Re: [npa-relativity] Abridged summary of npa-relativity@googlegroups.com - 27 updates in 1 topic

[Shafiq Khan]

Following reply to the Gemini.ai observations made my Mr.Ram Lakhan Panday on my Rebuttal paper will be of great help to you all. The rebuttal paper is attached herewith.

  Rebuttal to Lann N. Ramez.pdf

Dear Ram,

I have ready reply for Gemini.ai to the Rebuttal paper. There are two points raised by Gemini.ai which are replied as under. 

It says that my research work should challenge the Ives-Stilwell experiment which justifies the time dilation. Why should I challenge this experiment when my alternative theory accepts the time dilation. In fact Ives-Stilwell experiment upholds my contention. They need to do experiments of Ives-Stilwell with highest possible accuracy to check the quantum of time dilation predicted by my Theory and the Einstein's Theory. What I loath is intermingling of space and time because it is illogical and irrational. There is not a single experimental evidence till today which confirms the contraction of space in the direction of motion which Einstein's Theory predicts.

The second point raised by Gemini.ai is about acceptance of aether. I have proved the existence of aether in the paper titled 'Michelson-Morley Experiment A Misconceived and Misinterpreted' even by adopting the wrong calculations which was done by them in 1887 and also present correct & accepted calculations wherein the constancy of velocity of light is adopted.

I have proof of existence of aether which everyone irrespective of qualification can do to physically see the aether. One has to go out when it is dark and semi close the eyes and strain the eyes while seeing a street lamp they will see the shining aether arround the lamp. You too can do it. 

However I would request you to read the rebuttal paper personally to see how Einstein has deceived the world.

Please circulate the reply.

With Regards 

Mohammad Shafiq Khan 

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025, 7:00 PM <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

npa-rel...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Today's topic summary
View all topics

• Seeing into the Great Beyond - 27 Updates

Seeing into the Great Beyond

Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>: Aug 29 08:35AM -0700 [Snipped.]   Franklin,   This places you in the same camp as Roger Munday.  It's as if you are both from Missouri - the "show me" state.  However, you have void betwixt your pos-electrons.  ...more

David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>: Aug 29 03:40PM Franklin,              Nobody has suggested that you should see into the beyond. But we can see the fluid flowing out through the sinks, whether we know where it is going, or what is pulling it ...more

David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>: Aug 29 03:47PM Franklin,              I think you've missed the point. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of trying to explain anything to you. The speech by Colonel Sherburn wasn't intended to explain ...more

Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>: Aug 29 09:46AM -0700 Jerry,   Yes they have heard this many times before. All I have ever heard is invalid counter arguments that violate energy exchange rules of physics. These have never been able to validly explain ...more

Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>: Aug 29 12:15PM -0700 Akinbo,   I take it that you are just being the devils advocate in quoting David in your reply to Franklin and that you are not in support of the concept.   Cornelis Verhey   ...more

Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>: Aug 29 07:50PM Cornelis, "Beyond" is a place. I don't think there is any other place apart from this universe. But if there is a beyond, then we may speculate on what it may contain. Among other things, it must ...more

Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>: Aug 29 02:44PM -0700 Akinbo,   I was not referring to the highlighted "*the beyond*" but the entire concept. It seems even in replying with your side topic of the beyond you are playing devils advocate. ...more

Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>: Aug 30 11:23AM +1200 Franklin, So, provide me with links to the observations and the analyses of these experiments. Roger Munday   ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 09:09AM +0800 Akinbo,   If positrons are sinks, then they must attract each other. This is obviously wrong   Franklin   Sent from my iPhone   On Aug 30, 2025, at 3:50 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote: ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 09:11AM +0800 Search for them on Wikipedia as a start. Then you can tell me why you disagree.   Sent from my iPhone   On Aug 30, 2025, at 7:24 AM, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:      Franklin, ...more

David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 01:47AM This is the third in the trilogy and it takes us to Hertz's demonstration of wireless transmission in 1887, confirming Maxwell's prediction. It also makes a comment about Heaviside and Poynting's ...more

Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>: Aug 30 02:52PM +1200 I have looked at a number of links. You send me a short draft of *your personal analysis* of the basic functions. Otherwise you are wasting my time. Roger Munday         ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 11:30AM +0800 My analysis is the same as the articles, so it is your burden of proof to dispute this mainstream position, not mine.   I don't think you can or have even thought about it. So I am just showing how ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 11:38AM +0800 David,   I wasn't responding to the article which just seemed like nonsense. I was replying to your invalid comment about the positrons electron structure and I still expect you to explain how a ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 11:41AM +0800 Carl,   So you claim nobody cares about experimental verification.   You really want to stick with that?   Franklin   Sent from my iPhone   On Aug 29, 2025, at 11:36 PM, Carl Reiff ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 12:23PM +0800 No, that explains nothing since there isn't an opposite end of a vortex. Gravity would have to be a one way sink. That is still impossible.   At least when David uses sinks and sources, they are ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 12:33PM +0800 I didn't ask what they are. I asked where they get the extra energy to constantly deflect the path of other nearby electrons. This definitely takes energy to achieve.   Sent from my iPhone ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 12:36PM +0800 The counterpoint is that the aether does consist of particles and has definite markers to measure velocity against. This can only be decided by experiments. So if the aether particle is conclusively ...more

Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 12:44PM +0800 Frank,   How does that explain why electrons repel each other while positive and negative attract?   Franklin   Sent from my iPhone   On Aug 27, 2025, at 9:20 PM, Frank Fernandes ...more

Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>: Aug 29 09:54PM -0700 Franklin,   You misunderstood.  You have void which Roger vehemently denies, claiming a lack of evidence for it.  That's what you can take up with him since nobody else cares about that ...more

Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>: Aug 30 11:02AM +0530 Franklin, Electrons do not repel. One Coulomb means that there are 6.24 x 10e18 electrons as a bunch like one dozen bunch of bananas. In electrolysis for example 1 C means 6.24 x 10e18 ions of say ...more

Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>: Aug 29 11:02PM -0700 Franklin,   You asked: "Where do your wave based electrons get their infinite energy source?"   The answer is: "They are not seperate discrete particles. They are volumetrically resonant ...more

Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>: Aug 29 11:37PM -0700 Franklin   "So if the aether particle is conclusively detected, then we’ll know. " I will go by currently understood science rather than your completely speculative IF.   Cornelis   ...more

Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>: Aug 30 09:33AM Franklin,   In the model, it is electrons that are sinks. And yes, unless there is further intervention from beyond, they would attract each other. Since they don’t, we can only attribute this to ...more

Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>: Aug 30 09:45AM Franklin, Cornelis, et.al.,   The CMBR has been demonstrated to be capable of serving as “identifiable markers to measure the velocity against”. This is not a collection of particles, but black ...more

David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 10:56AM Akinbo,            Stop misrepresenting the theory! The reason why negative sink particles repel is because of the all-pervading electron-positron sea in the space between them. ...more

David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>: Aug 30 11:05AM Franklin,              I don't intend to explain anything to you, because the manner in which you bond the electrons and positrons together indicates a total lack of understanding of ...more

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Regarding MMX:

• No effect in the transverse arm (wave model)
• No observable effect in longitudinal arm (MMX)
• Contraction of 2-way light
• Contraction of light is compensated
• Therefore contraction of matter

MMX proves contraction of matter

John-Erik

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAHYwPz1WFH9%3Dpg0%3DLT8WEeq4YrUqF2qJLMNyS6-XqY4DLbFuEg%40mail.gmail.com.