RE: The Lorentz Transformations
Stephan Gift
Dear David,
In your response to my first point, you have not directly addressed the issue I raised, which is this: The LTs predict light speed constancy in all inertial frames and the GPS has shown that this is not so. Therefore the LTs must be wrong. Regarding your response to my point 2, please follow through the derivation of relative simultaneity in any standard text on special relativity and you will see that the presence of an aether does not affect the derivation. The LTs with or without an aether predict relative simultaneity. The GPS negates this notion completely. Again, the LTs are wrong.
Regards
Stephan
From: David Tombe [mailto:siri...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill
Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>;
Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>;
Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>;
Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org;
rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Lorentz Transformations
Hi Stephan,
I would interpret the evidence that you mention in point 1, as meaning that the luminiferous medium does not rotate with the Earth.
On your point number 2, in what respect do the LT's, as per Lorentz, which are based on an aether rest frame, predict relative simultaneity? I interpret the time variable in the LT's to be the reciprocal of the frequency in the EM waves in question. There is no time dilation, as per Einstein, in the way that I interpret the LT's.
Best Regards
David
On Sunday, January 24, 2021, 02:11:41 PM GMT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear David,
- I am aware that light in the hypothesized aether is fixed at c. The issue is the LTs which you accept predict constant light speed in all inertial frames, not just in the aether. The GPS clocks reveal variable light speed between two points fixed on the surface of the Earth which refutes this prediction. I was not here referring to objects in relative motion though it is also true that light speed is variable for a moving observer. Doppler shift for a moving observer is a simple manifestation of this variable light speed in an inertial frame (frame of the moving observer), contrary to the predictions of the LTs. How do you respond?
- If you assume an aether, then you may be right that the LTs do not predict symmetrical time dilation. (I have to check.) However, the LTs even with an aether, predict relative simultaneity. No such phenomenon occurs in the GPS which operates on the basis of absolute simultaneity that is confirmed every day. No correction is made for relative simultaneity which is a non-existent phenomenon.
Regards
Stephan
From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 8:27 AM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>;
Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>;
Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum
<r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>;
Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>;
Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert
Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger
<se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>;
electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>;
fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>;
rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>;
verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Lorentz Transformations
Hi Stephan,
Regarding your point number 1, light speed is fixed relative to the luminiferous medium. In the GPS, those variable lightspeeds that you are talking about are between objects in relative motion, such as the satellites and the rotating Earth's surface.
Regarding 2, LT's don't predict symmetrical time dilation if we use the luminiferous medium as an absolute standard of rest.
Best Regards
David
On Sunday, January 24, 2021, 11:36:42 AM GMT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear David,
You say you accept the Lorentz transformation of fields. May I ask, why do you continue to accept the LTs when I indicated the following:
- The LTs predict light speed constancy. This is now known to be wrong. For example, the GPS clocks show that light speed is not constant.
- The LTs predict symmetrical time dilation. The GPS confirms asymmetrical time dilation every day.
Both of these predictions by the LTs are wrong and therefore the LTs are invalid. If you accept that the LTs make these two invalid predictions, why do you still embrace the LTs?
Regards
Stephan
From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:30 AM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>;
Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>;
Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>;
Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum
<r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>;
Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>;
Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert
Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger
<se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>;
electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>;
fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>;
rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>;
verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Lorentz Transformations
Nick and Stephan,
Yes, there is only one inertial frame at any given location. It's the rest frame of the luminiferous medium relative to which the speed of light is fixed. It's on that basis that I accept the Lorentz transformation of fields.
Best Regards
David
On Sunday, January 24, 2021, 04:54:35 AM GMT, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:
Hi Stephan
Thanks for your reply. I think that there's still a terminology or communication problem although we may be in basic agreement on the physics of what's happening.
You write, "... the Lorentz LTs (like the Einstein LTs) do predict constant light speed in all inertial frames." My view is, that the correct physical interpretation of the Lorentz LTs (and modified LAT), is that the SoL IS only constant in all directions for one frame (the preferred frame) whereas for all other (inertial) frames, the SOL is physically NOT constant in all directions, but is only (erroneously) OBSERVED to be constant in all directions due to the physical effects of measurement instruments moving with respect to the aether (in the case of LAT and Lorentz's interpretation of the Lorentz LTs). This is not subject to subjective interpretations - this is the Lorentzian physical model. I know the math manipulations that will make it seem like the Lorentz LTs say that the SoL IS c (in vacuo) in all directions in all frames, but those math manipulations are not consistent with the Lorentzian physical model.
It's late so I'll address the Selleri transformations tomorrow.
Nick
On Saturday, January 23, 2021, 10:28:51 PM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear Nick,
Thank you for your interesting exposition on the LTs. I do agree with the distinction you make between Einstein's LTs and Lorentz's LTs. However, the LTs in use today are the Einstein LTs with only historical reference being made to the Lorentz LTs and therefore that distinction is usually unnecessary. The Selleri tranformations (STs) are not the same as the Lorentz LTs as you claim. That small difference in math form which you cite makes a large difference in physical predictions. Let me give two examples: (i) The STs predict light speed variation while the Lorentz LTs predict light speed constancy; (ii) The STs predict absolute simultaneity while the Lorentz LTs predict relative simultaneity. They are definitely not the same. You state that the Lorentz LTs assume the speed of light is the same in all directions in one frame only which for Lorentz was the local aether frame. But as I have pointed out to you in the past, the Lorentz LTs (like the Einstein LTs) do predict constant light speed in all inertial frames. The analysis is straightforward. I do agree though that light speed constancy in the ECI frame has been experimentally confirmed.
Regards
Stephan
The Lorentz's LTs assume the SoL (in vacuo) is the same in all directions in one and only one frame, which for Lorentz was the local aether rest frame. On the one hand, GPS does show that the SoL is NOT constant, thus refuting one of the base assumptions of SRT and Einstein's LTs. On the other hand, to my knowledge, GPS data does NOT indicate or even cast the slightest doubt about the constancy of the SoL (in vacuo) for transmitter and receiver being at rest in the preferred frame, which to a high degree of precision is the ECI frame - In other words, GPS data does NOT refute or even cast the slightest doubt about Lorentz's LTs.
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 7:43 PM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al
McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>;
David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn
Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>;
IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>;
Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>;
Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>;
Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>;
electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>;
fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>;
rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>;
verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Lorentz Transformations
ALL
I read Stephan Gift's comments about "the LTs". At first, I was surprised to think that he was "wrong", however, as I read more, I thought that I was agreeing with what was in Stephan's mind, but there were terminology problems.
When Lorentz modified his LAT to include Length Contraction & Clock Retardation
(NOT "time dilation"), the "v" in those equations stood for absolute velocity with respect to the aether rest frame. Hence, Lorentz's LTs were inherently asymmetric and implied the use of true physical effects. Further, the transformations could be used ONLY to go from the preferred frame to a non-preferred inertial frame and the true inverse Lorentz's LTs could only be used to go from a non-preferred frame to go back to the preferred frame (e.g., the aether rest frame). In contrast, for Einstein's modified version of the original Lorentz's LTs, "v" in those equations stood for relative velocity with respect to any inertial observer frame and hence, Einstein's extreme modification of Lorentz's LTs were inherently symmetrical. Further, this meant that the inverse of Einstein's modified version of Lorentz's LTs requyired a mirror image inverse and NOT a true inverse like for the original of Lorentz's LTs.
Hence, for discussing "the LTs", it would be helpful to explicitly distinguish between the two (e.g., "Lorentz's LTs" vs "Einstein's LTs") when expressing your views. Rather than naming the latter "Einstein's LTs", I first thought of calling them "Special Relativity's LTs", but many mainstream relativists have discussed SR with the implied use of "Lorentz's LTs". In fact, many mainstream relativists do an implied switch between the two sets of transformation equations without so noting the switch - especially when discussing topics like The Twin Paradox. Further, when German critical thinkers repeatedly asked the Albert Einstein Institute (AEI) what the physical meaning of SR's Time Dilation and Length Contraction was, the AEI refused to answer even though the AEI was designated by the German government to be the official authority on SR including answering questions about the meaning of SR. Further, mainstream physics has tried to banish all knowledge of and reference to the Lorentz's LTs, as well as any consideration of an aether.
On a related but different topic, The Selleri Transformations, or the Inertial Transformations (ITs), are actually the same as the Lorentz's LTs, but with a small difference in math form and corresponding small difference in physical interpretation. Selleri correctly identified SR's "Relative Simultaneity" (RS) as going down the wrong path and sought to bring relativity back to the right path by bringing back Absolute Simultaneity (AS). However, he did this, in his book "Weak Relativity" by starting with transformation equations that were actually like the Lorentz's LTs, but rather than having v defined, as in the Lorentz's LTs, as the absolute velocity with respect to the aether rest frame, Selleri suggested, since at the time of his writing the aether rest frame had not been identified, that one "arbitrarily" select the preferred frame or, perhaps preferably, guess at which frame was the aether rest frame (cf, Selleri's Chapter 18 "Weak relativity" where he writes, "The main physical question of the theory of the inertial transformations would be how to detect the privileged system. After many failed attempts I can now prove the impossibility to give a positive answer to such a question ...."). [Since Franco sent me am undated, pre-publication version of his book "Weak Relativity" for review which was single sided, I don't know the right page # for the published version of that reference, but it should be about 3 pages into his summary chapter.] I note in a link that Stephan gives to a 2004 Selleri paper that Franco, in the Abstract, discusses the paradoxes that arise with "the transformations of the Theory of Special Relativity". And then Franco adds that these paradoxes are resolved by "the recovery of a preferred inertial frame in which the Lorentz ether is at rest." In any event, if one uses the Selleri inertial transformations, AND one correctly identifies the preferred frame, then one will get the same results as Lorentz's LTs, if one gives the correct associated physical interpretation to the Selleri transformations which requires understanding one more thing. Franco, and others, had a visceral, negative reaction to mixing time terms and space terms in the same transformation equation so, as he shows, he eliminates that "eyesore" mathematically/artificially, but when one makes the appropriate physical interpretation of that adjustment, it's equivalent to Lorentz's LTs.
Regarding the constancy of the speed of light (SoL): The Lorentz's LTs assume the SoL (in vacuo) is the same in all directions in one and only one frame, which for Lorentz was the local aether rest frame. On the one hand, GPS does show that the SoL is NOT constant, thus refuting one of the base assumptions of SRT and Einstein's LTs. On the other hand, to my knowledge, GPS data does NOT indicate or even cast the slightest doubt about the constancy of the SoL (in vacuo) for transmitter and receiver being at rest in the preferred frame, which to a high degree of precision is the ECI frame - In other words, GPS data does NOT refute or even cast the slightest doubt about Lorentz's LTs.
I'm sure that you all will not be shy about posting disagreements which I welcome and will analyze.
Nick
On Saturday, January 23, 2021, 03:01:25 PM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear Frank,
The data from 100 years of light speed experiments pointed to light speed constancy. However, Zhang in his book of 1997 showed that what these experiments confirmed is two-way light speed constancy. One-way light speed constancy has never been confirmed. Scientists now take the position that one-way light speed cannot be measured since the synchronization of the clocks required for such a measurement depends on the choice of synchronization convention. The discovery of the ECI frame in which light speed is known to be constant changed all of this. Today, the clocks of the GPS are synchronized using the ECI frame and therefore one-way light speed can be measured using these synchronized clocks. They show variable light speed on the surface of the Earth. Even in space, the speed of light relative to a moving observer is not constant. I am not able to comment regarding aitherons as these seem to be a speculative idea with which I am not familiar.
Regards
Stephan
From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 3:41 PM
To: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>;
Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al
McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>;
Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>;
David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn
Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>;
IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>;
Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday
<munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>;
Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>;
electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>;
fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>;
rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>;
verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Lorentz Transformations
Stephan,
I think that interpretation of results have to be carefully worded.
The data that I have points certainly to a constant lightspeed c, where c is the square root of two velocities namely,
25812.8076 m/s and 3.481819 x 10e12 m/s.
We also know that c = wavelength x frequency
The frequency contribution to light c is that of an aitheron of mass 7.37 x 10e-51 Kg. This aitheron frequency is responsibly for our measure of mass of an atom as well as photon and the proton and the electron.
There are other frequencies that come from vibration of atoms, molecular bonds, photon and electron transitions, muon transitions etc. These frequencies do not contribute to lightspeed. They are a good measure to define one second.
I would define c as follows - the speed of light is constant in Ether where frequency is that of an aitheron and wavelength lambda = 2Pi x R x 137.036 [Torus] or 2Pi x 10e-7 x r x137.036 for a toroid.
This frequency of the aitheron is the frequency of atomic mass. So matter is already at lightspeed c squared.
Now I think this is where you are coming from - measuring the wave-fronts traveling in straight lines from emitter to receiver via GPS on say a latitude or longitude. This measure is not speed of light. It is the speed of wave fronts perpetuated by R x 137.036 which is the Fine Structure Constant and the source of wavelength.
The wave fronts can move faster or slower depending on the frame or frames of reference. And it is standard practice to correct for the rotation frame of Earth as reference c+v or c-v.
This does mean that previous ideas on light speed constancy have been uprooted.
It is like saying speed of light changed and we call it refraction. Very loose language.
So back to choice of words - Speed of light is constant in vacuum of space [text book] or as I stated earlier.
Speed of light changes depending on many factors - rotation frames, gravitational lensing, radius of the planet [latitude] etc.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:52 PM Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear David,
I have looked at your two papers. From these you appear to embrace the LTs. I will therefore introduce to the discussion tests of the LTs.
- The LTs predict light speed constancy. This is now known to be wrong. For example, the GPS clocks show that light speed is not constant.
- The LTs predict symmetrical time dilation. The GPS confirms asymmetrical time dilation every day.
Both of these predictions by the LTs are wrong and therefore the LTs are invalid. On this basis you should abandon the LTs as I have done. The Selleri transformations predict light speed anisotropy and asymmetrical time dilation and I do suggest these for consideration by the group.
As I think that you are on to something with your work on the aether, I would like to suggest that you put forward a paper on the structure of the ether based on the electron-positron model (incorporating available information) for discussion. I would be very interested in this.
Regards
Stephan
From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 1:55 PM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Lorentz Transformations
Hi Stephan,
I believe that the Lorentz transformations work accurately for fields. I followed the texbook derivation through carefully and wrote it out my own way in Sections V and VI here. We must use four-vectors though.
I could not however definitely extend this to kinematics.
However, I got it approximately connected to the GPS atomic clocks problem here,
Best Regards
David
On Saturday, January 23, 2021, 05:43:03 PM GMT, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear David,
(I will respond to Akinbo's comments separately.)
Having myself conducted research on the Lorentz transformations, I do not like you consider the topic of these transformations to be too complicated to be discussed at this time, neither do I agree that we need to make progress in the determination of the nature and structure of the aether before we can have fruitful discussion. Much research on space-time transformations between inertial frames has been conducted by several researchers over many years and a substantial body of work is now available. From this research we can attempt to evaluate the correctness of the LTs as part of our discussions. This of course would require familiarity with this research as with any area of discussion. You believe that the LTs "contain a large degree of truth". I am not sure what that means since these transformations are either right or wrong. One of the key methods by which a theory is assessed is whether its predictions accord with observation. Such tests can be applied to the LTs but we can discuss these tests later. I therefore argue that this discussion can be meaningfully pursued independently of considerations about the aether.
Regards
Stephan
From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 7:54 AM
To: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: The Lorentz Transformations
Akinbo and Stephan,
You're both going into a minefield here. The topic of Lorentz transformations is too complicated to be discussed at this stage. There would have to be a better agreement on the role and physical nature of the aether before any discussion would be fruitful.
Besides, the issue of what exactly Lorentz and Larmor's objectives were in the 1890s is less than clear. It's not a simple case that they were working on solving the Michelson-Morley question. It was more subtle than that.
It took me many years, but eventually I conceded that the Lorentz transformations contain a large degree of truth, but not for the purpose of solving the Michelson-Morley question.
So I'm just warning you that this discussion is likely to lead to utter confusion in the absence of a clearer agreement on the nature of the aether.
Best Regards
David
On Saturday, January 23, 2021, 11:38:13 AM GMT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Stephan,
The concept of “time dilation” was invented to replace c+v of Galilean transformation in explaining the MMX.
Motion towards incoming light on earth surface using earth rotation at 465m/s or orbital motion at 30km/s is supposed to result in earlier light arrival times, when compared to a stationary observer on an immobile earth due to the effect of c+v. This expectation was not observed and was explained away as being due to time being dilated thereby preventing the shortening of arrival times. This is the SR version of time dilation mechanism and its purpose was to ensure a constant resultant light velocity, so that higher than c resultant velocities are prevented from being observed (Lorentz invariance).
If you do not support time dilation as an explanation in MMX, then you should not be using it to discredit Galilean transformation.
The other “time dilation” has to do with gravitational redshift, it is not due to motion of clocks. We have in the past examined GPS and even the algorithm used in the ICD manual when the late Ron Hatch was on this list. In my opinion, there is no justification to jettison Galilean transformation. The GPS system is adjusted regularly to remove unwanted effects and the claimed effect due to time dilation is too tiny to be of importance or to be capable of discriminating between theories. Most of the effects that can discriminate are from Sagnac and atmospheric influences.
I have some thoughts and references on GPS here, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324439548_Can_GPS_determine_Earth_absolute_velocity_in_space
In any case, point me to a short, coherent summary of the Selleri transformations that you say you prefer.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 2:57 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Dear Akinbo,
“Time dilation” as occurs in the GPS means the slowing of clocks due to movement and results from frequency reduction of the signal sources that drive the atomic clocks. This is what occurs in the GPS clocks every day and is fully confirmed. The Galilean transformations do not contain this effect and therefore cannot be fully correct.
Regards
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo [mailto:ta...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 8:51 AM
To: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Thanks Stephan.
This position of yours is arguable. I believe by “time dilation as occurs in the GPS clocks” you imply a departure from absolute time which is key to the Galileo-Newton transformations?
When you take into consideration the variation of the light medium’s characteristics with altitude, you can explain the so-called frequency shift, (more correctly wavelength variation, not frequency shift. Frequency is determined by the source, while wave speed and wavelength are determined by the medium). And you then find that there is no need to depart from Galileo and Newton and venture into time-dilation, length contraction and such other absurdities.
I have a few written paragraphs on how altitude can affect atomic clock mechanism. I may show them to you some time...
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Dear Akinbo,
Galilean transformations do not satisfy the known experiments in particular frequency reduction (time dilation as occurs in the GPS clocks) and two-way light speed constancy which has been experimentally confirmed (Zhang).
Regards
Stephan
From: Akinbo Ojo [mailto:ta...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 8:19 AM
To: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Hi Stephan,
What is wrong with good old Galilean transformation?
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:55 PM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Dear Harry,
Even though there are numerous aether theories, this is what tends to happen when a solution to a problem is being sought. Many possible solutions are proposed and we have to sift through the lot in order to determine which among them, if any, is the correct one. I am not distressed by this and I suggest that you should not be either. This is the scientific method at work. Getting rid of relativity has proven to be a problem but the history of science has shown that replacing an accepted theory is extremely difficult. In order to address this problem, I believe that we need to (i) continue to develop approaches that demonstrate that relativity is invalid and keep building the pressure and (ii) try to determine the correct theory to replace the existing invalid one.
With respect to special relativity, I believe that this approach has reached an advanced stage. Specifically, on the first point there are many published disproofs of special relativity and the advent of the GPS has added a major tool in this regard. In fact, I consider the GPS to be a possible game changer! On the second point, what is needed is a correct set of transformations to replace the Lorentz transformations. To this end, Franco Selleri developed a universal set of transformations that, under a set of reasonable assumptions, contains all possible linear transformations between inertial frames. This set includes the Lorentz transformations and (what I refer to as) the Selleri transformations. Selleri showed (and I did so independently) that the correct transformations in the set is the Selleri transformations. I am therefore satisfied that the Selleri transformations are the correct space-time transformations that best accord with the physical world.
If all or most dissenters can agree that these transformations are the correct ones, then this would be a significant step forward.
Regards
Stephan
From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:59 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Stephen
It is understandable that you seek to understand the physics of an EM wave carrier. The problem is that we are overwhelmed by numerous invalid aether theories that claim to be the light carrier medium but are contradicted by experiments. Mainstream science has solved the problem of these invalid aether conceptions by ignoring them. Probably with justification. So far no aether theory I know of comes close to being convincing.
The immediate problem is not inventing an aether theory but discarding the defective relativity theory that stands in the way of progress. After years of NPA and CNPS membership, it is apparent to me that the abilities and creative energy of people have been wasted on failed attempts at aether theories to replace relativity. Such attempts can not be successful with mainstream science resisting all attempts to discredit relativity.
Harry
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 09:22:17 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear Harry,
This is the point. We do not know what it is but believe based on the experimental data that light travels in something: a wave carrier. We are trying to find out that something.
Regards
Stephan
From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:05 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; rayfl...@gmail.com <rayfl...@gmail.com>; verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Stephen,
Carrier of light waves is not any more specific than to say aether.
Harry
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 08:53:18 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear Harry,
I repeat, by aether I mean a “carrier of light waves”. Again, I believe that the evidence suggests that such a carrier exists. This is my starting point and perhaps that of others. I suppose the evidence does not persuade you that a “carrier of light waves” exists which of course is ok. Those of us who suspect that a “carrier of light waves” exists, are trying to determine the nature and structure of this entity. You may have good reason to reject the particulate nature of such a medium and we who believe in its existence would do well to examine your evidence. This would then assist us in coming to the correct nature of the medium. David has objected to your contradicting evidence but I need to examine it myself before doing so.
The ECI frame is not a mathematical conception. It is an actual physical entity, or at least an area around the Earth in which light travels at speed c. It moves with the Earth in its orbit around the sun but does not share the Earth’s rotation. This entity is essential for the operation of the GPS and allows us to determine distance and location. We do not know the structure or nature of this entity but we do know that light travels at speed c with respect to it. It is precisely the entity that the Michelson-Gale experiment searched for in 1925.
Regards
Stephan
From: HARRY RICKER [mailto:kc...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:32 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Stephen
I can appreciate that you want to believe in aether despite there being no evidence that such a conception exists. I suggest that you start by defining what you mean by using that word. That would help in defining what you are talking about. When you say aether I understand you to mean a particulate material medium which as we already know is ruled out by experimental evidence.
You made the following peculiar assertion: "I should further point out that the ECI frame used in the GPS is actually a local aether where light travels at speed c (fixed speed) and movement relative to the ECI frame is detectable as variable light speed." I am confused as to how an inertial frame of reference, which is a mathematical conception, is an aether.
Harry
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 08:18:44 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear Harry,
I do not know what the aether is. That is what we are trying to find out. The experiments and results I outlined below have led us to believe that a carrier of light waves (which we call the aether) exists. The exact nature and structure of this “wave carrier” is what scientific investigation well assist in determining. For example, movement relative to the ECI frame results in light speed variation. This suggests that the light is being carried in a medium relative to which the movement is taking place. This is precisely the reasoning that was used to search for the aether following Maxwell’s celebrated work on electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, many of us believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a carrier of light waves (aether) exists. Such a carrier will explain an extensive range of phenomena known since the 19th century. We are now trying to figure out the nature and structure of this entity. This is how science is done.
Regards
Stephan
From: HARRY RICKER [mailto:kc...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 8:49 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Stephen,
Believing that an aether exists based upon no facts to define what the term aether means is not scientific. Tell us exactly what this aether is and show through experiments that it exists, and give us a theory regarding how it propagates EM waves. Then we can compare the theory to the experimental facts. So far no proposed aether theories have been able to show that they comply with the facts of experiments.
My conclusion after reading the discussions and debates beginning with NPA and other groups, is that there are no aether theories that offer any convincing evidence that they can satisfactorily account for the facts of experiments. Most try to dodge the experimental facts, as we see with David's theory where his theory makes the wrong prediction of the phase of E and H and he dodges that by saying that the phase in deep space far from an antenna can not be measured.
I think Akinbo answered why the EPOLA model doesn't work. In any event EPOLA doesn't make predictions regarding how EM waves are propagated that can be compared to experimental facts.
Harry
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 07:21:22 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear Harry,
We believe that an aether exists on the basis of not one but several experiments. Thus the measurement of characteristics of space (permittivity and permeability) which then give the value of light speed is a very striking coincidence. It was striking enough to lead Maxwell to suggest that light is a transverse wave through space made up of an “aether”. Experiments such as Doppler shift for a moving observer suggest the existence of a carrier of light. Based on the work of Anderson where 1.02MeV applied to a point in space releases a positron and an electron, Simhony showed that like the case of a wave through a sodium chloride crystal, a space lattice of positrons and electrons will support a wave speed of (binding energy)/(mass of particle in the lattice)=0.511MeV/mass of positron or electron. This gives a value equal to the speed of light. Then there is now the ECI frame which supports light speed at value c which is a local aether. There is other evidence but I believe this constitutes a strong case for the existence of an aether.
Regards
Stephan
From: HARRY RICKER [mailto:kc...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:06 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Stephen,
You said: "Also, like a medium of wave transmission, light speed is fixed by the permittivity and permeability of space, this suggesting that something is there in space whose permittivity and permeability can be measured." Without some experiments that tell us what this something is, this is just an unsupportable belief on your part. Show us the experiments that prove there is something there! Such experiments must show that the something there produces EM waves with E and H in phase and supports dual polarization. So far no proponent of any aether theory has done that.
Harry
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 08:50:00 AM EST, Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu> wrote:
Dear David,
Your account is quite interesting. I too am convinced that an aether exists. You draw attention to the wave nature of light which will not be possible without an aether, a medium of propagation. Also, like a medium of wave transmission, light speed is fixed by the permittivity and permeability of space, this suggesting that something is there in space whose permittivity and permeability can be measured. I should further point out that the ECI frame used in the GPS is actually a local aether where light travels at speed c (fixed speed) and movement relative to the ECI frame is detectable as variable light speed. This local aether was detected in the Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 and again in the round-the-world Sagnac experiment performed in 1985. Today, this variable light speed is evident in the operation of the GPS clocks on the surface of the rotating Earth. I will have more to say on this later.
Regards
Stephan
From: David Tombe [mailto:siri...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:44 AM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>; Bob Lavaggi <bobla...@gmail.com>; Carl Littmann <clit...@verizon.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christian Sutterlin <editions...@gmail.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Taylor <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; Dr. Jerry Hynecek <jhyn...@netscape.net>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Glenn Borchardt <gborc...@gmail.com>; Guy Granthum <r...@epola.org>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Osvaldo Domann <odo...@yahoo.com>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Randy Dorn <rand...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rar...@earthlink.net>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; rayfl...@gmail.com; verhey....@gmail.com; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: News media silence critics of Einstein's relativity in 1931 by ignoring them part 2
Jean,
After concluding in 1978, that Einstein was wrong, it was more than three years later before I embraced the aether idea, even though I had known about the idea since 1978.
Initially I didn't give the aether idea any serious consideration. I didn't believe in involving a speculated medium to solve the Michelson-Morley experiment unless there was other evidence of its existence. During the years 1978 to 1981, everything I had studied in physics could be dealt with by field theory, and even if that suggested analogies with hydrodynamics, I saw no reason to concern myself with these analogies until such times as a problem were to arise whereby the hypothetical medium may provide a solution.
That moment came in late 1981. I detected a fraud in the manner in which the textbooks justified Maxwell's displacement current. I couldn't get a rational discussion going on the matter with my lecturers. They were defending it rigorously and the argument was going round in circles. It was like the earlier arguments about the clock paradox. I knew therefore that something was amiss, and that if I were to get to the bottom of it, it might reveal clues about the true nature of EM waves, which in turn may assist in unravelling the relativity issue and Michelson-Morley.
Finally, I stumbled across a American textbook that gave a bit of history on the matter. It explained that Maxwell didn't derive displacement current this way, but instead derived it as a polarization current in a dielectric aether.
I was very interested in this and I checked out some old papers, and it suddenly dawned on me that a dielectric aether really does pervade space and that it will be a real version of the virtual Dirac Sea that I had learned about back in 1979. This dielectric aether simultaneously solved a few other queries that I had had about electromagnetism. It then immediately became obvious to me that space is densely packed with electrons and positrons.
Electromagnetism will never make sense without an aether. I know now that there is an aether. I am in no doubt. And since 1982 I have been supplied additional proofs, notably in 2004 when I discovered Dr. Simhony's work on the epola. And I have further developed the hydrodynamical connection between electromagnetism and the inertial forces.
The problem is though, that we are often up against those who want to wipe classical electromagnetism off the table, or twist it, in order to suit non-aether theories and continuous aether theories.
But there is plenty of evidence for an aether. Most fundamental of all is the fact that light exhibits wave behaviour. This would not be possible unless there exists a medium of propagation. You cannot have waves in a vacuum.
What needs to be done, and what most people refuse to do, is to analyze Maxwell's equations in depth and figure out what E and H could possibly mean in a wireless EM wave in deep space. That way, the structure of the aether will unfold before your eyes.
Best Regards
David
Harry,
My previous mail was intended to show that there is an experimental fact that proves aether exists:
The angular moment shall be conserved. As soon as the Earth rotation speed increases the frictions in earth and water resulting from tides cannot be used.
This increase shall be compensated by a decrease somewhere else. An action at a distance is therefore necessary: this is fully contrary to the principle of General Relatrivity Theory.
GRT is therefore not only paradoxical but inconsistent with itself that is to say not only wrong but absurd.
The only way to avoid such an action at a distance is to fill space with an aether or with something able to carry an angular momentum within its components!
Have you another solution?
Best regards,
Jean de Climont
Jean,
It is clear that we are stuck with that wrong relativity theory, because they can not admit that it is false.
You said this: Finally, I am convinced that there is no way to escape an aether filling space to account for the angular momentum conservation!!!
I think that unless you can produce some experimental facts that prove aether exists, believing in it is not scientific.
Harry
Dear Roger and Harry,
There are two problems in fact:
If one false theory thought to be right by every one is better than many false theories said as wrong then we should have kept the Aristotle theory which was additionally wrong on many aspects. Because before Galileo there were many wrong theories such as Copernic's one who thought that the Sun was the centre of the Universe instead of the Earth.
The second problem is that I have in my list not only 101 theories but 2248 fully different theories and irreconcilable for most of them!!!!
I am convinced that you cannot accept a wrong theory as soon as it includes inconsistencies and paradoxes even though everybody accepts it.
Today SRT is irreconcilable with Sagnac experiment as shown by professor Selleri.
Today GRT is irreconcilable with the Earth rotation speed increase as measured since beginning 2020. The explanation of the decrease (previously observed) by the moon tidal effect on earth and ocean fit with the energy conservation but not with the angular momentum conservation. The friction forces of ocean water at the bottom of ocean are symmetrical (on each side of ocean versus continents) and also symmetrical between North and South so that the angular moments cancel each other.
The main problem related to asters rotation speed changes is how the angular moment is maintained. Even if it may result of change in the rotation speed changes of their inner part the problem remain for the cause of this inner part rotation speed changes.
If the cause is in external bodies such as satellites then there shall be an action at a distance if there is no media within space which could account for the change of angular moment.
Finally, I am convinced that there is no way to escape an aether filling space to account for the angular momentum conservation!!!
This is one of the worst paradoxes of the mainstream physics as explained in another video : the failure of pure mathematical science.
Best regards
Jean de Climont
Roger A.,
I think it boils down to this. It is better to have one wrong theory that everybody says is right than, 101 theories that everybody says are wrong.
Harry
I have been reading 100 Authors against Einstein 1931 -> and they suffer from same problem as us today -> other than agreeing Einstein wrong -> they don't agree about anything else -> and all have is their separate theories they want to believe
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
David Tombe
Stephan Gift
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment.