corrected for, by making the Moon motionless mathematically during the outward laser journey. This contravenes SR, since by its postulate the motion of the receiver does not affect light arrival time on the Moon.
2) The value of vearth is corrected for by making the Earth motionless mathematically during the inward laser journey. Again, this contravenes SR, since by its postulate the motion of the receiver does not affect light arrival time on the Earth.
By making vmoon and vearth reduce to zero, the value of ‘l’ can be obtained from the two-way light arrival time and the velocity of light c, i.e. l = cTH/2.
Of course, this is a simplified description, as other effects such as atmospheric, rotation, etc, are among parameters reduced to zero by the algorithms and analysis. You can confirm this from the Wikipedia entry and if interested in delving deeper from other references that are linked to the entry.
Apart from LLR analysis going against SR postulate, you may find it unpleasant that it also negates the Selleri transformation postulate that: two-way light speed is a constant and is not influenced by c-v and c+v considerations, which is the Selleri explanation for a null MMX result.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 10:17 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I guess it qualifies as two-way. Is the path length fixed or is it changing?
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2025 4:24 pm
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Re: "I do not think the lunar ranging experiment had a valid result that has been independently confirmed"
First, do you agree that Lunar laser ranging, where light is sent from earth station to reflectors on the moon, from where they bounce back to the receiving station on earth, fall into the category of two-way light travel experiments?
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 5:27 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I believe I have sent you this information from Zhang’s book in the past. You can refer to the modern MM-type experiments involving two-way light travel that verify two-way light speed isotropy down to a level ∆c/c less than 10^-18. I do not think the lunar ranging experiment had a valid result that has been independently confirmed. The STs predict one-way light speed non-invariance but two-way light speed invariance.
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2025 10:32 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Can you name the experimentally confirmed facts of two-way light speed constancy? And have you put them side-by-side with other two-way experiments such as Lunar laser and other ranging experiments, which latter reveal that c+v and c-v effects occur in the observational data?
According to ST, (unless you say otherwise), such c+v and c-v effects are not expected to occur and produce effects in the observational data of two-way light experiments.
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
Your summary of the situation with the MMX is interesting. With respect to the STs, this theory does not utilize any postulates or decrees; it employs two experimentally confirmed facts namely two-way light speed constancy and clock retardation. It must certainly also predict these phenomena as it does. If you do the analysis, you will see that the time in both directions predicted by the theory is 2l/c as determined in the frame of the experiment. Both length contraction and clock retardation can in principle be observed from the preferred frame.
Regards
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2025 7:15 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Re: “I have moved beyond that question”
Okay, although I can’t recall. Probably, you asked if I agreed with time-dilation. My obvious answer is a No.
Re: “Regarding the travel time predictions of the STs, I do find differently. The STs predict a horizontal travel time of 2l/c and a vertical travel time of 2l/c”
The idea behind MMX was that given an L-shaped interferometer on Earth surface (one arm vertical, and the other horizontal), due to Earth motion in horizontal direction, we should have travel-time differences in two-way light travel as follows:
Vertical
TV = 2l/c
TH = l/(c-v) + l/(c+v) = (2l/c) x 1/(1 – v2/c2) ≠ 2l/c
A travel-time difference is expected, but was not found or was not significant enough.
Below are then the different explanations given:
Galilean transformation: The medium in the vicinity of the Earth was bound to Earth surface and travelling with it at velocity v, therefore v in the equation is zero (v = 0). Stoke’s adopted this explanation (ether drag).
Lorentz ether theory (LET): The motion of the Earth through ether causes a length contraction that prevents any delaying effect on travel-time from c-v in the outbound journey. While, light travelling in the opposite direction during the inbound journey experiences time-dilation, thereby preventing any hastening effect due to c+v. The effect of these mechanisms ensures that TV = TH.
Special relativity: In the outbound journey, the path length was contracted, thereby preventing c-v from having any delaying effect on travel time (length contraction). In the inbound journey, time was dilated, thereby preventing c+v from having any hastening effect on travel time (time dilation). The end result therefore becomes TV = TH, not because of motion through ether, but because of a postulate expressed with a math equation.
Emission theory: The speed of light depends on the source. Therefore, in the outbound journey, the speed of light is c+v. This results in a (c+v) - v scenario, with l/c as the resulting travel time. In the inbound journey, the speed of light is c-v. This results in a (c-v) + v scenario, with l/c as travel time.
Selleri transformation: From what I have gathered from you, the equality TV = TH is decreed as a postulate not needing any explanation, just as Special relativity issued its own decree for one-way light travel. However, this theory went into overdrive by now adding time-dilation and length contraction of Special relativity to its own decree, which addition is surplus to requirement because what the addition seeks to solve has already been postulated and decreed.
In summary, I think it is necessary for Selleri transformation, as advocated by you, to decide on which of the solutions to MMX result that you want to apply. You cannot adopt a postulate (decree) as solution and at the same time believe in the SR's solution to the problem.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 5:39 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
I have moved beyond that question.
Regarding the travel time predictions of the STs, I do find differently. The STs predict a horizontal travel time of 2l/c and a vertical travel time of 2l/c. We can discuss further if you wish.
Regards
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2025 12:23 pm
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Can you repeat the single question you said I didn't answer?
Going by your reply, my analysis of the Michelson-Morley two-way light experiment, the Selleri transformations will yield a travel-time difference between the vertical and horizontal light paths unless the null-result that was found is a postulate/axiom of ST.
While the vertical path two-way travel time will be 2D/c, the horizontal travel-time will be (2D/c) (1/[1 - v^2/c^2]).
Do you find differently?
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Akinbo,
Let it be said that I am very willing to discuss the STs, whether or not there are “consequences” for the theory. This is one of the main reasons I remain in this group, despite the difficulties I face. My only and abiding requirement is civility in the discussion. Also, even though you did not answer my single question, I will address those you have asked.
You say that “the relativistic equations apply to light itself”. This is not the case. With respect to the STs, clock retardation applies to clocks which measure time and length contraction applies to rods which measure length. This results in measurement of two-way light speed as constant, which has been experimentally confirmed. With respect to the LTs of special relativity, while most physicists believe that it is clock retardation and length contraction that result in one-way light speed constancy, this is not so. Along with these two effects, clock desynchronization in the moving frame is necessary in order to achieve one-way light speed constancy. Note however that one-way light speed constancy has not been experimentally confirmed. Regarding the LET, I await Nick’s answer on the predicted light speed.
Therefore as I understand the situation, the questions you ask do not arise since the effects do not directly apply to light.
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2025 8:14 am
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>;
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Hi Stephan,
Special relativity (SR), and I believe Lorentz ether transformation (LET) admit that the relativistic equations apply to light itself, which is why the path length of light can be contracted and its arrival time dilated, to maintain a constant resultant one-way velocity of light, irrespective of the motion of the receiver relative to the source of light.
In Selleri transformation (ST), the same two mechanisms are deployed to ensure a constant two-way velocity of light postulate. That is, the path length of light can be contracted and its duration of travel can be dilated to maintain and ensure that the relevant postulate is obeyed.
Assuming ∆t' = ∆t/γ, where the v in gamma (1/√(1 – v2/c2) will be equal to c, as far as light is concerned, being a leading advocate for the Selleri transformation, does the time-dilation equation apply to light in ST?
If it does, what will be the implication of the resulting ∆t' = 0 for light?
Does this imply that time cannot vary in phenomena associated with light?
Regards,
Akinbo
NB. This is not a gotcha, so feel free to bare your mind no matter the consequences for ST.
From: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2025 8:15 PM
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>;
Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>;
James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>;
John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>;
Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>;
ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
jorgenm...@gmail.com <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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Actually, I am not sure what value of light speed you arrive at!
From: Stephan Gift
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2025 3:07 pm
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>;
James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
This lacks rigour, although you arrive at a value c which may make Nick very unhappy!
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2025 2:06 pm
To: Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>;
npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>;
James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>;
netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>;
Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com;
rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>;
Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>;
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: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Well let's have a go at the first question; although its not really clear what is being asked for.
>>What is your mathematical (not descriptive) derivation of the (one-way) light speed prediction of the Lorentz Transformations (of LET)?<<
In my case, I usually go back to the first paper on SR by Einstein 1905 On electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Einstein gives the equation: 2AB/(t'_A -t_A) =c
that I think is now usually interpreted as the two-way lightspeed c; although Einstein does not use the term "two way lightspeed"
Later he says:
(t_B - t_A) = r_AB/(c-v) and t'_A - t_B = r_AB/(c+v)
where (c-v) and (c+v) are now I think usually interpreted as the one-way lightspeeds; although Einstein does not use the term "one way lightspeed"
That math then gets incorporated into the LTs.
Does that answer your question for the math you want.
------ Original Message ------
From: stepha...@uwi.edu
To: nper...@snet.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frank...@yahoo.com Cc: siri...@yahoo.com; andre...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com; munda...@gmail.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; aith...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; joe....@decisivedx.com; kc...@yahoo.com; 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: Sunday, November 23rd 2025, 16:21
Subject: RE: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Nick,
I do indeed generally reply to your questions even though you may not like my answers. However the same cannot be said about you regarding my questions. I have asked you several questions over many months which you have not answered. So please do not expect me to answer your latest set of questions before you answer the following:
- What is your mathematical (not descriptive) derivation of the (one-way) light speed prediction of the Lorentz Transformations (of LET)?
- What is your mathematical (not descriptive) derivation of the clock retardation prediction of the Lorentz Transformations (of LET)?
- What is the reference for your often cited statement by Ron about clock retardation in the GPS?
I await your responses.
Stephan
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2025 5:44 pm
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Stephan
I do not see your answers to my questions in my email of 11/18/25 below. You normally reply quickly, but with a general dismissal that contains assertions but no semantic content. So I thought very specific questions could be a step forward.
Nick
On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 03:36:10 PM EST, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:
Stephan
You do not now or previously give any specific response to the points I present. Instead you make general claims such as "I[Stephan] am right." So I'll repeat specific questions:
1) Do you at least admit that for this topic, it is important to correctly understand Lorentz's work??????????? (Please give a Yes or No for future reference.)
2) What does "t" stand for in the LLTs?
3) Why do you contend that the STs' "t" transformations are qualitatively different & superior to the LLTs' "t" transformations?
Nick
On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 02:55:36 PM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:
Nick,
There really is no need for you to repeat these points as you have said these things many times before. I simply disagree with you and I am entitled to do so. Moreover, I do not appreciate your condescending tone in some of these exchanges. I have shown you in technical detail why I consider the Lorentz LTs to be wrong. You describe my effort as “math manipulations”, not seeming to appreciate the importance of mathematics in scientific investigation. You are of course free to do so, but I am also free to disagree with you.
In the latter part of your email, your words seem designed to stir up resentment in this group against me, which is most unfortunate. I have advanced my ideas with detailed analysis, always respecting the views of others, but reserving the right to disagree. We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable or disrespectful. I have often called for cordiality, but have faced the most vicious attacks from at least one member of this group, with not a single word from you. My message is simply that I disagree with special relativity and the LLTs and embrace the Selleri transformations. I will continue to advance the case for these transformations, always being open to dissenting views.
Stephan
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2025 2:13 pm
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Stephan
I have pointed out in detail your fundamental misunderstandings regarding Lorentz theory, including LET and the LLTs. You have made no effort in addressing this most important issue other than, per usual, your simply claiming that you are right and that all the Lorentz experts, including Lorentz himself are wrong. Apparently, you think that this failing on your part is unimportant regarding your marketing campaign for the STs. So I will repeat why it is so crucial to have an accurate understanding of Lorentz theory:
Basically, Einstein took all of the math equations of Lorentz and changed from having absolute v with respect to a single, physical entity (e.g., the ether) to having relative v with respect to an infinite # of inertial frames. To say the least, this was a MAJOR step backwards to understanding the true physics. To correct the disastrous confusion of this misstep in transitioning from Lorentz Theory to SR, we need to clearly articulate and make known this misstep. Unfortunately, the teaching of SR has created a tremendous amount of confusion within physics academia, including its students and this is a great obstacle to making progress on this foundational problem. Hence, the best way to solve this problem in physics is to avoid adding a great deal more confusion!
While I appreciate your and Selleri's efforts to correct an error in SR, your partial and flawed fix has the inherent problem of adding to the existing confusion rather than correcting the confusion SR created.
The correction is simple. Lorentz got the right clock retardation equation by using standard physics (e.g., absolute v with respect to a single, physical entity) whereas Einstein changed the meaning of Lorentz math by recasting it in an abstract math and non-physics model. So Lorentz was correct about clock retardation (not time dilation) being a function of absolute v per his clock retardation equation and GPS has confirmed Lorentzian (atomic) clock retardation to very high precision! If you have some specific addition on clock retardation, please be very specific. I'm all in favor of actual improvements.
As most of us know, physics academia has used multiple, erroneous physics interpretations of SR to try and get around the physics problems caused by Einstein's abstract math transition from Lorentz's physics model.
One of the many problems with introducing the Selleri Transformations (STs) is that the STs have gone through a series of changes that add a great deal of confusion and have never freed themselves from relativistic thinking. For example, Selleri introduced the STs (then called the ITs), in a book called "Weak Relativity" where the name is quite candid and insightful. Whereas the problem to fixing SR is quite simple (i.e., the need to avoid going from physics to purely abstract math), Selleri tried an abstract math fix to one SR problem. Selleri, a true critical thinker, saw that the construct of "relative simultaneity" insured sucking all true physics meaning out of SR. Unfortunately, Selleri's fix was to give an artificial, abstract math fix whereby one would arbitrarily select one frame's definition of simultaneity as the definition that must be used by all frames. Over time, Selleri evolved his STs to address more than just relative simultaneity. However, both his versions and the specific versions that you endorse, still contain a great deal of SR's problems. Even granting that, given enough time, you might figure out a correct version, it would only be 100% correct and 100% relativity free, if you end up with Lorentz's clock retardation physics and removed some of your and Selleri's erroneous, relativistic assumptions. Even assuming such fundamental improvements, your approach to trying to straighten out a very confusing SR physics mess would still be adding a great deal of unnecessary confusion and skipping over a simple solution and that's inherently counterproductive and would also be plagiarizing Lorentz and cheating him out of his due credit. Basically, you have been spreading a seriously flawed thesis that claims that the dissident community's work to resolve the SR problems is an utter failure that needs to be discarded as wrong and replace it with Stephan Gift's work. Basically, your message is that all the past work on showing that SR is wrong, and one should concentrate on Stephan Gift's work which starts with SR and step by step (partially) evolves preferred frame and one should kindly ignore the relativistic aspects of your work. Hence, you confirm the mainstream-physics-professor thesis that the dissident community has slowed progress by critiquing SR and instead mainstream, including Gift, was correct to start with SR and brilliantly derive preferred frame theory.
Do you at least admit that for this topic, it is important to correctly understand Lorentz's work??????????? (Please give a Yes or No for future reference.)
I and Harry and others have clearly pointed out the many problems to your approach on this topic, including how it unnecessarily confuses the main issue on SR that the CNPS/NPA and physics critical thinkers and dissidents had done a great job addressing. It may be unintentional and due to your lack of knowledge of the physics history in this area, but you are aiding physics academia defense of SR by promoting a great deal of erroneous confusion and not clearly seeing the difference between good sound physics and abstract math with relativistic trappings.
Nick
On Monday, November 17, 2025 at 10:26:14 AM EST, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:
Hi Stephan
After three years of my (and others) explaining to you in detail why you are making fundamental physics mistakes in your STs marketing campaign, I am NOT interested in the futile pursuit of trying to educate you on physics fundamentals of this physics topic. Instead, I'm trying to do damage control by helping others with the basics.
Despite, the above, I'll explain here your mistake below. Einstein took Lorentz's preferred frame Lorentz Ether theory and associated LLTs including the basic math equations and created SR which is NOT a preferred frame theory, but instead is an observer-centric theory where all inertial observers' different views are deemed to be equally valid. The math equations look the same, but their physics meanings are complete opposites, because for Lorentz theory v is absolute v with respect to a single preferred frame, whereas in SR v is relative v for each and every inertial observer. (In addition, Lorentz equations are asymmetric and describe physical effects, whereas SR equations are symmetric which logically mean they are describing "just observed" effects - e.g., it cannot be true that observer A's clock is physically slower than observer B's clock AND observer B's clock is physically slower than observer A's clock.)
So when you write below, "since it is possible to deduce the observed clock retardation using SR as I have posted in this group", you make your usual and pervasive error and do math manipulations with TOTAL disregard for the underlying physics meaning. So it's true that Lorentz's original clock retardation (i.e., proper time slowing) equation has been verified by the SR data. It is NOT true that SR's time dilation equation is consistent with GPS data as Ron Hatch has strongly and explicitly confirmed many times. GPS keeps absolute simultaneity between GPS earth surface clocks and GPS orbital clocks as follows. GPS uses the ECI frame as the single, preferred frame and calculates how much GPS earth surface clocks and GPS orbital clocks respectively have slowed as a function of their absolute velocity with respect to the single preferred frame (ECI) and then uses those two results to sync those clocks. This is NOT using SR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hence, you look at SR's time dilation equation and then use it with an entirely different (single preferred frame) physics meaning and erroneously conclude that SR time dilation equation is supported by GPS data whereas, in Ron Hatch's words, "GPS clock data DISPROVES SR time dilation"!!!!!!!!! Your using math equations with total disregard for the physics meaning in the context that your making claims is a pervasive problem of yours.
(As an aside, Yes, GPS also takes into account the effect on clocks due to differences in gravitational potential, but this is a different issue. However, note that the gravitational potential effect predicted by GR is due to the gravitational field equations which are NOT relativistic, but are single preferred frame based(also the ECI frame in the vicinity of the earth for the earth's gravitational field). Much of what's added to GR's core gravitational field equations is relativistic.)
Nick
On Monday, November 17, 2025 at 04:54:50 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:
Nick,
We have been over this ground before and continue to disagree on many or most of these ideas. I wish however to address one of your claims. I said that I gave the (SR) LTs a “pass” on time dilation since it is possible to deduce the observed clock retardation using SR as I have posted in this group. You responded by saying that “this statement of yours is 100% incorrect per the GPS data and as noted by Ron Hatch.”
I have attached a derivation of clock retardation using special relativity (Einstein LTs) in order to demonstrate that you are incorrect. I also show how special relativity can be used to derive the time delay in a GPS satellite clock.
Stephan
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Sent: Monday, 17 November 2025 1:13 am
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
Stephan
Below I have interspersed some comments in bold red in your reply to my comments
Nick
On Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 06:16:08 PM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:
It is clear from my recent comments that I was referring to the LTs associated with SR. I have stated in the past that my comments on the LTs generally refer to the SR LTs since this is what mainstream science recognizes and this is where I am focused.
The problem is that there are two sets of LTs that are often referred to as the Lorentz Transformations of LTs, yet they are diametrically opposed - so it is most important that when discussing transformations, it is made clear that one is not lumping the two together! Further some readers may not be expert on the LLTs and other may not even realize the difference between the two very different sets of transformations. Hence, these readers may be misled by your comments on this most important issue.
Moreover, I no longer make any distinction between the SR LTs and the Lorentz LTs since I believe on good grounds that the two theories are operationally the same, despite one having an ether and the other does not. Again, this is how mainstream relativistic physics views the two theories, despite what a few in this group may claim.
Your statement above, that I have put in blue, seems to contradict your 1st paragraph. You say that your mentioning the "LTs" just refers to the "SR LTs" and NOT the LLTs, but then you equate the two versions of the LTs. In addition, that statement in blue is a fundamental misunderstanding about the physics of the LLTs AND about the relationship to the LLTs to the STs. This misunderstanding of yours undermines your whole thesis about the STs.
I gave the (SR) LTs a pass on time dilation since it is possible to deduce the observed clock retardation using SR as I have posted in this group.
In addition this statement of yours is 100% incorrect per the GPS data and as noted by Ron Hatch.
I certainly am aware that SR actually predicts symmetrical time dilation which has never been observed.
This statement of yours contradicts your statement above ("the (SR) LTs a pass on time dilation") and confirms my rebuttal in bold red underneath it.
Nick claims that the Lorentz LTs pass 7 of the 24 tests listed in the table and this is commendable. He however needs to show that the Lorentz LTs pass all of the tests, including the remaining 17, if the theory is to be a viable contender to replace SR.
As he knows, I have posted in this forum the analysis using the STs for 18 of the 24 tests listed. (I can do so for the remaining 6.) Perhaps he should do the same for the LLTs.
Just as for Stephan's misstatements about the LLTs and SR's LTs ,the problem is Stephan's focus on the math equations and not the physics represented by these equations.
Finally, Nick and a few others have repeatedly claimed that I misunderstand the Lorentz ether theory. I disagree! He also states “as has been well documented, Stephan has some fundamental misunderstandings about the relationship between Selleri's LTs and the LLTs.”
There are no Selleri LTs
I find this to be a bizarre statement as Stephan is writing about the STs and when I asked before for a clear definition of the physics meaning of the STs and not just the math equations, he sent me a paper on Selleri's LTs as the definitive answer.
and he appears here to be misled by the claim by some that the STs and the LTs are the same or equivalent.
Presumably, Stephan meant to write "the LLTs" rather than "the LTs"
As I have pointed out on many occasions, they are not. I refer him to my recently published paper in Proceedings A which I posted, where the non-equivalence of the STs and the LTs is highlighted.
Yes, Stephan has pointed out the errors in the STs many times. Thanks, Stephan. Anyone who understands the LLTs in depth and thinks that Stephan's STs are preferable, please write to me about why they prefer the STs. I and others have beaten this topic to death with Stephan and I'm trying to do damage control.
Nick
Stephan
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2025 5:20 pm
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic -Stephan's errors.
All
As I have mentioned many times, in a context like this, one needs to clearly distinguish between Lorentz's original "Lorentz Transformations" and Einstein's qualitatively different "Lorentz Transformations" rather than just referring to "the LTs" - I'll refer to the former as the "LLTs" and the latter as "SR's LTs".
Assuming that the 1st column of Stephan's table of Pass/Fail items refers to the "SR's LTs", I'll note that for "1. Time Dilation", Stephan gives the "SR's LTs" a "Pass", when it's well known that it should be a "Fail". This is a most fundamental and serious error, so I will go no further on this column.
Regarding the "LLTs", Stephan's table does not address them. I'll just note that, unlike the "SR's LTs", for "1. Time Dilation", the LLTs deserve a Pass. For items 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 & 11 the LLTs deserve a Pass. For all other items not mentioned in these two paragraphs, do NOT assume that I'm implying a Pass or Fail for the LLTs.
As I and others, who are quite expert in this area, have noted. Stephan has demonstrated some fundamental misunderstandings about the physics of the LLTs and the theory from which they were derived. Also, as has been well documented, Stephan has some fundamental misunderstandings about the relationship between Selleri's LTs and the LLTs.
Nick
On Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 09:07:45 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu> wrote:
In response to one of my comments yesterday, a seminar participant correctly suggested that any theory replacing SR must not only account for the confirmed predictions of SR, but must also account for other phenomena (where SR fails). Here is a table from my book that you may find interesting:
Table 15.1. Some Key Results of the Comparison of the LTs and the STs
Tests
LTs
STs
1. Time Dilation
Pass
Pass
2. Hafele-Keating Exp
Fail
Pass
3. Time Transformation
Fail
Pass
4. Simultaneity
Fail
Pass
5. One-way Light Speed
Fail
Pass
6. Relativistic Beaming
Pass
Pass
7. Stellar Aberration
Fail
Pass
8. Wang Experiment
Fail
Pass
9. Clock Synchronization
Fail
Pass
10. Transverse Doppler
Pass
Pass
11. Michelson-Morley exp
Pass
Pass
12. Kennedy-Thorndike exp
Pass
Pass
13. Ives-Stilwell exp
Pass
Pass
14. Sagnac Effect
Fail
Pass
15. Michelson-Gale exp
Fail
Pass
16. Electric Field of a Moving Charge
Pass
Pass
17. Magnetic Field of a Moving Charge
Pass
Pass
18. Elastic Collisions
Pass
Pass
19. Compton Scattering
Pass
Pass
20. Right-Angle Lever Paradox
Fail
Pass
21. Relativistic Mass
Pass
Pass
22. Selleri Paradox
Fail
Pass
23. Thomas Precession
Pass
Pass
24. Correspondence Principle
Fail
Pass
Score
12/24
24/24
As can be seen from Table 15.1, the LTs fail 12 of the 24 tests listed. Failure of just one is sufficient to falsify the theory. Specifically, the sacred principle of special relativity, which is the constancy of the speed of light, has been refuted, so the main foundation of the theory has been destroyed. The STs, on the other hand, have passed all of the 24 tests listed and thereby give us confidence that they are the correct spacetime transformations.
Stephan
From: Stephan Gift
Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2025 9:51 am
To: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; 'npa-rel...@googlegroups.com' <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; 'Franklin Hu' <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: 'David Tombe' <siri...@yahoo.com>; 'Andy Schultheis' <andre...@gmail.com>; 'Akinbo Ojo' <ta...@hotmail.com>; 'Roger Munday' <munda...@gmail.com>; 'Carl Reiff' <cre...@elgenwave.com>; 'Frank Fernandes' <aith...@gmail.com>; 'James J. Keene' <james...@gmail.com>; 'Nicholas percival' <nper...@snet.net>; 'netchit...@gmail.com' <netchit...@gmail.com>; 'John-Erik Persson' <joer...@gmail.com>; 'Dennis Allen' <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; 'Joe Sorge' <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com' <amir...@aim.com>; 'rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com' <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; 'ILYA BYSTRYAK' <ibys...@comcast.net>; 'Jim Marsen' <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 'jorgenm...@gmail.com' <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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic
Further to my comment below, I wish to point out that the right-angle lever paradox involves length and force transformations and is therefore a quite stringent test of the LTs. These transformations produce a non-zero value for torque in the moving frame when there should be zero torque as in the stationary frame. Many attempts have been made to neutralize this torque, all of which have been unsuccessful. This non-zero result really should have caused the rejection of SR back in 1909 when the paradox was identified. It is really unclear to me why it did not since SR was only introduced 4 years earlier. The STs published in 1995 produce zero torque in the moving frame as is required.
Stephan
From: Stephan Gift
Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2025 8:58 am
To: 'r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com' <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic
Roger,
In your talk yesterday, you were asked about experiments that disprove SR. From my recollection, you did not name any. Here are three:
- The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925. The LTs predict light speed c in all arms of the system and therefore give zero fringe shift, contrary to observation.
- The Wang experiment of 2003. The LTs predict light speed c/n relative to the uniformly moving medium and therefore give zero time difference, contrary to observation.
- One-way light speed measurement on the surface of the Earth using the GPS clocks. The LTs predict constant light speed c while the experiment yields variable light speed c+v west and c-v east where v is the surface speed at the particular latitude.
Here are three other areas where SR fails:
- The right-angle lever paradox where the LTs give a non-zero torque in the moving frame when it should be zero.
- The LTs produce inaccurate clock synchronization and need a “correction” which is external to SR.
- The ECI (preferred) frame exists in direct violation of the relativity principle of SR which prohibits the existence of preferred frames.
Stephan
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2025 6:53 pm
To: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.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...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; 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: My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic
My talk on Einstein relativity violating Logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X--4mTIHSNs
- from my arguing with people who believe in Einstein relativity - they don't seem to care that it violates logic, they have the false belief that relativity is confirmed by experiments so don't need to bother with logic.