Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Harry, Akinbo and others

Reconciling Newton’s Second and Third Laws of Motion

Newton formulated three fundamental laws of motion. However, an apparent contradiction arises between the second and third laws. Newton’s third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yet, according to the second law, when a force is applied to an object, it accelerates without any observable reaction. This paradox exists because, in Newton’s time, experiments were conducted with objects moving at classical velocities, where the reaction was undetectable. However, at higher velocities, this reaction becomes apparent, as will be explained below.

For over two centuries, Newton’s laws remained unchallenged. However, in the early 20th century, as new experimental phenomena emerged involving fast-moving particles, Einstein was confronted with a key issue: the Galileo-Newton principle of relativity.

This issue stems from a conceptual difficulty in modern physics, where "reference frames" are treated as massless, abstract constructs. Further confusion arises from Einstein’s assertion of the equivalence of all inertial reference frames. However, it is essential to recognize that a reference frame is always attached to a body with mass. While a moving particle’s motion can be observed from multiple reference frames, there is only one specific frame in which the particle will come to rest if it loses its motion.

The Concept of a Resident Frame

Aristotle referred to this particular frame—where a moving object comes to rest—as the "place." Galileo and Newton adopted the same terminology. Later, this concept was renamed the "rest frame," but its significance diminished due to the relativistic notion that all frames are equivalent.

To re-instate this concept, let us introduce the term "resident frame." In any experiment conducted on Earth:

1. The Earth's frame is the resident frame.
2. A moving particle’s motion is measured relative to this resident frame.
3. The observer in the laboratory measures the particle’s behavior from the resident frame.

What distinguishes a resident frame from an arbitrary reference frame is that the mass of any object within it is an integral part of the body to which the frame is attached. For example, a particle of mass m moving in a laboratory is part of the total mass M of the Earth. If an asteroid were to strike Earth and impart an additional velocity, the particle would also acquire this velocity, as it is part of the Earth's total mass. Galileo referred to such a motion of a part with the whole as "common motion."

Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion

A key reason why the theory of relativity is incorrect is that Galileo’s concept of common motion has been disregarded in modern physics. Since the mass m of an object within a resident frame is part of the total mass M of that frame, any external force imparting momentum Mv to the whole system also imparts momentum to all objects (parts) within it. However, because both the observer and the object are moving together with the same added velocity, the observer cannot detect this additional motion.

To illustrate this concept, consider Galileo’s classic example of throwing a ball on a moving ship:

• Suppose a person (A) on the deck of a ship moving at velocity u throws a ball of mass mmm with velocity v to another person (B).
• If B throws the ball back with the same force as A, the velocity of the ball relative to the ship remains the same in both directions.
• This is because the ball, whether at rest on the ship or moving relative to it, possesses a component of momentum mu in common with the ship, which moves at velocity u.

From the perspective of an observer on the ship, the motion of the ball relative to the ship is independent of the common motion it shares with the ship.

Now, consider the case where the ship was initially at rest but later set sail, acquiring velocity u:

• The total momentum acquired by the ship (mass M) and the ball (mass m) is (M+m)u.
• Had the ball not been on the ship, the ship’s velocity would have been slightly higher (u′>u), since Mu′=(M+m)u.

Classical Physics and the Internal Energy of Matter

Classical physics recognized the mass m of the ball as a measure of inertia but did not account for its intrinsic energy, given by the equation E=mc². This energy is fundamentally organized as the product of momentum and the limiting velocity of nature (which is the constant c):

E = mc⋅c

Thus, classical physics lacked the framework to consider whether the internal constitution of the ball changes when the ship (its resident frame) starts moving. In low-velocity scenarios, any change in intrinsic energy is negligible and unobservable, which is why such effects remained unnoticed during Newton’s and Galileo’s time.

The Dialectic of Motion and Internal Energy

There is a key dialectical relationship to consider:

1. When the ball is at rest on the ship, it is part of the ship’s total mass.
2. Without the ball, the ship needs only momentum Mu to move at velocity u.
3. With the ball, the system requires momentum (M+m)u, meaning the ball acquires an additional momentum mu, even while at rest on the ship.

However, the crucial insight is that as the ball acquires this momentum for common motion with the ship, it undergoes an internal reconstitution of its intrinsic energy mc². This transformation follows a Pythagorean resolution into two components:

mc²cosθ  and  mc² sinθ

where sinθ =u/c to:

mc²sin θ=mc².u/c =mu.c

It is this newly formed internal component of momentum that manifests as an internal resistance to the externally applied momentum. This provides the missing reaction (as per third law) to the application of momentum to set a body in motion (as per the second law) , thereby reconciling Newton’s second and third laws.

Implications: It is not the Time that Dilates but it is the Frequency that Shifts.

All matter absorbs and emits energy, with emitted photons matching the apparent intrinsic energy level of the body. Instead of the ball, let us consider a caesium atom to be on the ship.

When the atom is at rest on the ship (which is at rest on Earth), its resonance frequency is f.

• When the ship moves at velocity u, the atom’s intrinsic energy level changes to mc².cosq = mc²(1-u²/c²)^1/2, causing its emitted resonance frequency to shift to:

f′=f(1−u²/c²)^1/2 

Since E=hf this adjustment in frequency to f’ reflects the atom’s equilibration of its intrinsic energy with the new state of the intrinsic energy of its resident frame when in motion.

This is exactly what happens to atomic clock frequency when set in orbit inside a satellite.

Conclusion

By recognizing the internal energy reconstitution that occurs to an object moves within a resident frame, we can resolve the apparent contradiction between Newton’s second and third laws. The formation of an internal momentum component mu within an object provides the missing reaction force, restoring Newtonian mechanics to conceptual consistency. Furthermore, this understanding provides a foundation for explaining relativistic effects, which arise naturally as a consequence of motion-induced adjustments to intrinsic energy of a particle. With this the Einstein's Space-Time becomes redundant.

 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

You said this, which I don’t believe to be correct, viz. “Newton’s third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yet, according to the second law, when a force is applied to an object, it accelerates without any observable reaction.”

The second law did not say that there is no observable reaction. It was only silent in that regard. And it does not require higher velocities for reaction to be observable. When you kick a ball, there is a reaction at your feet in the direction opposite to that in which the ball accelerates. That is not high velocity.

 

On your proposal concerning “the internal energy reconstitution that occurs to an object moves within a resident frame...”, can you propose a doable real or thought experiment that can disprove your hypothesis, one that has not yet been done specifically for the purpose, and one which can distinguish your proposal from competing hypotheses?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 6:22 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Slobodan Nedic <nedic...@gmail.com>; Narasimha S. (LARC-D208) Prasad <narasimha...@nasa.gov>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Advances of Relativity and Cosmology <sorli...@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>
Subject: Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion

 

[Frank Fernandes]

Viraj,

You have written a superb paper through the lens of History.

Yes, frequency is the inverse of time periods or intervals of time. The term dilation is a misnomer. Just as conversion of mass to energy. These are measurements or metrology.

With AI the calculations will be done in seconds.

The internal energy of ether and mass can be empirically calculated,

 Regards

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Frank and Akinbo, 

Thanks for your responses.

Akinbo wrote:  “The second law did not say that there is no observable reaction. It was only silent in that regard. And it does not require higher velocities for reaction to be observable. When you kick a ball, there is a reaction at your feet in the direction opposite to that in which the ball accelerates. That is not high velocity”.

It is true that the second law does not explicitly say that there is no reaction. However, Newton’s third law of motion, does not give any example of how this law operates in relation to motion.

When you kick a ball you transfer momentum from your foot to the ball. So you feel it on your foot. That is not what I am talking about.

What I am talking about is the inertial resistance, to the transferred momentum. The body’s inertial resistance is put into effect by forming a component of momentum internally which is equal and opposite to the applied external momentum.  When this component mc².v/c = mvc is formed, the other (Pythagorean component) becomes mc²(1-v²/c²)^1/2.

You wrote: “can you propose a doable real or thought experiment that can disprove your hypothesis, one that has not yet been done specifically for the purpose, and one which can distinguish your proposal from competing hypotheses?”.

 

Please think of an experiment and let me know. This is because  I cannot not form a hypothesis against fundamental facts.  For instance I cannot for a hypothesis to claim that there is no gravity and conduct an experiment to prove it. Likewise, I cannot form a hypothesis stating that different atomic elements do not have their characteristic emitted frequencies. And that these frequencies do not change the same way, when the atoms are set in motion at the same velocity.

 

As you know, it has been observed that different atomic elements have different frequencies. For instance all Caesium atoms emit photons of the same particular frequency f at a given place when they are all stationary. But if an atom is moved in a vehicle moving at velocity v, the frequency f changes to f’ where f’= f(1-v²/c²)^1/2 so that f’ < f.

 

 Since we know that mc² = hf and knowing that both c and h are constants the only way this could have happened is that m must have got scaled down to m’ = m(1-v²/c²)^1/2.

 

Can you conduct a physical experiment to demonstrate that f changes to f’ and thereby disprove that when a particle is in motion its active mass changes from m to m’?

 Best regards,

Viraj

[Frank Fernandes]

The MM Experiment proved the existence of Ether. The data when applied to the correct variables proves the existence of Ether.

Massive experimental leaps have occurred these 5 years as scientists around the world have developed techniques in metrology.

The Heisenberg uncertainty - has confused the world.Uncertainty has got to do with significant figures in decimal places. The delta is not uncertainty rather change. Change in frequency for example.

 

[Slobodan Nedic]

Viraj, all,

Inertial resistance and inertial “push(ing)” take place consecutively and are related to the interaction of a body with the aether substrate, out of which matter had been formed: initially, during acceleration, there arises structuring of surrounding aether, and when external force  ceases, the formed/induced aether flows keep pushing the body to move with constant velocity (in absence of the air or other resistance)… a good example would be the Harold Aspden’s finding that a flywheel needs just a fraction of energy to attain the same rotational energy it needed for firstly having been brought to rotation and gradually stopped … !?!

With regards, 

Slobodan

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

Re: “The body’s inertial resistance is put into effect by forming a component of momentum internally which is equal and opposite to the applied external momentum.  When this component mc2.v/c = mvc is formed, the other (Pythagorean component) becomes mc2(1-v2/c2)1/2”

When a body A collides with a body B, do these components of momentum apply only to one of the two bodies or to both? That is, does it apply also to “external momentum”?

 

On the other point, I recall that in the past you have entertained us with excerpts from Newton’s Principia, so you are an expert on what axioms, propositions/hypothesis and corollaries are.

It however appears that you want to elevate what is a hypothesis to the level of an axiom.

The statement that frequencies change when the atoms are set in motion at the same velocity is a proposition. It is not an axiom or “fundamental fact”. Therefore hypothesis CAN be formed against it.

 

Re: “But if an atom is moved in a vehicle moving at velocity v, the frequency f changes to f’ where f’= f(1-v2/c2)1/2 so that f’ < f”

Please note that this vehicle can only be a satellite since v is orbital velocity in your hypothesis. The v (as I seem to understand it) does not apply to linear velocities in your hypothesis. If I am mistaken then clarify this.

 

Re: “Can you conduct a physical experiment to demonstrate that f changes to f’ and thereby disprove that when a particle is in motion its active mass changes from m to m’?”

I can only conduct gedanken experiment demonstrating that f DOES NOT change to f’ by virtue of their separation at uniform velocity.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 7:02 PM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; Slobodan Nedic <nedic...@gmail.com>; Narasimha S. (LARC-D208) Prasad <narasimha...@nasa.gov>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Advances of Relativity and Cosmology <sorli...@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion

 

[matterdoc]

See: Mechanism of motion     at     http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0069v1.pdf
Nainan         www.matterdoc.info

[Frank Fernandes]

Frequency is responsible for measure of mass.

Change in frequency results in a change in the measurement of mass.

Electric current gives us an empirical way to measure mass. Current I = mv/e where v/e is resistance. 

From electric resistance one can obtain velocity v. And by physically measuring mass deposited at an electrode in electrolysis all of the above can be empirically determined.

The Higgs Field / Boson do not make mass the Aitheron does. Two line thesis.

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

Akinbo asked: “When a body A collides with a body B, do these components of momentum apply only to one of the two bodies or to both?”.

 

Viraj: There is external momentum P with which A has been put in motion. At that point A’s inertial energy adjusts forming an internal momentum component in compliance with the 3^rd Law.

 

Viraj: Then when A collides with B it transfers a fraction of its momentum P to B. And A now moves with momentum P’. Its internal momentum adjusts to P’. B acquires external momentum P –P’, B forms a component of internal momentum equal to P-P’.

 

Viraj: A body re-organises its internal momentum passively to mirror whatever external momentum that is acting on it actively.

 

Akinbo: “That is, does it apply also to “external momentum”?”

 

As explained above, it applies to both active external momentum and passive internal momentum of both bodies.

 

Akinbo: “On the other point, I recall that in the past you have entertained us with excerpts from Newton’s Principia, so you are an expert on what axioms, propositions/hypothesis and corollaries are”.

Viraj: I am not an expert as you claim. This literature is available in the public domain and anybody can be an “expert” like me. If people want to be willfully ignorant by choice that is not my problem.

Akinbo: “The statement that frequencies change when the atoms are set in motion at the same velocity is a proposition. It is not an axiom or “fundamental fact”. Therefore, hypothesis CAN be formed against it”.

Viraj: I am sure that you are familiar about the saying “You can take a horse to water …….”.

Viraj: Doppler shifts of a whistle of a moving train is first year High School physics.  Or it is a fundamental and an observed fact that if the frequency of a source when stationary is f, when it moves away from you frequency becomes f’ = f-Df, and when it comes towards you it becomes f’” = f + Df.

It is a fundamental fact proven by experiments.

Nevertheless you wrote: “Therefore hypothesis CAN be formed against it”.

 

Viraj : Try it. Also you may form a hypothesis that if you throw a stone upwards, it will not come down, because so far nobody has been able to explain how gravitation operates.

 

Akinbo: “Please note that this vehicle can only be a satellite since v is orbital velocity in your hypothesis. The v (as I seem to understand it) does not apply to linear velocities in your hypothesis. If I am mistaken then clarify this”.

Viraj: I am afraid you are mistaken. In physics, curvilinear motion is treated dialectically by considering a displacement Ds of the trajectory tends to a straight line at the limit (and that it moves as per first law of motion). It is momentarily a straight line. Then the body that would otherwise move in a straight line is made to curve by the centripetal acting on it.

Akinbo: “I can only conduct gedanken experiment demonstrating that f DOES NOT change to f’ by virtue of their separation at uniform velocity”.

Viraj: Gedankan experiments are performed, for cases where practical experimentation is impossible. Where practical experiments are possible, propositions to performs Gedankans are mere red herrings.

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Slobodan,

Your proposed pulsating motion is quite possible. My terminology is different.

I can visualize your model if what you call “aether substrate” is the same as what I call “field energy”. (Yes it is out of field energy that matter has been formed, and matter disappears into).

The following is only a speculative visualization and not a part of my theory:

There is a possibility of reciprocation between external momentum and internal momentum. When external momentum acts on the body, internal momentum appears and tends to nullify the action of external momentum. The moment it is nullified, internal momentum disappears. Then the field re-creates external momentum and so on.

Can you send us a reference to Apsden’s finding please.

Best regards,

Viraj

[John-Erik Persson]

Viraj and all

 

You said: f′=f(1−u²/c²)^1/2 

If the electron moves forth and back along a line, we get     f’=f(1-u²/c²)

A bound electron moves forth and back in one dimension of two, so     f’=f(1-u²/2c²)

This is an approximation of your result.

So, I also think that we do not need the concept dilation of time. In my opinion the ether wind explains how atomic clocks behave when they move from Earth to a GPS satellite orbit.

 

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/2110883817.1811319.1740407127305%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

In my question, “When a body A collides with a body B, do these components of momentum apply only to one of the two bodies or to both?”

Body A is in uniform motion in a straight line according to Newton’s first law and not accelerated by “external momentum P with which A has been put in motion”. Same with body B.

If both A and B have equal mass, and same uniform velocity in space, which transfers what and will any of the two have its internal momentum adjusted/reorganized after collision? And from this, inform the changes from f to f’ (where f + ∆f = f’)?

Note that if the collision is elastic, the directions of A and B are reversed thereafter.

 

And if not too difficult to handle, of two binary stars (satellites) of equal masses, which of the two will have its frequency slowed due to orbital motion about their common centre of gravity? (*Recall Dingle's paradox).

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 3:25 PM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; Slobodan Nedic <nedic...@gmail.com>; Narasimha S. (LARC-D208) Prasad <narasimha...@nasa.gov>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Advances of Relativity and Cosmology <sorli...@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>

[Viraj Fernando]

Dear Akinbo,

You asked: “When a body A collides with a body B, do these components of momentum apply only to one of the two bodies or to both?”

Both bodies (According to Huygens who was senior to Newton).

 

You asked “Body A is in uniform motion in a straight line according to Newton’s first law and not accelerated by “external momentum P with which A has been put in motion”. Same with body B. If both A and B have equal mass, and same uniform velocity in space, which transfers what and will any of the two have its internal momentum adjusted/reorganized after collision? And from this, inform the changes from f to f’ (where f + ∆f = f’)? Note that if the collision is elastic, the directions of A and B are reversed thereafter”.

 

My answer, assuming an elastic collision, since both A and B had velocity in opposite directions, after the collision both will move in reverse direction at the same velocities of approach. Since there is no velocity change the is no change in their frequencies.

 

You asked: “And if not too difficult to handle, of two binary stars (satellites) of equal masses, which of the two will have its frequency slowed due to orbital motion about their common centre of gravity? (*Recall Dingle's paradox).

My answer: Since the stars are of equal mass, the centre of gravity is equidistant from either star. However the momentaneous linear velocity of a particle differs according to the distance of the particle from the centre of gravity of the system at a given moment.. Since the stars are spinning on their own axes as well, particles that are furthest away from the common centre of gravity in a given moment will have their frequency diminished most (in both stars) at that moment. (The above result is based on the Assumption that both the binary system as well as each star are spinning in the same sense – clockwise or counter clockwise).

Best regards,

Viraj

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

Thanks for your answer. From previous ones you also mention that this frequency change due to motion applies also to linear motion.

That said, given your answers, if A is stationary and B moves linearly away from it, B will experience frequency change that makes it run slower.

If later, there is a reversal in direction of B, with same magnitude but now moving towards A, the frequency change in B should be reversed. That is, run faster as it approaches A. Don’t you think so? Or will it still run slower in spite of the velocity change relative to A?

I am trying to find out if there is a correlation between velocity (which is a vector quantity having magnitude and direction) and frequency which seem to be a scalar quantity, or is it now a vector?

NB. In Newtonian physics, Time/Period T is a scalar quantity, and frequency is 1/T.

But in SR or maybe in your theory as well, Time may be a vector quantity that depends on direction relative to a reference.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:19 PM

[Viraj Fernando]

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

You wrote: “From previous ones you also mention that this frequency change due to motion applies also to linear motion”.

 

As a short answer, as far as the phenomenon of change of frequency with motion is concerned, curvilinear motion and linear motion are equivalent. For the case of curvilinear motion it is the instantaneous tangential velocity that matters, and that is  considered linear.

 

You wrote: “That said, given your answers, if A is stationary and B moves linearly away from it, B will experience frequency change that makes it run slower”.

 

In order to provide clear answers that make sense, please define what is A and what is B. For instance, is A earth? Is B a body initially resting on earth and then put in motion?

 

I need to know what these are because, in my approach to physics, there is an organic relationship in terms of energy levels between the “place” ( the frame) and a body resting on it and then the body made to move relative to the place (frame). All inertial frames are not equivalent. The “place” is the ‘preferred frame” and there is a dynamic, organic connection between the place and a body moving relative to the place.

You wrote: “If later, there is a reversal in direction of B, with same magnitude but now moving towards A, the frequency change in B should be reversed. That is, run faster as it approaches A. Don’t you think so? Or will it still run slower in spite of the velocity change relative to A?”

No, the frequency change remains the same. Irrespective of the direction of motion, the same organic change in the intrinsic energy of B occurs for a given velocity. If at rest the frequency of B is f and it changes to f’ when moving at v in one direction, then B comes to a stop (as it should before reversing direction) the frequency is restored to f. Then when B moves in the reverse direction, at v, the frequency changes to f’ once again.

You wrote: “I am trying to find out if there is a correlation between velocity (which is a vector quantity having magnitude and direction) and frequency which seem to be a scalar quantity, or is it now a vector?

I am trying to find out if there is a correlation between velocity (which is a vector quantity having magnitude and direction) and frequency which seem to be a scalar quantity, or is it now a vector?”.

 

You know the saying “for a hammer everything looks like a nail”. Likewise, for Nature every motion looks like a curvilinear motion.  However, we have been brainwashed in our education (from laws of motion) to consider every motion to be a linear inertial motion.

 

When you throw a stone horizontally, why does it not go forever in that direction? Why does it fall to the ground? If you calculate the displacement taking gravity into account, you would find it has gone a distance a little more than what you have calculated. This is because, there appears a centrifugal force and it mitigates the action of gravity. It is because Newtonian mechanics or relativity theory cannot explain how the energy for the creation of the centrifugal force is obtained, they call it a “fictitious force”.

 

Why I say, for Nature every motion looks like a curvilinear motion is this. When B is at rest on earth’s surface (frame A) a caesium atom in B has the same frequency as any other ceasium atom elsewhere on (the body) A.  When B is put in motion relative to A, a fraction of intrinsic energy of B is de-activated and converted into potential energy, to be used to form the centrifugal force when it does as in the case of the motion of the stone above. It is because the fraction of energy is transferred to be used for the creation of the centrifugal force, and consequently the active intrinsic energy level of B diminishes when set in motion. And it is this diminution of active intrinsic energy that manifests as a diminution of the frequency. Now irrespective of whatever direction that you throw the stone, you will find the resultant displacement is the same.

 

You may have heard about the concept of “velocity contraction” in relativity theory. They consider it as a kinematic phenomenon. The actual physical reason is that co-lateral with a fraction of B’s intrinsic energy gets converted into potential energy (for the creation of the centrifugal force), a fraction of motive energy applied to move B, gets extracted and gets converted into potential energy to create the spin force as B moves. It occurs in the same proportion (1 – v²/c²)^1/2   as in the case of intrinsic energy.

Newton’s second law of motion notwithstanding, this is the reason why it requires momentum mv/(1-v²/c²)^1/2  to be applied in order to put B in motion at velocity v (and not mv).

NB at “classical velocities” since v -> 0 (very low compared to c) that we do not notice this discrepancy in Newton’s second law (of requiring momentum mv/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 in order to move B at velocity v, whereas according to Newton’s law when you apply momentum mv the body moves at velocity v).

Both the extraction of a fraction of intrinsic energy towards the creation of the centrifugal force and the extraction of a fraction of motive energy for the creation of the spin force occur irrespective of the direction of motion of B. Therefore, B moves with velocity v, when a force F = d/dt . [mv.(1- v²/c²)^-1/2]  is applied in any direction. This is the physical basis of “velocity contraction”.

Co-laterally with the above extraction of a fraction of energy to form the spin force, the extraction of a fraction of intrinsic energy to form the centrifugal force happens resulting in the diminution of the frequency when B. Both these phenomena occur when B is set in motion. But they are independent of the direction of motion of B.

Best regards,

Viraj

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

You would seem to have an unshakeable faith in your “approach to physics”.

There are many aspects of it that need further scrutiny but you may always find an answer outside of known physics to explain it. Take for instance, “If at rest the frequency of B is f and it changes to f’ when moving at v in one direction, then B comes to a stop (as it should before reversing direction) the frequency is restored to f. Then when B moves in the reverse direction, at v, the frequency changes to f’ once again.”

In Newtonian theory, B cannot come to a stop unless a force acts on it in the opposite direction. Without such a force it will continue moving according to Newton’s first law. In this state what will its resting frequency be, f or f’?

So, when you ask a question like, “When you throw a stone horizontally, why does it not go forever in that direction?”, Newton would tell you that it can go forever in that direction provided you throw it with a higher than escape velocity. Below this, gravitational force is what will act on and reverse its direction.

 

In summary, you have several tools in your hat to resolve any logical contradictions hence my request for you to propose an experiment that can be used to disprove your hypothesis, and “we” didn’t come up with any.

Since we have an open-ended hypothesis, can I ask you your opinion about dark matter (non-baryonic) and its claimed abundance in our galaxy, inferred from the Newtonian equation v2 = GM/r, where v is the orbital velocity of outlying stars, r is their distance from galactic centre and M is galactic mass inner to the orbit?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 6:04 PM

[Frank Fernandes]

All,

In the previous thread the true nature of velocity squared has been revealed for a photon.

Here the true nature of velocity squared as that of Ether is revealed.

Mass of Earth is at the speed of light squared. Ether is at velocity squared.

Ether accelerates and gyrates every particle of matter at all scales.

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

You wrote: ‘You would seem to have an unshakeable faith in your “approach to physics”’.

I am not trying to be a “Mr. Know All in physics”. However, let me bring to your notice that “Modern Physics” which has been built on the ruins of classical physics on the basis of Einstein’s relativity and Bohr-Heisenberg Quantum mechanics has itself hit a crisis since 1980’s and there is no resolution this crisis in sight.

There is a whole army of leading physicists such as Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Roger Penrose, Eric Weinstein to name a few, who claim that physics is in a crisis but they have not been able to put the finger to where modern physics has gone wrong.

And why do you think they insist that there is a crisis? It is the inability to explain phenomena in a consistent manner, and having to treat them in an ad hoc manner. And it goes without saying that the way out of this crisis is to formulate a theory which can explain phenomena in a consistent manner.  

Akinbo wrote: “There are many aspects of it (Viraj’s physics) that need further scrutiny but you may always find an answer outside of known physics to explain it”.

The above mentioned crisis warrants “critical thinkers” find answers “outside of known physics”. However, these answer need to be self-consistent. I think my consistent answers pass this test.

Akinbo wrote: “In Newtonian theory, B cannot come to a stop unless a force acts on it in the opposite direction. Without such a force it will continue moving according to Newton’s first law. In this state what will its resting frequency be, f or f’?”

Your question is not quite clear. I assume you are referring to a B that was initially at rest on frame A with an emitted frequency of f, and presently in a state of motion relative to A and its frequency has now changed to f’.

It needs to be clear to you that motion is relative. Although Newton has not stated in the first law that the body is moving relative to is its “place” A (the resident frame), it needs to be understood that way. (It is not moving in an empty space, with no other body in the whole universe). So it is when B is at rest on A that the frequency is f and when moving relative to A the frequency becomes f’.

Akinbo: “So, when you ask a question like, “When you throw a stone horizontally, why does it not go forever in that direction?”, Newton would tell you that it can go forever in that direction provided you throw it with a higher than escape velocity. Below this, gravitational force is what will act on and reverse its direction.”.

 

May I remind you what Newton told (with the canon on a mountain experiment) was that when the velocity of the cannon ball is equal to the sqrt of the gravitational potential, the canon ball will stay in orbit without falling. In this situation centrifugal force cancels out the gravitational force, and therefore the cannon ball will stay in orbit.

 

Akinbo wrote: “In summary, you have several tools in your hat to resolve any logical contradictions hence my request for you to propose an experiment that can be used to disprove your hypothesis, and “we” didn’t come up with any”.

My theory is based on the fact that physical phenomena occur due to interactions of energy. Just like in Chemistry, chemical phenomena occur due to interactions of chemical compounds. Do you know of any chemist proposing an experiment to disprove that in chemistry, reactions of chemical compounds do not occur? Likewise how can I propose an experiment to disprove that physical phenomena do not occurs due to interactions of energy?

You wrote: “Since we have an open-ended hypothesis, can I ask you your opinion about dark matter (non-baryonic) and its claimed abundance in our galaxy, inferred from the Newtonian equation v2 = GM/r, where v is the orbital velocity of outlying stars, r is their distance from galactic centre and M is galactic mass inner to the orbit?”.

 

I am sorry, I am not educated enough to address problems of cosmology.

 

Best regards,

 

Viraj

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

You said, “There is a whole army of leading physicists such as Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Roger Penrose, Eric Weinstein to name a few, who claim that physics is in a crisis but they have not been able to put the finger to where modern physics has gone wrong”. This is so, but then ‘Viraj physics’ unfortunately missed where the modern physics went wrong by taking the wrong turn in saying “It needs to be clear to you that motion is relative”, contrary to what Newton showed that motion is absolute, a fact that modern physics after increasing evidence is now coming to terms with. This fact is left, right and centre of the crisis in physics.

Motion is relative to absolute space vacuum, a physical object/medium that is motionless, hence capable of serving as reference for absolute motion. So, it is not correct to say, “It is not moving in an empty space, with no other body in the whole universe”. It is. Space is not empty. It has properties, among which are permittivity and permeability. It is also now made visible by CMBR.

My question about the Newtonian equation v2 = GM/r, is not a cosmological discussion. If you observe the values of v and r, can the value of M be inferred is the point I was making?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 8:58 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Slobodan Nedic <nedic...@gmail.com>; Narasimha S. (LARC-D208) Prasad <narasimha...@nasa.gov>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Advances of Relativity and Cosmology <sorli...@gmail.com>; Λευτέρης Παναγιωτίδης <pana...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi All,

I recently came across what looks like a Chinese version of the popular arXiv.

https://chinaxiv.org/home.htm

 

ChinaXiv is an open repository and distribution service for scientific researchers in the field of natural science, which accepts scholarly preprints and conditionally accepts published articles. It is maintained and operated by National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Science.

 

Although, it has its own restrictions, viz. “This platform is a non secret Internet platform, and it is strictly prohibited to handle and transmit state secrets”, what I found different is that while this Chinese version welcomes articles critical of Special relativity, the popular version discourages them. I think it is a question of time before the false theories of SR/LT/LET/ST become exposed for what they are.

An example of such academic paper can be read here, https://chinaxiv.org/abs/202404.00034v2

If the natural leaders neglects their role in science, others will overtake and take over.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 11:17 AM
To: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>

[John-Erik Persson]

"So, it is not correct to say, “It is not moving in an empty space, with no other body in the whole universe”. It is."

Akinbo

Matter is entrained by the ether and matter is entraining only the component in gravity that matter itself is generating.

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/AS1P195MB15722DB3B7703150761CDBC5B0CF2%40AS1P195MB1572.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Akinbo Ojo]

John-Erik,

Re: "Matter is entrained by the ether and matter is entraining only the component in gravity that matter itself is generating"

I do not agree. Ether is vacuum, and vacuum is ether. What is the mechanism of this entrainment? There is no entrainment relationship between matter and vacuum.

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 11:17 AM

To: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

For some reason I had missed locating your response dated 1^st March. I saw it only now.

 

You wrote: “but then ‘Viraj physics’ unfortunately missed where the modern physics went wrong by taking the wrong turn in saying “It needs to be clear to you that motion is relative”, contrary to what Newton showed that motion is absolute, a fact that modern physics after increasing evidence is now coming to terms with. This fact is left, right and centre of the crisis in physics”.

 

I am sorry Akinbo, you have got it wrong.

 

What Newton said was while motion is to be considered absolute in theory, you cannot trace back all the motions that add up to constitute a body’s absolute motion, therefore we by convention consider a body to be at rest and we add up all the relative motions up to the motion relative to the body considered to be a t rest. Like the "absolute motion" that Newton calculated of the sailor walking on the deck of a ship. In this case the sun was considered to be at absolute rest.

 

Newton’s scheme was only a methodology and not a theory based on fact. This is because, in the opening scholium of the Principia Newton wrote:

 

“For from the positions and distances of things from any body considered as immovable, we define  all places; and then with respect to such places, we estimate all motions, considering bodies as transferred from some of those places into others. And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. For it may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred”.

 

Akinbo wrote: “My question about the Newtonian equation v2 = GM/r, is not a cosmological discussion. If you observe the values of v and r, can the value of M be inferred is the point I was making?”

 

Yes I agree.

 

Best regards,

 

Viraj

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

You have quoted Newton correctly. It remains for you to do substantial justice to the quote by interrogating it in the light of evidence now available, that were not available at the time the statement quoted was first made.

Firstly, what is a body? Does an extended entity having physical properties qualify to be called a body? I say yes. From the definitions in Euclid’s Elements, possession of 3-dimensions is all that is required. Having physical properties like permittivity and permeability are bonuses.

Secondly, does vacuum qualify to be called “a body”? I say yes.

Thirdly, does vacuum move or is it immovable? I say vacuum does not move and should therefore be a body considered as immovable. It is however an invisible body. Visibility is not an essential criterion to qualify as a body. Today the presence pf vacuum has been made visible by the radiation it carries in the form of CMBR, which unsurprisingly exhibits the motionlessness of what is carrying it - its carrier medium.

Let us also listen to Maxwell...

 

“When light travels through the atmosphere it is manifest that the medium through which the light is propagated is not the air itself, for in the first place the air cannot transmit transverse vibrations, and the normal vibrations which the air does transmit travel about a million times slower than light. Solid transparent bodies, such as glass and crystals, are no doubt capable of transmitting transverse vibrations, but the velocity of transmission is still hundreds of thousand times less than that with which light is transmitted through these bodies. We are therefore obliged to suppose that the medium through which light is propagated is something distinct from the transparent medium known to us, though it interpenetrates all transparent bodies and probably opaque bodies too. The velocity of light, however, is different in different transparent media, and we must therefore suppose that these media take some part in the process, and that their particles are vibrating as well as those of the aether, but the energy of the vibrations of the gross particles must be very much smaller than that of the aether, for otherwise a much larger proportion of the incident light would be reflected when a ray passes from vacuum to glass or from glass to vacuum than we find to be the case” – Maxwell, J.C. in article in Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Once you agree that vacuum (Newton’s absolute space) is a physical body considered as immovable, many many other blessings will be added to your physics.

Your "Yes" agreement to my question about the Newtonian equation v² = GM/r is noted. Discussions and interrogations concerning this Yes become useful in interpreting the reportedly null MMX results.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 4:54 PM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; John Eric Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Advances of Relativity and Cosmology <sorli...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

You asked what is a “body”.

In physics a body is something that is constituted by energy mc² and that has inertia, so that a force (motive energy) has to be applied in order to change its state of motion.

 

A photon is also constituted by energy mc² (has mass), but it has no inertia. Instead it has a charge. Hence a photon is a self-propulsion system, where the force is intermittently self-created by drawing motive-energy from the universal energy field. ( I have doubts about Maxwell’s notion that the electric and magnetic forces alternate in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave – I think they simultaneously appear and disappear. ).

 

Hence in one sense your idea that “absolute space”= universal energy field holds. But in the other sense “absolute space” is inert and it does not participate or resist a thing moving in it, to that extent your equation of the universal field to absolute space is contradictory. This is because the Universal Field participates by supplying energy (and reverse) in all the actions that takes place in the Universe without exception (unlike "absolute space").

 

Akinbo wrote: Your "Yes" agreement to my question about the Newtonian equation v² = GM/r is noted. Discussions and interrogations concerning this Yes become useful in interpreting the reportedly null MMX results.

 

The null result of MMX is due to Galilean Principle of Relativity. A dweller on earth cannot observe the motion of the earth by observing a body moving relative to the earth. It applies to terrestrial light also. Even when starlight is used in MMX, the result is the same. This is because upon entering the domain of the earth, it gets “baptized” into the terrestrial form having a component of common motion with the earth.

 

As we see in aberration, the starlight creates for itself a component of motion to co-move with the earth upon entering the earth. So when starlight is used in MMX it behaves just like light that has been generated on earth.  

 

Late Tom Van Flandern (South Astronomer who participated in discussions with us on NPA Chat) pointed out that there is no aberration of moonlight. Why? Moon and the earth move together in their orbit round the sun. Hence Moonlight “at birth” on the moon has a component of common motion with the earth. Moon light therefore does not have to self-create a component of common motion with the earth once again upon entry into earth unlike starlight.  That is why there is no aberration of moonlight.

 

Regards,

Viraj

[John-Erik Persson]

Akinbo

""John-Erik,

Re: "Matter is entrained by the ether and matter is entraining only the component in gravity that matter itself is generating"

I do not agree. Ether is vacuum, and vacuum is ether. What is the mechanism of this entrainment? There is no entrainment relationship between matter and vacuum.

Akinbo""

• You are right, since entrainment is misleading. 
• Instead, the interaction between ether and matter is done by absorption of ether particles by matter.
• This absorption reduces the number of ether particles leaving a body.
• Therefore, we get an ether wind in the negative radial direction. 
• The radial ether wind is the cause of gravity. Escape velocity, 11.2 km/s.
• Therefore, we see no aberration in gravity.
• Gravity emerges inside matter due to the ether.

See "Emergent gravity without aberration".

John-Erik

[Frank Fernandes]

All,

Ether exists. I presented several slides at an International Conference on the MM Experiment.

[Amrit Sorli]

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE MAILING LIST 

--

Sincerely Yours, Prof. Amrit Srečko Šorli

Science is about the discovery of facts.

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/ABH-6270-2020

Bijective Physics Institute

https://bijective-physics.org/

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Sorli removed from this list

 

Please only reply to this email

 

------ Original Message ------
From: sorli.bijec...@gmail.com
To: joer...@gmail.com Cc: vira...@yahoo.co.uk; aith...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; nper...@snet.net; munda...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; jeande...@yahoo.ca; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; mark.cr...@gmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; sorli...@gmail.com; galilean_ele...@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, March 6th 2025, 05:18
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion
 

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE MAILING LIST 

 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 02:56, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 

 

-- 
 

 

 

Sincerely Yours, Prof. Amrit Srečko Šorli

Science is about the discovery of facts.

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/ABH-6270-2020
 

Bijective Physics Institute

https://bijective-physics.org/
 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAM9RnJ1%2BHRWix1ppKAs%3DeuP7vYoqyOodWXNqR6q%3DS69ORJVTjg%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Viraj Fernando]

Akinbo,

The last paragraph should read:

Hi Akinbo,

You asked what is a “body”.

In physics a body is something that is constituted by energy mc² and has inertia, so that a force (motive energy) has to be applied in order to change its state of motion.

 

A photon is also constituted by energy mc² (has mass), but it has no inertia. Instead it has a charge. Hence a photon is a self-propulsion system, where the force is intermittently self-created by drawing motive-energy from the universal energy field. ( I have doubts about Maxwell’s notion that the electric and magnetic forces alternate in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave – I think they simultaneously appear and disappear. ).

 

Hence in one sense your idea that “absolute space”= universal energy field holds. But in the other sense “absolute space” is inert and it does not participate or resist a thing moving in it, to that extent your equation of the universal field to absolute space is contradictory. This is because the Universal Field participates by supplying energy (and reverse) in all the actions that takes place in the Universe without exception.

 

Akinbo: Your "Yes" agreement to my question about the Newtonian equation v² = GM/r is noted. Discussions and interrogations concerning this Yes become useful in interpreting the reportedly null MMX results.

 

The null result of MMX is due to Galilean Principle of Relativity. A dweller on earth cannot observe the motion of the earth by observing a body moving relative to the earth. It applies to terrestrial light also. Even when starlight is used in MMX, the result is the same. Upon entering the domain of the earth, it gets “baptized” into the terrestrial form.

 

As we see in aberration, the starlight creates for itself a component of motion to co-move with the earth upon entering the earth. So when starlight is used in MMX it behaves just like light that has been generated on earth.  

 

Late Tom Van Flandern (South African Astronomer who participated in discussions with us on NPA Chat) pointed out that there is no aberration of moonlight. Why? Moon and the earth move together in their orbit round the sun. Hence Moonlight “at birth” has a component of common motion with the earth. Moon light therefore does not have to self-create a component of common motion with the earth, once again upon entry into earth unlike starlight.  That is why there is no aberration of moonlight.

 

Regards,

Viraj

[Akinbo Ojo]

John-Erik,

You propose that “ether particles are assumed to be absorbed by matter”, can you explain why as a result of this, the universe is not contracting with the distance between galactic clusters seen to be decreasing? Rather, the opposite appears to be what is observed.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:56 AM
To: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Advances of Relativity and Cosmology <sorli...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

I will respond to the second part first. Yes, I believe and agree that “The null result of MMX is due to Galilean Principle of Relativity”. That is the long and short of it. In the specifics of how this is implemented we may have differences. In my own implementation this is where the Newtonian equation v² = GM/r becomes crucial. As a result of this, ideas that lead to talks of length contraction and time dilation should be taken with bags of salt.

 

Now on the major issue/question, “what is a body?”, I will respond to this separately because it is a deep topic that will involve invoking the spirits of the ancient Greek philosophers, Descartes, Newton and possibly others. Newton in particular wrestled with this in his De Gravitatione (see https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/newton1666.pdf. The site also contains other old texts. I see on the home page that the author died last year).

Regards,

Akinbo

@Carl. Are you there?

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 9:37 AM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

On the question: “what is a body?”

You tried but didn’t do enough justice to the question in my opinion. Nevertheless, let us go by your choice description/definition, viz. Hence in one sense your idea that “absolute space”= universal energy field holds. But in the other sense “absolute space” is inert and it does not participate or resist a thing moving in it, to that extent your equation of the universal field to absolute space is contradictory. This is because the Universal Field participates by supplying energy (and reverse) in all the actions that takes place in the Universe without exception.

 

• Absolute space is not inert.
• Absolute space can resist and does resist a thing moving in it (but depends on whether the motion is in a straight line or in a curved path).
• Absolute space can store energy (as Maxwell pointed out, when light leaves the Sun it stays somewhere for about 8 minutes before getting to us. During this period the energy exists as a wave in the absolute space).

Which of these do you disagree with? If no disagreement, then Absolute space is a body.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>

Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 9:37 AM

To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Roger Munday]

“There is a whole army of leading physicists such as Lee Smolin, Peter Wait, Roger Penrose, Erik Weinstein to name a few, who claim that physics is in crisis but they have not been able to put the finger to where modern physics has gone wrong”

Current theory online :-

The Ontology of Absolute Space

"absolute space is definately not material" and is "inert and can store energy".

So, if such a non-material "absolute space" exists, how does it "store energy"?

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

The generally accepted assumption (apparently of all physicists) is that all the atoms of any element are of a specific mass density and volume in any solid, liquid or gaseous state.

And an accompanying assumption is that with the inputs, or emissions, of energy such elemental atoms remain at these identical mass densities and volumes, and that it is an interatomic vacuum which expands and contracts.

This issue is where theoretical physics has failed to explain, e.g. the transmissions and interactions of matter.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj, et.al.,

Below is a gedanken experimenten similar in concept to that of Newton in his ‘bucket experiment’.

Set up a bucket or other closed container with some water in it, then send it off into space. When it attains its terminal velocity and starts moving at uniform motion in a straight line, examine the water. We would observe that the water will be level, undisturbed and without turbulence, as the container continues its motion at uniform velocity in a straight line. An observer enclosed in the capsule would be unable to tell if the container was still moving or stationary in absolute space (Just as Galileo illustrated with his ship).

If however, after some time, the observer starts to notice that the water level was higher in one part of the container and lower in the opposite part, if he is knowledgeable about Newton, Galileo, and not excluding "Viraj physics", he should be able to infer that the water is undergoing a disturbance.

Disturbance from what? Disturbance from Absolute space since that is the only other thing there is.

 

If the observer he is more knowledgeable still about centrifugal forces, he should infer that this disturbance arises from a non-linear, circular type of motion by the bucket of water in Absolute space.

So, why does Absolute space not disturb the water if it is moving at uniform motion in a straight line, but disturbs the water in the bucket if the bucket moves at uniform motion in a circular path?

Indeed, while the container moving at uniform motion in a straight line needs no fuel in order to continuously sustain its motion, the bucket moving at uniform motion in a circular path needs fuel to sustain its motion, without which it would soon come to adopt a linear path with uniform motion in a straight line.

The inference we can draw from this is that Absolute space is selectively resistant to non-linear motion at constant speed, while it is transparent to and tolerant of linear motion at constant speed.

Storing energy requires doing work against resistance. It follows that if you want to store energy in Absolute space this will be by non-linear motion/stress. Linear stress cannot be used to store energy in Absolute space since it has no resistance to this.

Further still, if energy is to be stored and propagated as a wave in Absolute space, this can only be in the form of shear/transverse waves which are non-linear strains. Energy cannot be stored and propagated in Absolute space in the form of compression waves or linear strains. In technical language, the way it is stated is that Absolute space has a non-zero shear modulus of elasticity and a zero bulk modulus of elasticity.

Absolute space therefore satisfies some of the criteria previously noted, which determine what is to be called an elastic body.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

[Carl Reiff]

Yes, Akinbo, I'm here and have been following the discussion between Viraj and yourself with interest.  I have refrained from interjecting as I didn't want to affect the course your interaction.  Of course, this doesn't mean that I shan't at some point.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------------

[Carl Reiff]

Hi Akinbo,

In your proposed thought experiment, you wrote: "When it attains its terminal velocity and starts moving at uniform motion in a straight line, examine the water."  Now, this first is just an aside because I understand your intent.  The term, "terminal velocity," is applied to something which can't go any faster, because it has reached its maximum possible speed.  A skydiver is an example.

Then: "We would observe that the water will be level, undisturbed and without turbulence, as the container continues its motion at uniform velocity in a straight line." Well, assuming that the container is something like a glass jar so that an observer can view the water inside, we have the issue that, "level," has no meaning in a weightless environment.  There is no up or down.  The water in the jar would be rather randomly positioned/floating.

Then: "An observer enclosed in the capsule [from examining the water in the jar] would be unable to tell if the container was still moving or stationary in absolute space (Just as Galileo illustrated with his ship)."  Agreed.

Then: "If however, after some time, the observer starts to notice that the water level was higher [moved to one side] in one part of the container and lower in the opposite part, if he is knowledgeable about Newton, Galileo, and not excluding "Viraj physics", he should be able to infer that the [jar, and consequently, the] water is undergoing a disturbance acceleration."

I'm skipping your next sentence.

Then: "If the observer he is more knowledgeable still about centrifugal forces, he should infer that this disturbance arises from a non-linear, circular type of motion by the bucket of water in Absolute space."  Disagree.  The observer won't be able to tell if the acceleration is orthogonal to his straight line motion, or if it's from any other direction - including being perfectly inline with his previous straight line motion.

And to be complete, we must also consider the situation where the jar and observer are in a circular orbit around a planet.  There, the water would give no clue as to the acceleration of gravity acting on it.  So, in a closed, windowless space capsule, the observer wouldn't be able to to distinguish between absolute motionlessness in deep space, uniform straight line motion, and orbital motion.  The water in the jar would be equally randomly positioned in each case.

Skipping a few lines to: "The inference we can draw from this is that Absolute space is selectively resistant to non-linear motion at constant speed, while it is transparent to and tolerant of linear motion at constant speed."  Orbital motion defies this.  And, elliptical orbits defy this even further - as the speed changes throughout such orbits (i.e., non-uniform speed) - and, yet, the observer would still have no clue.

I'm going to leave the part about space (or the field) storing and remitting energy for Viraj and you to discuss, as I find the notion anathema to Occam's razor.

Kind regards,
Carl

-----------------

[Frank Fernandes]

Carl Reiff,

Thank you for your suggestion to use exact new NIST data. My work has been published on one mol volume and one kilogram at,

https://hadronicpress.com/HJ/HJVol/HJ47-4.php   the latest Dec 2024 issue. 

Thus one mol of a computer chip is the same as 1 mol volume of Hydrogen gas at a particular temperature and pressure. All mass is condensed light. Electricity is not just motion of electrons. 

Moreover I have since presented 5 papers at two International Conferences redefining electricity as in person explained to you at Storrs.

Current I = mc/e =Mv/e     eV/e = v = acceleration    Electric Resistance Ohms = v/e   Ohms = c/e  where c is a special case of v

Ohms = I/m    Temp T = eV

Time Period or Interval of Time is the inverse of frequency. The time on the clock for discharge of ions at an electrode is exactly the same as its inverse which is frequency - the frequency of the moving ion.

I have also shown how the MM null experiment is a null result and thus ether exists. Fringes are ether fringes.

The Phi symbol is mathematically and empirically correct. What is missing are the masses associated with velocity.

[Viraj Fernando]

The Ontology of Universal Space

"Universal space is definitely not baryonic  or bosonic material " ....... "it is the repository of field energy - the prima materia. ...... as such Universal Energy acts and reacts with baryonic bosonic matter". 

There is an inflow and outflow of field energy in every change of state of baryonic and bosonic matter.

===============

Nascent Mass and Effective Mass:

Roger M: "The generally accepted assumption (apparently of all physicists) is that all the atoms of any element are of a specific mass density and volume in any solid, liquid or gaseous state".

This is the "nascent mass" m. And corresponding to that,there is the nascent intrinsic energy level mc^2

Then in  motion and gravitation, there are interactions of energy in which field energy also participates without exception. These various interactions occur on the principle of superposition. These interactions cause the "nascent intrinsic energy level"  to change its state to "effective intrinsic energy level m'c^2.  

Corresponding to the nascent intrinsic energy level there is the nascent resonance frequency f.

mc^2 = hf

And corresponding to the effective intrinsic energy level there is the effective resonance frequency f.'

m'c^2 = hf '.

What we observe (for example in atomic clocks) is the change of effective frequency from one state of gravitation and motion to a another state of effective frequency in relation to another state of gravitation and motion.

Viraj

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Carl,

Your objections appear valid, but on looking deeper require further scrutiny to be valid. I was trying to frame Newton’s bucket experiment in another way. Note however, that if you read up on that experiment, the level of fluid will be raised at the circumference. In other words, the water surface will assume a concave appearance even in a weightless environment. See Bucket experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument.

By this experiment, an observer far out in space without any visible landmarks, can infer that motion in a circular path is taking place because the water is experiencing centrifugal forces. Whereas, motion in a linear path will be indistinguishable from motionlessness.

You prefer to use “acceleration” instead of disturbance. This can be accepted. Acceleration however means that a force has come into play and is acting on the water. What is the source of this force since water cannot act upon itself? I suggest the origin of the force is from Absolute space.

See my other responses in red...

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 12:19 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion

Hi Akinbo,

In your proposed thought experiment, you wrote: "When it attains its terminal velocity and starts moving at uniform motion in a straight line, examine the water."  Now, this first is just an aside because I understand your intent.  The term, "terminal velocity," is applied to something which can't go any faster, because it has reached its maximum possible speed.  A skydiver is an example.

Then: "We would observe that the water will be level, undisturbed and without turbulence, as the container continues its motion at uniform velocity in a straight line." Well, assuming that the container is something like a glass jar so that an observer can view the water inside, we have the issue that, "level," has no meaning in a weightless environment.  There is no up or down.  The water in the jar would be rather randomly positioned/floating.

Then: "An observer enclosed in the capsule [from examining the water in the jar] would be unable to tell if the container was still moving or stationary in absolute space (Just as Galileo illustrated with his ship)."  Agreed.

Then: "If however, after some time, the observer starts to notice that the water level was higher [moved to one side] in one part of the container and lower in the opposite part, if he is knowledgeable about Newton, Galileo, and not excluding "Viraj physics", he should be able to infer that the [jar, and consequently, the] water is undergoing a disturbance acceleration."

I'm skipping your next sentence.

Then: "If the observer he is more knowledgeable still about centrifugal forces, he should infer that this disturbance arises from a non-linear, circular type of motion by the bucket of water in Absolute space."  Disagree.  The observer won't be able to tell if the acceleration is orthogonal to his straight line motion, or if it's from any other direction - including being perfectly inline with his previous straight line motion.

And to be complete, we must also consider the situation where the jar and observer are in a circular orbit around a planet.  There, the water would give no clue as to the acceleration of gravity acting on it. Ocean tides due to the Moon appear to testify otherwise. So, in a closed, windowless space capsule, the observer wouldn't be able to to distinguish between absolute motionlessness in deep space, uniform straight line motion, and orbital motion.  The water in the jar would be equally randomly positioned in each case.

Skipping a few lines to: "The inference we can draw from this is that Absolute space is selectively resistant to non-linear motion at constant speed, while it is transparent to and tolerant of linear motion at constant speed."  Orbital motion defies this.  And, elliptical orbits defy this even further - as the speed changes throughout such orbits (i.e., non-uniform speed) - and, yet, the observer would still have no clue.

Consider yourself as owning a space ship. You fuel it to escape gravity. After escaping Earth gravity, you check your fuel tank.

If you continue in a straight line at uniform speed will the fuel in your tank diminish? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you decide to continue in a circular path at uniform speed will the fuel in your tank diminish? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo, Frank, Roger, Carl, Harry and others.

My “selfish motive” in getting involved in discussions in this group, is dictated by the quest of finding out the physical basis of what are termed “Relativistic Phenomena” which are evident empirically from the results of numerous experiments over the last 150 years.

From that point of view, it is futile for me to get engaged in discussions that are not related to this quest. Specially, it is futile to discuss matters with those who deny this undeniable body of evidence about the existence of relativistic phenomena, blindly.

Why classical physics failed to account for “relativistic phenomena” is because, its conception of “absolute space” did not consider the space that exists outside matter, is the universal energy field. And in all interaction involving changes of state of motion and gravitation of matter, there is an ingress and egress of field energy. What are called “relativistic phenomena” are nothing but the consequences that manifest due to this egress and ingress of field energy during changes of states of motion and gravitation of matter.  

When Maxwell discerned his equations through empirical examinations of experiments of passages of electric currents, he found that Ampere’s law based on classical principles required a correction.  Maxwell without being dogmatically restricted by classical paradigm, boldly added a new term to Ampere’s law which he called the “Displacement Current”. This phenomenon occurs clearly due to the ingress of energy from the universal energy field.

What finally gave birth to Einstein’s theory of relativity, is the quest for how such phenomena as the displacement current originates.

In brief, how Einstein set forth to address the problem is as follows: A stationary electrical charge relative to a stationary observer generates an electrical field only. However, when the charge is in motion, the stationary observer notices an electric field and a magnetic field associated with the moving charge.

Einstein being unaware of the fact that this phenomenon occurs due to ingress of field energy concurrent with the change of state of motion of the charge, interpreted it as it happening due “change of co-ordinates” from one system to another.

Experimental results of Kaufmann (1902)  showed that in order to put a particle of mass m in motion at velocity v it required momentum G.mv  (in violation of Newton’s second law) where G= (1-v²/c²)^-1/2 . That is according to Newton’s law if gamma.mv should move the particle a distance x = gamma.vt, it was found that it has moved only a distance vt (which  vt corresponds to momentum mv).

According to the law of conservation of momentum, this “lost momentum”, Dp = mv(G -1) must be conserved and used for causing some other phenomenon. If we suppose that this is what is used for the generation of the magnetic force when the electron is in motion, we find that the momentum that corresponds to the magnetic field is found to be equal to Dp’ = G. Dp. This violates classical law of conservation of momentum. This is because there is a momentum increase by factor G.

That is the initially “lost momentum” Dp is found be augmented by the factor G when it re-appears to form the magnetic force. From where does this additional momentum Dp” = (Dp’-Dp) come? It comes from the field.

Now consider x = Gvt is the corresponding displacement if all the momentum Gmv applied by Kaufmann to set the particle  used for motion it time t. Then since only mv was used, the particle moves only a displacement vt.  A displacement x’ = x-vt that corresponds to Dp goes unaccounted for. Is it this Dp that has been used for the production of the magnetic force? However the magnetic force is found to correspond to Dp’ (and not Dp)

That is in  terms of space and time the “displacement equivalent” of the magnetic force is found to be  augmented by  x” = G(x-vt).  Or x” = Gvt(G-1)

Or the momentum underlying the magnetic force is found to be augmented by Dp”= Gmv(G-1)

That is the meaning of “Lorentz Transformation”.

The moral of the story is that, phenomena do not occur under classical laws of conservation of energy and momentum. When an interaction takes place changing the state of motion of a particle, there is an ingress of energy from the field to augment the forces that are produced by the particle.

Best regards,

Viraj

[ROGER ANDERTON]

added Jerry to this discussion
 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com; munda...@gmail.com Cc: aith...@gmail.com; joer...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; nper...@snet.net; frit...@bellsouth.net; jeande...@yahoo.ca; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; mark.cr...@gmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; tomin...@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, March 7th 2025, 13:30
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion
 

Hi Akinbo, Frank, Roger, Carl, Harry and others.

My “selfish motive” in getting involved in discussions in this group, is dictated by the quest of finding out the physical basis of what are termed “Relativistic Phenomena” which are evident empirically from the results of numerous experiments over the last 150 years.

From that point of view, it is futile for me to get engaged in discussions that are not related to this quest. Specially, it is futile to discuss matters with those who deny this undeniable body of evidence about the existence of relativistic phenomena, blindly.

Why classical physics failed to account for “relativistic phenomena” is because, its conception of “absolute space” did not consider the space that exists outside matter, is the universal energy field. And in all interaction involving changes of state of motion and gravitation of matter, there is an ingress and egress of field energy. What are called “relativistic phenomena” are nothing but the consequences that manifest due to this egress and ingress of field energy during changes of states of motion and gravitation of matter.  

When Maxwell discerned his equations through empirical examinations of experiments of passages of electric currents, he found that Ampere’s law based on classical principles required a correction.  Maxwell without being dogmatically restricted by classical paradigm, boldly added a new term to Ampere’s law which he called the “Displacement Current”. This phenomenon occurs clearly due to the ingress of energy from the universal energy field.

What finally gave birth to Einstein’s theory of relativity, is the quest for how such phenomena as the displacement current originates.

In brief, how Einstein set forth to address the problem is as follows: A stationary electrical charge relative to a stationary observer generates an electrical field only. However, when the charge is in motion, the stationary observer notices an electric field and a magnetic field associated with the moving charge.

Einstein being unaware of the fact that this phenomenon occurs due to ingress of field energy concurrent with the change of state of motion of the charge, interpreted it as it happening due “change of co-ordinates” from one system to another.

Experimental results of Kaufmann (1902)  showed that in order to put a particle of mass m in motion at velocity v it required momentum G.mv  (in violation of Newton’s second law) where G= (1-v²/c²)^-1/2 . That is according to Newton’s law if gamma.mv should move the particle a distance x = gamma.vt, it was found that it has moved only a distance vt (which  vt corresponds to momentum mv).

According to the law of conservation of momentum, this “lost momentum”, Dp = mv(G -1) must be conserved and used for causing some other phenomenon. If we suppose that this is what is used for the generation of the magnetic force when the electron is in motion, we find that the momentum that corresponds to the magnetic field is found to be equal to Dp’ = G. Dp. This violates classical law of conservation of momentum. This is because there is a momentum increase by factor G.

That is the initially “lost momentum” Dp is found be augmented by the factor G when it re-appears to form the magnetic force. From where does this additional momentum Dp” = (Dp’-Dp) come? It comes from the field.

Now consider x = Gvt is the corresponding displacement if all the momentum Gmv applied by Kaufmann to set the particle  used for motion it time t. Then since only mv was used, the particle moves only a displacement vt.  A displacement x’ = x-vt that corresponds to Dp goes unaccounted for. Is it this Dp that has been used for the production of the magnetic force? However the magnetic force is found to correspond to Dp’ (and not Dp)

That is in  terms of space and time the “displacement equivalent” of the magnetic force is found to be  augmented by  x” = G(x-vt).  Or x” = Gvt(G-1)

Or the momentum underlying the magnetic force is found to be augmented by Dp”= Gmv(G-1)

That is the meaning of “Lorentz Transformation”.

The moral of the story is that, phenomena do not occur under classical laws of conservation of energy and momentum. When an interaction takes place changing the state of motion of a particle, there is an ingress of energy from the field to augment the forces that are produced by the particle.

Best regards,

Viraj

 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1573948839.2084681.1741353812218%40mail.yahoo.com.
 

[Carl Reiff]

Hi Akinbo,

I believe we are discussing a slightly different version of Newton's bucket.  Per the wikipedia link, his was Earth based, where gravity caused the water to be forced downward in the bucket and the surface to be level at rest.  I don't think anyone at the time, including Newton, understood how liquids would behave in a weightless environment.  There are videos aplenty showing astronauts drinking (looks more like eating) floating globules of water in the ISS.  So, when you say, "the water surface will assume a concave appearance even in a weightless environment," you are incorrect.  If you spun the jar, the water would soon uniformly line the sides of the jar - forming the shape of a cylinder (of some thickness, depending of quantity of water relative to the size of the jar).  And it wouldn't matter in what orientation the axis of rotation was - as there is no up or down in weightlessness.

You wrote: "Acceleration however means that a force has come into play and is acting on the water."  Well, assuming the jar is fixed relative to the observer's spaceship, and the ship fires its thrusters, then one side of the jar would actually push against the water, causing the water to be all on one side of the jar.  Then, the water would have a flat surface inside the jar, although assuming the ship (and jar) is accelerating to the left, the surface of the water in the jar would be vertical relative to the observer - assuming the observer is sitting in a chair like on the interior wall of an accelerating bus with the chair facing the other side of the bus, instead of facing toward the front.

For your next two sentences, I would characterize the lethargic behavior of the water as merely resistance to being accelerated.  But I concur with you that it (the resistance to being accelerated) has to do with space, the background, the field, the aether, whatever.  Just why/how that is, I'm not yet ready to explain/divulge.

To your first red comment: "Ocean tides due to the Moon appear to testify otherwise."  Tidal water is not is a condition of weightlessness, so it is outside the scope of our discussion.

To your second red comment: "Consider yourself as owning a space ship. You fuel it to escape gravity. After escaping Earth gravity, you check your fuel tank. If you continue in a straight line at uniform speed will the fuel in your tank diminish? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you decide to continue in a circular path at uniform speed will the fuel in your tank diminish? If so, why? If not, why not?

"

"By 'escape' I assume you mean far beyond our solar system.  At that point I also assume the thruster is turned off, and coasting along at a constant velocity would ensue, so the fuel in the tank would not diminish. 

If I decide to convert from a linear to a circular path (which would be a neat trick), say to the left, I would rotate the ship to the left 90 degrees.  I would somehow pick a spot (tough to do in the middle of intergalactic space), engage the thruster just the right amount (again, tough to do), and keep the nose constantly pointed at that invisible spot.  If all is miraculously done just right (like I said, a neat trick), my ship would orbit that spot in a circular fashion.  And, yes, since the thruster is engaged, the fuel in the tank would diminish.

If any of my assumptions were not what you intended, please clarify.

Kind regards,
Carl

-----------------

[Carl Reiff]

Hello Frank,

You wrote, "Thank you for your suggestion to use exact new NIST data."  I don't know how or where I did that.

For your assertion that, "all mass is condensed light," how do you mean that?  Like, if you condense a certain number of photons, it manifests as a proton?

Kind regards,
Carl

----------------

[Carl Reiff]

Hello Viraj (and Frank further down),

I am on a similar quest.  I concur with you regarding the reality of relativistic phenomena - which can be accurately quantified by  virtue of gamma.  I think our views are very similar.  I think we are in lockstep regarding changes in frequencies.  Where we differ is in how the changes occur.  You propose exchanges of energy between masses and the field.  However, I'm disinclined to think the field is involved in that manner.  I need to do a write-up of what role I think the field plays.

In the meantime, I have a question for you.  The following is from an e-mail you wrote (which, according to the date-time stamp shown in my inbox is Feb. 23 @ 10:02 AM): "As you know, it has been observed that different atomic elements have different frequencies. For instance all Caesium atoms emit photons of the same particular frequency f at a given place when they are all stationary. But if an atom is moved in a vehicle moving at velocity v, the frequency f changes to f’ where f’= f(1-v²/c²)^1/2 so that f’ < f. 

"Since we know that mc² = hf and knowing that both c and h are constants the only way this could have happened is that m must have got scaled down to m’ = m(1-v²/c²)^1/2."

If v increases to c, then m' would equal zero.  That is in direct opposition to relativistic mass increase as supposedly demonstrated in particle accelerators (cyclotrons).  Am I understanding this correctly?

Dear Frank,

The following is from an e-mail you wrote (which, according to the date-time stamp shown in my inbox is Feb. 24 @ 6:21 AM): "Frequency is responsible for measure of mass. Change in frequency results in a change in the measurement of mass."

So, if frequency goes to zero, mass goes to zero?  I do note that you said, "measurement."  Even so, how does a measurement of zero mass differ from zero mass?

Kind regards,
Carl

-----------------

[Frank Fernandes]

Carl,

So, if frequency goes to zero, mass goes to zero?  I do note that you said, "measurement."  Even so, how does a measurement of zero mass differ from zero mass?

Consider this fact,

If frequency =  zero the mass measurement of mass of electron on RHS = zero. In the slide below.

However the aitheron mass remains as 10e-51Kg and is not zero.

The exact definition of the word quantum is depicted in this slide.

Higgs Boson/God Particle is pseudo science. What is shown above cannot be refuted.

Same with the MM experiment. The meaning of Null has not been challenged except by my work and peer reviewed publications by mainstream science.

The word energy E = hf=PV=mc2= Gmm/r = Fx R = Mar = Bqv x R = Current squared x R = eV x e = e a R = k x Temp T = e x T

Measurements - no conversion. The same equations can be represented as force or acceleration or temperature.

If I say the thermometer reads a degree of heat energy as 25c it does not mean that the thermometer converted some pure energy to a reading of 25c.

It means that a photon of mass m with an aitheron frequency f corresponds to 25c. This is how remote sensing operates.

I have shown that GRT, Quantum, Classical are the same phenomenon with different human dialects. here it is again,

The terms can only be understood by way of associated masses. Ether in particular. Interferometers use these equations.It solves the wave particle duality as ether fringes not one electron all over and Schrodingers cat nonsense. And Heisenberg Uncertainty crap. The delta in position and time stands for change in math not uncertainty. 

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Carl,

In your first paragraph, I think you have a valid logical objection to the Bucket experiment. Leibniz would have been proud to have used it against Newton, if this was available at the time. It was just one of the grounds that Newton developed to argue his case that motion was an absolute phenomenon AND NOT based on relative displacement between bodies alone. That is, the fact of rest is absolute and not based on relative position between bodies. See his globe experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_spheres#Background

 

But I think this is now fairly settled today since Absolute space, hitherto invisible, now has markers in the form of the cosmic microwave background. This has been used to determine absolute velocities. And the radiation is analogous to the fixed stars preferred by Mach as reference. As a result of all these, the fact of motionlessness or otherwise of an object in space is established.

So given two globes equidistant with a cord joining them, and a tension measurement device in the cord, we can continue the experiments...

We should find that:

For linear motion at uniform speed relative to CMBR, the tension remains present in the cord but remains constant at all speeds, whether at 5km/s or 1000km/s, as long as both globes remain equidistant and motionless relative to each other.

For rotational motion at uniform speed relative to CMBR, the tension remains present in the cord but increases if the circular speed increases, and reduces if the circular speed of each globe increases, notwithstanding that both globes remain equidistant and motionless relative to each other.

So, for rotational motion a force has been invoked to act, which was not observed when both globes were equidistant and motionless relative to each other, BUT moving linearly in the same direction.

The source of this force is what is now contended. The only difference in both scenarios is that motion is uniformly linear in one and uniformly circular in the other. How clear am I?

I am attributing the source of this force as being an intrinsic property of Absolute space vacuum or as you say, “space, the background, the field, the aether, whatever”.

Divulge your secret when you have reached a state of readiness to do so.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 8:58 PM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

To all intents and purposes, what Newton calls “Absolute space” and what you refer to as “universal energy field”, are one and the same body provided, the former (i) exhibits resistance to motion of at least some type (so it is not inert, neither will it just be “an accident”*), (ii) has physical properties, e.g. permittivity, permeability (so is not nothing), (iii) has ability to store energy and (iv) has ability to propagate same in the form of waves.

You have to accept this before going into “relativistic phenomena” and their basis. If you accept, then gamma γ = 1, and you can continue from there.

Regards,

Akinbo

 

*Section 7. What extension (or space) is in Descartes, Space and Body, by Isaac Newton, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/newton1666.pdf,

“You may be wanting to confront me with the choice: ‘Extension is either (1) substance or (2) accident or (3) nothing at all—which?’ I certainly shan’t choose, because extension has its own manner of existence which won’t go into either the substance or the accident pigeon-holes.”

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 2:23 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

[Frank Fernandes]

Carl,

https://www.dailywire.com/news/historic-first-scientists-turn-light-into-supersolid

The answer to the light to solid was presented by me several times,

Published article in the latest Hadronic Journal Dec 2024.

I mol Vol and 1Kg mass.

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

You wrote:  "If you accept, then gamma γ = 1, and you can continue from there".

What has been observed is that “relativistic phenomena” occur when a particle is in motion. This implies that when the particle is at rest i.e. v = 0 the particle does not manifest any relativistic phenomena.

You know that g = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2.

What is that value of v that will satisfy your condition  γ = 1?

That happens only when v=0. 

So I agree with you that when  γ = 1 there will be no relativistic phenomena when the particle is at rest.

But that does not mean that the particle will not manifest relativistic phenomena when it is in motion.

Best regards,

Viraj

[matterdoc]

See  http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0084v1.pdf

Nainan.      www.matterdoc.info

[John-Erik Persson]

 "Ether is vacuum, and vacuum is ether"

Akinbo

Vacuum means nothing or emptiness
Ether means something with substance
So we have either vacuum or ether, but not both.
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/0a077171-b793-4b68-a452-110b4910b42fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Frank Fernandes]

Carl, Viraj, et al NASA, CNPS, NPA, Mainstream, NAPA, CERN,

Convergence of the great relativistic equations, classical Newton and Planck quantum happens at the MM experiment in Ether.

The slides I have shown in this email thread explain this in empirical terms. The Fernandes Scientific Dogmas are...

Graviton 10e7 form one Aithron. The frequency of an aitheron gives a measurement of masses of photons, electrons, protons, atoms.

The frequency of masses of photons, electrons, protons, atoms produces 186-Ether.

The 186-ether is the same as the Planck ether mass and Planck ether length by a factor of 137.036 the inverse hand of god number alpha. This is what Planck had stated - that even aliens will recognize 137.036. And Feynman that it's the biggest damn mystery.

The 186-ether is the ultimate source of gravitational acceleration and all motion in the Universe at all scales. The pulsation by 137.036 is the cause of gyration and linear motion.

Speed of light squared is a rotation by 25812.807 and rectilinear by FTL 3.481818e12. The square root of which is c.

The velocity squared of a gravitational lensed photon is velocity squared where one component in FTL as depicted in the slide in this thread.

The frequency of 186-ether produces an ether toroid whose radius produces wavelength and lightspeed.

Wavelength - 2pi x r x 137.036.  where r is the radius of the toroid. This is how transmission of light happens in the universe.

Speed of light c = wavelength x frequency of the aitheron.

This is what quantum is describing as Einstein's spooky action at a distance.

A pressure wave of ether is exerted throughout the universe. The pressure wave B squared is measured as the ether fringe in the MM experiment. The exact equations are presented in the slide in this email thread.

The molar volume experimentally taught worldwide for a century has been cracked by me due to three photon paths. while I was presenting this huge breakthrough online on a Saturday night several NPA members were mocking on the chat. And David DeHilster was present. It was one member from Colorado who insisted I continue.

The breakthrough is in the presentation on Hydrogen gas volume and a computer chip.

The same with Ether. An entire presentation on absence of ether based on errors. Einstein visited Michelson on his death bed because they both knew that something was wrong. Einstein then slipped in the word fabric of spacetime. He should have said ether frequency. Like Luther inserted the word alone by faith alone instead of Faith and Reason. And left out Works. Ideas have consequences.

The relativistic equation in Einstein's 1905 paper is easily explained as I did last time with the Bohr model.

Einstein Maxwell Newton did not have subatomic data. They did Math. And showed the way forward. What I have done is input data..experimental data.

Velocity, speed of light, mass that is associated with v and c need to be defined. Mass associated with a fringe shift has to be specified in an argument. That is what I have done. In more than one hundred papers.

To talk about these things requires structural understanding of the invisible.

The interactions of the invisible at 10e-51 Kg while the cooked up God Particle is at 10e-25 Kg.  26 decimal places apart.

In another paper I discussed how water is a changed texture of light. The key is in Rydberg photons. And phonons.

One mole volume of a computer chip and superconducting material and one mol volume of a gas is due to photons. The Bose Einstein condensate which is a state of matter is what I have deconstructed.

To arrive at a correct interpretation of an equation apply empirical data of mass length and frequency. Automatically the true nature of c and v will get revealed.

The correct definition of current, resistance, voltage and temperature as defined by me in this email thread solves for relativistic effects. Ohm = v/e or Ohm = c/e provides the solution. Very simple.

It is through the Josephson equation and Hall Quantum Constant that I solved one mol volume obtained by the ideal gas equation.

Light from Light.

The exact relativistic mass can be gotten from electrolysis where time on the clock to discharge is the inverse of the frequency to the atom moving to an electrode. The mass can also be gotten by physically weighing the deposition at the electrode. The mass can be calculated from aitheron frequency. The mass can be gotten from electric current on an ammeter where Ohms = I/m =c/e.

The mass can be gotten from Einstein's relativistic equation. The mass can be gotten from temperature T where T = eV.

The eV gives the gravitational acceleration due to ether because the term V volt is in absolute fact acceleration a of the ether toroid.

The Boltzmann constant k is in fact  2pi x 10e-7 x 137.036 x e. A precession factor.

Natural Philosophy stems from empirical Physics utilizing ratio and proportion. LHS=RHS. And vice versa.

And Natural Philosophy stems not from the God Particle observed but for a manufactured fleeting moment and several now God particles rather from the One who pushed the pencil Light from Light. The pencil on the Arnold Sommerfeld 137.036 spectral peak.

[Frank Fernandes]

Carl,

I searched and found your email about significant figures.

Dear Frank,

"c=2.99792458 x 10e8 is not the measured speed. Just defined."

I'm not buying it.  In science, significant digits are a big deal.  For example, the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit is listed as 0.2056 (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html).  That's because it has been measured to that accuracy (+/- 0.00005).  Meaning, that we know it's closer to 0.2056 than it is to either 0.2055 or 0.2057.

We know the same thing about the speed of light.  We have accurately measured it to be 299,792,458 (+/- 0.5) meters per second.  Heck, we are so sure about it, we even redefined the length of the meter based on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Speed_of_light_definition).

If we weren't sure to that level of precision (2.99792458E8), then we would list it to whatever accuracy we were certain about (perhaps 2.997825E8).

The square root of your c-squared concoction works out to be 299,792,425 m/s.  That may be fine for you (and your purposes), but if you hope to communicate effectively with others, you really need to start using a different terminology for it.

Kind regards,
Carl

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Viraj. 

That is interesting what you said regarding the "resident frame".  

You wrote, 

"What distinguishes a resident frame from an arbitrary reference frame is that the mass of any object within it is an integral part of the body to which the frame is attached. For example, a particle of mass m moving in a laboratory is part of the total mass M of the Earth. If an asteroid were to strike Earth and impart an additional velocity, the particle would also acquire this velocity, as it is part of the Earth's total mass. Galileo referred to such a motion of a part with the whole as "common motion."

So if a meteor struck the earth, or there was an earthquake or something similar, the particle would conform to it's earthly frame?  It seems this wouldn't apply to "life-size" objects, such as a ball thrown.  It would seem to continue on it's original trajectory regardless of what's going on with the earth's frame.  Why would this apply to particles though?  I don't mean that it doesn't, I just don't know and can't see how.  This sort of reminds me of the magnet and wire scenario that Einstein mentioned in his 1905 paper.  Where the relative motions of the magnet and wire always create a current.  However, when the magnet is in motion (and the wire is "stationary"), there is an electric field within the vicinity of the magnet, yet when the magnet is stationary (and the wire is in motion) the electric field isn't there.  This seems to raise questions which Einstein didn't ever seem to answer.  It would seem that each scenario would bring forth consistent results.  Given that it is the magnet and wire interacting relative to each other.  So does the earth itself play some role in this unusual anomaly?  I brought this up with ChatGPT and went through several exchanges.  I asked what if the experiment were set up witin a vehicle that traveled at a very slow velocity, to where the scenario of the magnet and wire were reversed, to where the magnet that was once stationary (relative to earth) was instead in motion.  It's the same scenario, the only difference is that the experiment is performed on a vehicle in motion.  At first, ChatGPT stated that the conditions would stay the same, given the principle of relativity. Though when I kept questioning, it might have "realized" what I meant, so it then suggested that the magnetic field of earth might play a role in the discrepancy.  I hadn't previously heard of this, and ChatGPT admitted it was just a thought, without documented experimental verification or anything.  Anyway, does this seem relevant in regards to your view of the earth as a "resident frame"?  I thought it seemed somewhat similar.  I have to admit I hadn't previously heard of "resident frames".  

[Carl Reiff]

Dear Frank,

I was thinking you were referring to something I wrote in my most recent e-mail to you.  Thank you for clarifying that it was something I wrote a while back.

Kind regards,
Carl

----------------

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Carl. 

You wrote 

"We know the same thing about the speed of light.  We have accurately measured it to be 299,792,458 (+/- 0.5) meters per second.  Heck, we are so sure about it, we even redefined the length of the meter based on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Speed_of_light_definition).

If we weren't sure to that level of precision (2.99792458E8), then we would list it to whatever accuracy we were certain about (perhaps 2.997825E8)." 

Have you possibly seen or heard of Rupert Sheldrake's "banned" TED talk?  He speaks of how the accepted value of the velocity of light had dropped and was inconsistent throughout the years 1928-1945.  And that later on the meter was "fixed" by defintion.  He asked the question of how to know we know we currently have the correct value.  It seems inevitable that today there is vastly improved intrumentation to measure c, however, how to know for sure?  They seemed certain of those mistaken values of the past.  I haven't read through all of the posts here, as I'm new to this forum, though I wanted to ask if you're an advocate of Special Relativity?  Have you read A.G.Kelly's paper which shows that the Hafale/Keating experiment was fabricated?  At what level to trust various reports of experimental verification?  Of course, as a scientist, it seems that some level of trust seems necessary, though how much?  And how to effectively determine when it seems reasonable to have a degree of skepticism?  If you're interested, here is a link to Rupert Sheldrake's TED talk video.  If you want, you could fast forward to 9:45, where he begins to speak of "constants".  I'm interested to know what you think.  Thanks. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO4p3xeTtUA 

[Frank Fernandes]

Carl, All,

David De Hilster gave an entire talk on evidence for the absence of Aether on a Saturday.

Now David is part of a study group for a Modern Aether. Its good.

https://naturalphilosophy.org/groups/aether-theory/members/all-members/

A student of chemistry will easily understand how the MM Exp. works. Spectroscopy.

It takes time to unravel experiments and ideas of the early 1900s as funding is with academia who present exactly what peer review wants to hear where everyone thinks the same.

In the great books program the works of Aristotle are described from the human eye. The observer. And logic.

Today we are in the realm of metrology where a measurement replaces the observer eye. So the only eye observation is that of the readout on the precision instruments.

So the eye in a closed accelerating elevator tells the human nothing. However a speedometer on the accelerator will.

A person will jump out of these discussions when ideas of time dilation are scrutinized from the view point of metrology.

Similarly in 1927 with no data of NIST that we have today Heisenberg talked uncertainty.

His voice was heard. Because he belonged to an elite group. Yet I point out a fundamental flaw . Namely that delta is change and not uncertainty. And literary writers mix up human social relativism with objective reality from the view of metrology.

This literary logic is ok at the Historical time period of the Greeks. And true today. However, we need to grow further in the field of metrology in the uncertainty in terms of significant figures in the data booklets of NIST which Carl points out.

Over 40 years I got tired of changing the nIST values and so am lazy in these discussions to input the defined values of CODATA.

However, I have done the changes only to in the future have to redo according to newer NIST values.

To put into context Viraj's paras in this thread - this is how I visualize the example.

Gravitons make aitherons. Aitherons make particles. Particles make 186-ether. 186-ether make an ether toroid.

The aggregates of particles are the ship and ball in the etheric sea.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj, et.al.,

I copy and paste your (Viraj's) reply to mine below, with my query in red

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Akinbo,

You wrote:  "If you accept, then gamma γ = 1, and you can continue from there".

What has been observed is that “relativistic phenomena” occur when a particle is in motion (In motion relative to what?). This implies that when the particle is at rest i.e. v = 0 (at rest relative to what?) the particle does not manifest any relativistic phenomena.

You know that g = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2.

What is that value of v that will satisfy your condition γ = 1?

That happens only when v=0. 

So I agree with you that when γ = 1 there will be no relativistic phenomena when the particle is at rest.

But that does not mean that the particle will not manifest relativistic phenomena when it is in motion.

Best regards,

Viraj

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many claim that their theories reveal or support “relativistic phenomena”. This is a quantitative claim. To substantiate this claim, virtually all appeal to gamma (γ) and are ALL agreed that it has formula given by 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2. By ALL, I mean Einstein’s SR/LT; revised versions of SR; Lorentz Ether transformation (LET), Selleri transformation (ST), and we can include “Viraj physics”. In spite of this unanimity in agreement on the formula for γ, there is violent disagreement on what the ‘v’ in the formula means. This suggests that these theories merely want to latch on to the success of claimed discovery of relativistic phenomena, without any rigorous descriptions of the terms in their physics. This is opportunistic.

Viraj, Here I note your statement that your own version of relativity is different from SR.

Let me now attempt to describe/define what ‘v’ is in the different theories...

• Einstein’s SR/LT = v is the velocity of LINEAR separation between two systems, and so can be represented by motion on a given axis, say x-axis. He was more consistent than his followers. One of the two systems is the "observer", while the other is the "observed", initially co-located and thereafter separating in a line joining them.
• Revised versions of SR = There need not be any separation between two systems and v can be the orbital/tangential velocity between two systems. There is no need for motion on a given x-axis.
• LET = v is the velocity relative to Ether medium, where this ether may be Earth-bound or an absolute universal medium not fixed to Earth surface. When interrogated this leads to theoretical inconsistencies. For Earth-bound ether, if the v is relative to this, then the v in γ = 0, so there can be no time-dilation of length contraction to explain MMX result. For universal ether medium, the v will be much higher than the 30km/s, Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun, and therefore the amount of time-dilation and length contraction will be at least 10 times more than what the Lorentz Ether theory proposes to explain MMX. Supporters of LET therefore have to define what v in γ is with clarity. This is awaited.
• SET =  v IS the orbital/tangential velocity between GPS satellite and Earth-centred inertial frame (ECI). This theory cannot be used to consistently discuss extra-terrestrial physics, such as Lunar laser ranging, Pulsar timing observations and any physics in which ECI is in motion.
• Viraj physics = v can be both linear or orbital velocity, it does not matter to the relativistic physics. As a result, there is no requirement to represent the motion on a given axis, say x-axis. Viraj physics also appeals to a "universal energy field" but we are unclear about the relationship between v and this energy field. In one post, we are told that v is linear velocity, and in another we are told it is orbital. In one breath, we are told vis relative to Earth, and the Earth is not the same as the universal energy field. Clarity is lacking. Yet, request for clarity or expressions of doubt concerning the existence of "relativistic phenomena" are tongue-lashed as if one has uttered a scacrilege.
• 
  
• In Galilean transformation (GT), motion of any sort has no effect on length or time, so v = 0, and γ = 1. The onus lies with advocates of relativistic phenomena to tell us: What is v in gamma (γ)?

Can they do so? They have been evasive concerning this request.

*I add Jerry Harvey jerry...@gmail.com. I also hope Nick Percival, a supporter of LET gets this as his emails sometimes bounce back.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>

[Frank Fernandes]

There are several velocities in the MM experiment as in the slide below. The true nature of acceleration, g is revealed.

Without Ether nothing can be explained. Check for Jupiter, Mars etc.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Frank,

You say, 

There are several velocities in the MM experiment as in the slide below

And I ask, which, after defining it, is to be used in calculating gamma?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:58 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

[Frank Fernandes]

Akinbo,

If you take a look at the photon in the lensing experiment, [Copy and enlarge] the change in frequency with associated velocity is solved. The variables in the MM experiment are acceleration of ether of the Sun in particular and Earth. And acceleration of ether in a body in this case the interferometer of the MM exp. Think of ether as an escalator in 3d.Whatever the human body weights they all travel at the same acceleration of the ether escalator. The change in freq delta f can be applied to gamma of GRT. I have shown this in our last email thread discussions for Bohr, Pions, Muons, Electrons and Einstein's 1905 paper equation at the end of his paper.

The null experiment is not 0.4.  However all interferometers are now designed on the MM thought process. LIGO is particular.

Anthony Rizzi mentioned in a whisper that the limit of a graviton was 10e-58Kg. I jumped when I heard him say that because the graviton of the Fernandes Ether Model is 7.37e-58Kg. Then 10e7 gravitons comprise an aitheron of 7.37e-51Kg. The exponential ratio of gravitons and aitherons produce the ratio of speed of light squared and Coulomb's constant which is velocity squared.

This table reveals exactly what is happening in the invisible domain of the Universe.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Frank,

Thank you. Do you believe in gamma factor (), Yes or No?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 5:39 PM

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

I am sorry that you have not been able to keep in lockstep with the context of this thread. You are asking me “in motion relative to what”. Scroll back and you would find that I was referring to experiments conducted on earth by Walter Kaufmann in 1902 in this thread (just prior to Einstein first paper being published).

In a general sense, to your question “In motion relative to what?” my answer is “relative to the ‘resident frame’”.

If you need to know what I mean by ‘resident frame’ it is what Aristotle to Newton called the “Place”. According to Aristotle        “ ‘place” is where a body will come to rest”. So in Galileo’s ship if a ball is thrown inside a cabin, the ball will come to rest on the ship. So the ship is the “Place” in this case.

You wrote: “Let me now attempt to describe/define what ‘v’ is in the different theories...”.

It is not the “various theories” and their definitions of v that we are concerned in this thread.

What we are concerned are the empirical observations that were made by Kaufmann, (when he was carrying out experiments with fast moving particles on earth. So it is superfluous to ask me “relative to what” – it has to be obvious it is relative to earth).

Kaufmann observed that if he applied momentum mv to a particle of mass m expecting it to move with velocity v, according to Newton’s law, the particle moved at velocity v(1-v²/c²)^1/2. Or in order to get the particle to move at velocity v he had to apply momentum mv/(1-v²/c²)^1/2.

I would like you to grasp that the requirement of mv/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 is an empirical observation and not somebody’s whim or a theory. Newton’s 2^nd law is only an approximation applicable for the condition v/c -> 0.

Under that condition mv/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 -> mv.

So the real law is Kaufmann’s empirical law: “in order to get the particle to move at velocity v  it requires momentum mv/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 to be applied”.

The whole litany of your definitions of what v is in various theories is superfluous, as against the empirical observation made by Kaufmann and by thousands upon thousands of experimenters ever since the over the last 123 years.

Your denial of Kaufmann’s empirical law is like the man who insisted that gravity does not exist on the surface of the earth (in entire denial of an empirically observable fact).

Akinbo wrote: In Galilean transformation (GT), motion of any sort has no effect on length or time, so v = 0, and γ = 1. The onus lies with advocates of relativistic phenomena to tell us: What is v in gamma (γ)?

You have referred to “Galilean Transforamtion”. What do you mean by “Galilean Transformation? Can you give a practical experiment to verify what you call “Galilean Transformation” is?

Best regards,

Viraj

[Frank Fernandes]

Akinbo,

I believe 100% in the gamma factor. 

The gamma factor is the reason for pair production, wavelength and De Broglie waves, Planck's constant h, the appearance of the Rydberg constant, the Ideal gas equation, Cooper pairs, electrolysis of water, etc.

Ex. Mass of an electron, m times the Gamma factor ϒ yields a new measure of electron mass, m*

This measured mass of an electron is the frequency of an aitheron. The frequency as stated by NIST as that of an electron.

Light from Light.

[Frank Fernandes]

Akinbo,

The answer to the gamma factor is directly related to Carl's question of measured mass. The electron measured mass is zero if the aitheron frequency is zero. However the aitheron is alive and well at 10e-51Kg.

So if the measured electron mass is measured zero it means that the electron converted to pure energy according to Einstein. 

THIS IS FALSE. The aitheron frequency is zero. THIS IS TRUE. When the aitheron frequency is zero 186-ether has the freedom to move. 186-ether is elementary charge. Or oxidation state. THERE IS NO ENERGY MASS CONVERSION. JUST MEASURES.

6.24 e 18  or one coulomb produces 1.16e10Kg ether. Coulomb squared produces 1.3466e20Kg. which is 10e7 in ratio with ether at large. This is the reason for amperes law and current squared and charge squared.

The velocity squared of ether of Sun or Earth or Moon or any star is the source of acceleration due to gravity.

The search for gravity is over and was over except that it takes time for a paradigm shift to basic algebra.

I have presented 5 papers to the mainstream because mainstream folks know math.

The eye observer is fine with the Greeks and literary artists and painters and poets. Metrology for mass radial length and frequency the inverse of intervals of time.

[Frank Fernandes]

Error

Coulomb squared produces 1.3466e20Kg. 

Correction,

1.86e-9Kg/e  squared produces 1.3466e20Kg squared.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Frank,

Your 100% belief in gamma factor is fine. This is quantitative issue and not a qualitative one like beauty or taste that depends on the beholder. This being the case, what is the definition and value of the ‘v’ that you use to arrive at the gamma factor being observed for experimentally in particular cases?

This is lacking in your responses.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 2:41 AM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

Yes, you brought in Kaufmann and his experiments to justify the existence of gamma. I was discussing gamma within the context of Special relativity and like theories.

The Kaufmann and similar experiments involve electrons, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments

In my opinion, the issue of gamma factor and electron mass cannot be resolved independently of wave-particle duality, mass being a property of particles and not that of waves.

Why must we then rely on what may involve wave-particle duality speculations to discuss gamma, when we have experimental observations that do not involve possible wave-particle duality? I accept though that could be your choice approach.

 

If we check here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor, we see ‘v’ defined as: the relative velocity between inertial reference frames

 

At the time of Aristotle, motion was thought to be relative to what you refer to as ‘resident frame’, i.e. ‘place’, where a body will come to rest. It was believed that no place or residence was at rest. This was also Galileo’s view which he described using his ship thought experiment. ALL motion OR rest was deemed relative and nothing was absolutely at rest.

 

It was Newton after “thinking without ceasing” that came up with the view that there is a place of absolute rest. The Earth is not at rest, neither is the Sun or the Milky way galaxy. Only Absolute space is at rest and motionless. He described several thought experiments to establish this ‘absolute resident frame’, which is not different from what you referred to as “universal energy field”.

 

If there will be an appeal to gamma factor, it is motion to this universal energy field that you are compelled to appeal to. Not motion relative to Earth or motion of electron to the source from which it is emitted, which places are not themselves at rest, but are moving in space/universal energy field.

 

Re: “You have referred to “Galilean Transformation”. What do you mean by “Galilean Transformation? Can you give a practical experiment to verify what you call “Galilean Transformation” is?”

 

In Galilean transformation, if ALL the participants in an experiment are below deck in a ship moving at uniform velocity in a straight line, then ‘v’ = 0 in such experiments (Galilean relativity). For a light experiment, the participants will include the light source, the light detector, and the light wave medium.  That is, ALL are sharing what you previously referred to as “common motion”. There is therefore no requirement for inventing or invoking gamma factor to act on length, time, frequency in order to explain the experimental result of this common motion, which is what is found in MMX. Unfortunately, this is what was done by Einstein for SR and Lorentz for LET.

‘v’ has no role to play in experimental observations below deck as Galileo illustrated. For those, who therefore claim ‘v’ has a role to play, they owe us the responsibility of telling us what the value of ‘v’ is.

 

Now for the invocation of gamma, as you do in Viraj physics, if the ‘v’ is relative to the resident frame, please say so and inform if it matters that this resident frame is also moving in space at high velocity, e.g. 370km/s, and if it is, whether this motion of the resident frame should not be added to that of the particle ejected from it at ‘v’?

Note that Galilean transformation and Newtonian physics tell us that the velocity of the resident frame is to be added to that of the projectile emitted from it.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 8:40 PM

To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

[Frank Fernandes]

Akinbo,

The value of v is in 4 slides. However, here they are - the detail in 4 slides in this email thread.

Ex. Bohr Model

v = c/137.036        the gamma factor = 1 - [v squared/c squared]

Electron mass x gamma = reduced electron mass.

Electron mass - Reduced electron mass = two Rydberg Photon masses

Ex. Grav. Lensed Photon

Vel squared = FTL x v*

v* = R x Freq

 

See Table   -   DELTA frequency x aitheron mass         The delta frequency is the lensed frequency

The table clearly shows the relationship between the MM experiment, GRT, Velocity squared

Ex. Forces on Stars and Planets

Force of Moon = Force of Sun

Acc is the key.

Acc = g        where g = velocity squared of Ether / string length of the pendulum   or arm length of a interferometer

eV/e = V = a =g  when a is that of an ether toroid.

Ex. Fringes are Ether Fringes  the d/2 in the MM experiment or any Spectrophotometric fringe.

If you expand this email thread you can download the slides. All empirical data.

[HARRY RICKER]

Viraj,

You said this: The whole litany of your definitions of what v is in various theories is superfluous, as against the empirical observation made by Kaufmann and by thousands upon thousands of experimenters ever since the over the last 123 years.

I disagree that it is superfluous. The problem is that the definition of what v is is the crucial point of how a theory is to be applied. I see you also bring in the thousands and thousands of experiments canard. 

In my opinion, Nick Percival has pointed out a crucial point, which is that the experiments at CERN, show that the v to be used is the v defined relative to the ECI frame of reference. 

In my opinion, special relativity is useful, because the frame of reference used to define v, is defined as the observers frame, and that makes using the laboratory or Earth rest frame appear to be the correct frame. But relativity also allows the moving frame of the particles to be considered as the rest frame. When this is done the theory produces the well known paradoxes. Hence, the idea that you can chose any frame to be the observers frame is disproved. Perhaps you would like to comment on how your theory removes this difficulty.

Harry

[Akinbo Ojo]

Frank,

Thanks again. But can you please define what ‘v’ is in the gamma factor in which you believe in 100%. This need not be more than a sentence and does not require reference to slides, empirical data, etc.

See for example the definition just provided by Harry, albeit attributed to Nick Percival. Is that definition okay by you?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 2:04 PM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Harry,

Thanks for coming to my rescue. In the formula for gamma (γ), v is the only variable according to the theory. This being so, it needs to be properly and consistently defined since this is the factor that determines how much time dilation or length contraction that will be required to implement the postulate of SR.

For instance, the v in γ determines how much length contraction will be needed to prevent a lower than postulated resultant light speed due to observer motion away from incoming light, while the v in γ determines how much time dilation will need to take place to prevent an earlier than expected light arrival that would result in a higher than postulated resultant light speed due to observer motion towards incoming light. These two expected outcomes were not observed in MMX hence the resort to gamma.

Now, it is good that you have posted a definition, albeit attributed to Nick Percival, i.e. v is relative to the ECI frame of reference. Now, although Einstein was clear in his 1905 paper that his v was linear in a given axis, we may accommodate an orbital velocity in the ECI frame to minimize arguments.

In MMX, this definition of what v to use in determining length contraction and time dilation would mean either of two things

1) If we use v as a velocity in the line/axis joining ECI to the interferometer, this would have a value of zero, i.e. 0m/s. That means γ = 1 in MMX, implying no time dilation or length contraction occurred in that experiment.

2) If we use v as an orbital velocity of the interferometer around ECI, this would have a value that can vary from 0m/s at the poles to 465m/s at the equator. Considering how small this will be compared to the speed of light, the value of γ must surely tend to unity in MMX, implying again that the null finding must be explained by Galilean relativity where γ →1,  rather than LT/LET/ST.

I may have to more to say on this when or if we reach a consensus on the definition of what v is in  the gamma factor.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 3:11 PM
To: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

[Frank Fernandes]

Akinbo,

The word velocity v is from two component velocities. And the two component velocities are needed for acceleration.

And then any velocity can be deconstructed as distance x frequency.

And the distance is empirically defined by the photon mass by the charge squared equation.  e squared = photon mass x R

The importance of the Sun acceleration ether and Earth acceleration ether and Moon acceleration ether is obvious.

The frame means acceleration. 0.4 in the MM experiment is wrong.

It is not enough to say velocity v. One has to link the mass moving at v of v squared.

That is why I took two materials namely sodium and Cs. They emit different photons and that changes things again.

The accelerating frames change things. However the accelerating frames are locked in with the material celestial bodies - entrained.

There are two forces - the ether force of 1.21 e10e44 Newtons across one radial meter. And current squared force that opposes gravitational force....levitation. The ether force produces the d/2 fringe measure in the MM experiment.

The recent laser light produced a super solid free flow material body in an experiment  - another word we call - Photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis in plants is what they have mimicked. The super solid flow change texture of photons to what I call ether particles that obey the Shwarzchild radius for twin masses.

The research, led by Dimitris Trypogeorgos and Daniele Sanvitto at the National Research Council (CNR) in Italy, involved firing a laser at a gallium arsenide structure with precisely engineered microscopic ridges. This interaction created polaritons — hybrid light-matter particles — that exhibited supersolid behavior.

[HARRY RICKER]

Akinbo,

I am trying to be clear in saying that I don't agree that the issue of what v is relative to is superfluous. I do not agree that v is relative to to any inertial frame that we choose. There has to be a definition of what the reference frame is and that this frame is an absolute one. That means that we can not choose any other frame and claim the physics in that frame is the same as in the rest frame. This means the Lorentz theory is correct since there is one and only one reference frame relative to which v is defined. In my view the reference frame is unique from the point of doing mathematics in a local physics frame of reference. I agree with Nick that the frames we use must be local ones, if we are to do the calculations correctly. In the case of doing physical experiments, that frame is the unique ECI frame.

Regarding the MMX, I don't think this experiment is being correctly interpreted, and so I think it should be disregarded as misleading and leading to false conclusions. I do agree with Viraj that the theory of relativistic physics ought to be founded on the Kaufman experiment. MMX is not the correct foundation as claimed in textbooks because using that as a foundation leads to all of the mathematical errors and mistakes produced by Einstein's special relativity ideology. Among the false ideology are things like the principle of relativity, constant light velocity dilation of time and contraction of space which I believe are false and incorrect ideas. 

Harry

[Jerry Harvey]

Harry, 

I know we've already had many conversations regarding the ECI frame for quite a while.  I wasn't ever sure why the ECI frame is the only valid frame in the universe.  I think what the principle of relativity means is simply that objects exist and travel relative to each other, and if they don't accelerate, they experience a sort of equilibrium that maintains those inertial conditions.  Such as the way that a ball bounces on the "stationary" ground, the same as it does if it is within a vehicle that travels at a constant velocity.  Where each of these frames, the ground, and the vehicle in motion, exist as equally valid.  Of course, idealized frames can't exist in reality, since some level of gravity is always present, such as on earth, and even in outer space where celestial objects exist at quite a distance would have a highly miniscule influence.  

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Akinbo,

You wrote: “Yes, you brought in Kaufmann and his experiments to justify the existence of gamma. I was discussing gamma within the context of Special relativity and like theories”.

 

I suppose you are mistaken or you have forgotten about the contents of Einstein’s 1905 paper (which laid the foundation of Special Relativity).

I refer you to the very last section of Einstein’s “Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Perhaps you are not aware that Einstein’s paper consisted of two parts. Part I “Kinematics Part”, Part II “Dynamic Part”. In Part II he discussed about experimental results. At the time he wrote this paper he was a clerk at the Patent Office in Zurich. He did not have access to do experiments of his own. Although Einstein in a very non-academic manner has not made any references, what he discussed in the "Dynamic Part" were mainly in regard to the experiments on fast moving electrons carried out by other scientists like Kaufmann, Abrams and Lorentz.

Here’s an excerpt from the very last part of his 1905 paper:

"The results of the previous considerations show that the mass of a body is not constant; it varies with the velocity according to the relation

m=  m₀/ (1 –v²/c)^1/2

Hence, the faster an electron moves, the greater its mass. If the electron is suddenly brought to rest, its kinetic energy must have been given up to the electromagnetic field."

— Einstein, A. (1905). "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891-921

 

Akinbo the term Galiliean transformation was not there in the terminology of physics, until the beginning of the 20^th Century. The term was invented, in view of the above phenomenon of what they thought to be “mass increase” and the appearance of a magnetic force when an electron is in motion etc. for the express purpose of the above mentioned inflow and outflow of energy from the electromagnetic field.

In order to set an electron of mass m in motion at velocity v it was found that it requires momentum gmv.  This implies that while the electron moves with momentum mv, the fraction (g-1)mv is used for some other purpose (if we go by what Aristotle told us: “Nature does nothing in vain”).

Let us suppose that some other purpose is (g-1)mv is used for the generation of the magnetic force (when the generation of the magnetic force.

Let the distance be x that the electron would have moved in time t, if the whole of the applied momentum gmv was used up for its motion.

But in time  t, it moves only a distance vt (using only momentum mv).

So what is the distance equivalent x’ of the fraction of momentum  (g-1)mv.

x’ = x –vt   - -------(1)  this in essence is the abstract mathematical meaning “Galilean Transformation” – Classical Mechanics

But just like in the above case of inflow of kinetic energy to increase mass  from m to gm (as Einstein has mentioned above), there is an inflow of “kinetic momentum” from the field to augment the  magnetic force. Hence  the augmented displacement equivalent is:

x’ = g(x –vt)  - --------(2) this in essence is the abstract mathematical meaning “Lorentz Transformation” – Classical Mechanics augmented by inflow and outflow of field energy.

At the turn of the 20^th century classical mechanics failed to account for “relativistic phenomena” because it was not aware of the inflow and outflow of energy from the field.

Best regards,

Viraj

[Roger Munday]

So, we have Frank Fernandes' "explanation" in which he suggests adding another unexaminable subatomic particle, a "polariton", to the existent, extreme and ultimately hypothetical structure of  matter, which "particle" is of course also experimentally totally unexaminable.

So you have unexaminable  "ionised plasma, bose Einstein condensates, quark-gluon plasmas, etc. etc. etc.

And none of you can explain how the forces, which are observed to hold the Moon in its orbit around Earth, are transmitted.

Roger Munday

[Frank Fernandes]

Roger,

The paper in the Hadronic Journal Dec 2024 as linked in this email thread provides the evidence you are looking for.

I have solved one mole volume. 

Here is a detail using the Josephson equation and the Hall Quantum. See slide presented at SIPS Crete last Nov 2024 by me.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Harry,

I have no significant disagreement with your first paragraph, save to seek clarity and to add that in the “one and only one reference frame relative to which v is defined”, there are 3-axes, x, y, and z, and the motion to be analysed MUST take place in only one axis, which for convenience is labelled as the x-axis of that frame, “if we are to do the calculations correctly”.

 

However, it is common for calculations and observations of motion within the frame to be conducted along axis different from x, such as in an axis tangential/perpendicular to it. This is a source of confusion and against the starting premise contained in the equation

x’ = x – vt

 

This equation means that after time zero, when t’ = t = 0, there is motion along the x-axis at a velocity v, so that after a duration of time t, the observer stationary at x finds that there is a separation along that axis equal to vt.

If the motion is not along x-axis, or is on y or z-axis, or tangential to x-axis, these fall outside the contemplation of the transformation being analysed with x’ = x – vt. But many including Viraj, Stephan, I don’t know about Nick, do not give a damn whether this is so or not, claiming the axis in which motion is taking place need not be x and does not matter.

 

On the Kaufmann experiment...

Force can be exerted on charge q causing it to move. This can be from electrostatic or electromotive (magnetic) means. If the charge q does not accelerate as much as expected from the F applied, is increase in mass the only plausible reason? I don’t think so. Some of these experiments claim otherwise.

“In 1904, Lorentz proposed that the mass along the trajectory of motion (longitudinal mass) and the mass in the directions perpendicular to the motion (transverse) are different” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments

Newton using several thought and real experiments (Globe, Bucket, etc) sought to demonstrate that his Absolute space vacuum had properties. Notable among these are extreme tolerance to longitudinal motion of a body of mass m, and some degree of resistance to curvilinear/transverse motion of the same body. Does this then justify saying such a body has a longitudinal mass and a transverse mass, as is attributed to the electron in experiments? Or is Absolute space telling us about its resistance to certain types of motion which is interpreted as if the body is increasing in mass, whereas its mass remains unchanged but it the path it wants to follow in space that is responsible for the seeming increase in mass. I believe Newton will prevail at the end of the day.

No difference in longitudinal or transverse mass, but there is difference in the longitudinal and transverse resistance properties of vacuum to motion.  

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 5:23 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Viraj,

Yes, a version of Einstein’s paper confirms what you say in your opening statement. This is the version I have access to, See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)

But I was not the one who introduced Kaufmann and his experiments to the menu.

When we were discussing earlier you accepted the logic of Newton’s Absolute Space pointing out what it lacked for it to be the universal energy field that you preferred. I then tried to tell you that Absolute space had those properties you thought it lacked.

If you look at the arguments in this link, you will observe that it suggests that transverse mass > longitudinal mass.

Why can it not be otherwise, that mass is mass, but universal energy field (as you prefer) has more resistance to transverse motion than longitudinal motion thereby given the impression that there is an increase of transverse mass over longitudinal mass?

 

It will be too long to reply you on Galilean transformation in this message. But I do not agree with you that it was invented because of “mass increase”.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation#Translation

Your meaning or interpretation of x’ = x – vt is also unorthodox.

x does not mean a distance moved, but rather an unmoved point on the x-axis. Yes, vt is the moved distance. That is why x – x’ = vt. If no motion takes place x = x’.

How this equation is now stretched to inflow and outflow of field energy is mind boggling. More discerning readers like Harry and Carl may be able to comprehend better.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 7:36 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>

[Jean de Climont]

Dear Sir

The gravitational waves of the space-time mathematical continuum escape the quantum mechanics duality.

This is explained in the Youtube video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZYSD4klhQ

The Text of the video is attached.

This is one of the few major unsolved problems in physics mentioned by Professor Alain Aspect, Nobel Prize winner in Physics.

There are many other "major problems". Some concern the very foundations of physics.

They are presented in the Youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8_k_3d6M-Q

The Text of the video is attached.

Best regards,

Jean de Climont

P.S. The 2025 issue of the Worldwide list of alternative theories is now available in GoogleBooks

[HARRY RICKER]

Akinbo,

I was only addressing the issue of the definition of v. The velocity needs to be defined in a clearly defined frame that is unique. Unique means there is only one frame, and no others to be used to define v. Relativity says one can have an infinite number of such frames and so results in mathematical errors.

Regarding the direction of motion, the Lorentz transform changes the units of measure in the direction of motion only, and the axes are aligned so that the motion occurs only along the x axis which is aligned to the direction of motion v. 

It is my opinion that Einstein's claim that mass changes in motion is as false as his claims that time dilates and length contracts. These are mathematical mistakes, and false conclusions because of his use of incorrect mathematics.  All of the mistakes are because Einstein and current physics uses the wrong mathematics to describe relativistic physics. 

Because the Einstein mathematics is incorrect it needs to be corrected before making new physical theories as Viraj is doing. I have proposed a theory to do this, but it is ignored by dissidents. In the theory I propose, the Lorentz transformations do not change time space, or mass, but change the units of measure for these quantities. That means the measure scales are different. When the scales are changed as per the transformations, the velocity that is measured in the new transformed units in the direction of motion is unchanged. That is, put differently, the Lorentz transformations preserve the velocity in the moving frame. So light velocity is the same measured in the rest frame or the frame moving with velocity v relative to the rest frame. That is all there is to the mathematics of the transformations. Time does not change, or space or mass, what is changed is the units of the scale used to make the measurements. 

So in the Kaufman experiments, the scale of momentum measurement is changed, so that when accelerating particles to high velocity the scale of momentum measure changes, so that more momentum per unit mass  must be applied to attain a unit change in momentum. This means the mass appears to have increased. 

Harry

PS The way to understand the scale change is to visualize two rulers side by side with different scales of measure. For example scales in inches and centimeters.  Since there are 2.54 centimeters per inch, the inch scale is dilated relative to the centimeter scale. What gamma does is define the factor that changes the units between the two measure scales, for Lorentz transformations between frames of reference, the same as the factor 2.54 relates the number of centimeters per inch. 

[Frank Fernandes]

Roger,

There are many emails and you may have missed the slide on the Forces of Sun Moon and Earth. Do expand all the emails and you will easily find my slides. Here is another for Moon and Earth.

[Roger Munday]

My post a month ago:-

https://thesciencespace.quora.

This link above states that "absolute zero is impossible to reach in practice".

And if you ask this particular question of the non-existence of matter online, you will get numerous such statements and or prevarications, and if you also ask the "one way gravity" question you will get similar responses.

When will you come to the obvious conclusion that an absolute "vacuum" is a universally impossible state, and that the atmospheric 2.5 x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cc at sea level are continuous.

Either grow up collectively, or carry on with your endless and baseless arguments.

And your assumptions that this essentially innumerable number of atoms are separated by vacua.

And you still have no idea how the Moon is held in its orbit around Earth.

And, no doubt you consider yourselves "physicists" !

Roger Munday

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

The Moon's relatively weaker N-S field is aligned with the Earth's stronger N-S field, and both are aligned N-S in accordance with the vast, far stronger and all encompassing  solar N-S magnetic field.

Roger Munday 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Thank you Jean for this collection of Unsolved problems. I have my favourites among them.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Unsolved problems in physics

 

[Frank Fernandes]

Jean de Climont,

I went over the video links.

So here is the Fernandes Ether Model which is the confluence of several theories and empirical formulae.

1. Mass of Star or planet x Speed of Light Squared = Ether Mass x Velocity Squared

Velocity Squared / Radius = acceleration due to ether gravity

Hence Ether is present because the ether mass is the only unknown of 4 variables and so can be obtained from radial length.

2. The distribution of ether mass is constant 1.346611109 c 10e27Kg/radial meter. This is true at the subatomic scale and galactic scales.

I have shown this to be true for Sun-Moon-Earth Jupiter Mars as well as for an electron. etc.

For an electron just divide eV/e = acceleration. The acceleration times ether mass produces the Ether Force of 1.21e44N.

3. The fringes in the wave particle duality experiment are Ether Fringes. d/2 in the MM Experiment can be gotten utilizing the Ether Force.

Wave-Particle Duality - Fernandes-186 Ether particles wave the Ether field.

 

 

4. The graviton as defined by me with the creation of an aitheron, 1st step in creation.

 5. Definition of Quantum - Frequency of an aitheron mass. Produce measures of photon mass, electron mass, proton mass, atomic mass. Photons have mass.

6. I have defined 1Kg and 1 mol Volume as the volume of photon paths. Hadronic Journal Dec 2024. Photons have mass. The photon masses which produce volume of our measures are the reason for the Hall Quantum Constant and Josephson Eqn.

7. The mass does not convert to energy. When aitheron frequency is zero the measurement of mass vanishes. The aitheron still is at lightspeed squared.

8. The photon/electron/proton/atom frequency f3 produces a 186-ether mass. The mass is the same Planck mass by 137.036 the fine structure constant.

9. The 186-ether frequency f3 again produces an ether toroid. The radius of which produces wavelength. Lambda = 2Pi R x 137.036

This is how particles produce waves.

10. I have rewritten the definitions of electricity and magnetism.

Current I = mc/e or mv/e  where c and v produce the gamma factor and thus produce particles such as muons, Pions, Rydbergy photons by mass defect. The mass defect measured in eV is Temperature.

Voltage is eV where the V is acceleration = c^2/R

Electric Resistance Ohms = I/m = c/e  or v/e on pair production the basis of voltmeter calibration

Magnetic Flux Phi = h/2e = I/r x Pi x R x r x137.036    A torus

11. The Boltzmann constant k is 2pi x 10e-7 x 137.036 x e

12. The gamma factor proves the mass change where daughter photons or particles are produced by loss in mass of the parent particle. The Rydberg photons are a classic example. Same with electrolysis experiments.

Notes: It is very important to define which mass is associated with which velocity to breakthrough equations via experiment.

The convergence occurs here,

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Frank.  

I'm new to this forum, though I had some questions regarding your ether model.  I've seen previously in the forum, such ideas as ether acceleration, the ether force, ether gravity, etc.  I've heard of many different conceptions of the ether through the years, though I hadn't ever heard these terms.  Could you please send one of your papers which describes these phenomena?  Thanks.  

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

In the other email thread now at 80plus emails you have received the slides that depict what you are asking for.

You can download all my emails with slides and text in that thread. Its there.

Incase you have not gotten those emails I will resend them.

Regards

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

Here is the start slide on Ether. The existence of gravity from ether is obvious. I will wait a day for error pointing. Sun-Earth balanced.

[Jerry Harvey]

Thanks, Frank.  

You had mentioned the acceleration of entrained ether.  Is This similar to the ideas of Le Sage and Fatio?  Where miniscule particles which travel at high velocities into all directions and their interactions with physical phenomena cause the effect of gravity?  

[Carl Reiff]

All:

 

I put together the paper referenced below in response to several discussion topics that have occurred in these e-mail threads.  Like many of you, I have been seeking for answers to some of the more mysterious aspects of physics.  Several list members have their own models, which they have shared over time.  I have taken interest in them with the intent of properly understanding them.  To this end, I have at times participated in the discussions, usually to seek clarification.  Sometimes it involved challenging/interrogating the protagonist regarding their model.

 

In the paper, there are items which some readers may find appealing – as they share similarities with their own models.  However, it’s not that I adopted their ideas.  Rather, they are concepts which I already had.  We just happen to see those things similarly.

 

Here, I am going to mention a few individuals by name whom I think might have a particular interest in the concepts presented.  It is by no means a complete nor an exhaustive list, nor is it in any particular order. 

 

First, Franklin has often asserted (and I’m paraphrasing) that the magnetic field doesn’t extend out to space, so how could the supposed electromagnetic nature of light work there?  Here’s a quote from one of his e-mails: “…my argument is that a magnetic field can only be a local phenomenon. Why would you think it would be long range?”  I show in the paper that the electromagnetic nature of light can exist (and be necessary for the propagation of light) without any magnetic field in space.

 

Next, Viraj and I share a lot of thoughts in common.  At least I think so.  I have been thinking for quite some time that photons involve two aspects, or are composed thereby.  I have had names for those two aspects for some time now.  (They are introduced in the paper.)  Viraj recently wrote an e-mail where he also expressed the idea of photons having (or resolving into) two components.  Although our conceptions seem to differ on what these components are, he nevertheless gave them a name:  photinos.  I rather like that name – as a generic term for my two specifically named individual components.  So, with the attribution here, I hope Viraj doesn’t mind my using it in the paper.

 

Next, Tom is a proponent of ballistic theory.  I have always been on the wave side of the issue.  However, lacking what I consider credible evidence of a “solid” medium capable of propagating transverse waves, I have been seriously contemplating the photonic/ballistic model of light some time.  It’s not to say there isn’t something in/throughout space (as noted in the paoer), it’s just not a propagating medium for light.

 

Next, Frank has something akin to cycling energy in the shape/form of a torus, as I understand it.  I present similar structures.  We also share that the radius of the torus is directly related to wavelength.

 

In summary, the document is the result of an attempt to reconcile various seeming inconsistencies in physics.  It is only a few pages and limited in scope, addressing only a few interrelated topics.  In some respects, it is a bit of a departure from anything else I’ve come across over the years.  That’s probably because I’ve always seen what I consider to be flaws/inconsistencies in other models – including relativity.  Heck, there was an aspect of my own model or way of thinking with which I wasn’t satisfied.  The paper is a first cut, but it provides the information necessary for the topics addressed.  I present it for your review and consideration.  Please feel free to comment. 

Here is the link to the paper: http://elgenwave.com/gravitationalflow/on%20the%20role%20of%20the%20field%20in%20relativistic%20phenomena.pdf

Kind regards,
Carl

----------------

On 3/8/2025 2:30 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

In your first paragraph, I think you have a valid logical objection to the Bucket experiment. Leibniz would have been proud to have used it against Newton, if this was available at the time. It was just one of the grounds that Newton developed to argue his case that motion was an absolute phenomenon AND NOT based on relative displacement between bodies alone. That is, the fact of rest is absolute and not based on relative position between bodies. See his globe experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_spheres#Background

 

But I think this is now fairly settled today since Absolute space, hitherto invisible, now has markers in the form of the cosmic microwave background. This has been used to determine absolute velocities. And the radiation is analogous to the fixed stars preferred by Mach as reference. As a result of all these, the fact of motionlessness or otherwise of an object in space is established.

So given two globes equidistant with a cord joining them, and a tension measurement device in the cord, we can continue the experiments...

We should find that:

For linear motion at uniform speed relative to CMBR, the tension remains present in the cord but remains constant at all speeds, whether at 5km/s or 1000km/s, as long as both globes remain equidistant and motionless relative to each other.

For rotational motion at uniform speed relative to CMBR, the tension remains present in the cord but increases if the circular speed increases, and reduces if the circular speed of each globe increases, notwithstanding that both globes remain equidistant and motionless relative to each other.

So, for rotational motion a force has been invoked to act, which was not observed when both globes were equidistant and motionless relative to each other, BUT moving linearly in the same direction.

The source of this force is what is now contended. The only difference in both scenarios is that motion is uniformly linear in one and uniformly circular in the other. How clear am I?

I am attributing the source of this force as being an intrinsic property of Absolute space vacuum or as you say, “space, the background, the field, the aether, whatever”.

Divulge your secret when you have reached a state of readiness to do so.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 8:58 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>
Cc: Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Einstein’s Relativity Theory Debunked by Restoring Galileo’s Principle of Common Motion

 

Hi Akinbo,

I believe we are discussing a slightly different version of Newton's bucket.  Per the wikipedia link, his was Earth based, where gravity caused the water to be forced downward in the bucket and the surface to be level at rest.  I don't think anyone at the time, including Newton, understood how liquids would behave in a weightless environment.  There are videos aplenty showing astronauts drinking (looks more like eating) floating globules of water in the ISS.  So, when you say, "the water surface will assume a concave appearance even in a weightless environment," you are incorrect.  If you spun the jar, the water would soon uniformly line the sides of the jar - forming the shape of a cylinder (of some thickness, depending of quantity of water relative to the size of the jar).  And it wouldn't matter in what orientation the axis of rotation was - as there is no up or down in weightlessness.

You wrote: "Acceleration however means that a force has come into play and is acting on the water."  Well, assuming the jar is fixed relative to the observer's spaceship, and the ship fires its thrusters, then one side of the jar would actually push against the water, causing the water to be all on one side of the jar.  Then, the water would have a flat surface inside the jar, although assuming the ship (and jar) is accelerating to the left, the surface of the water in the jar would be vertical relative to the observer - assuming the observer is sitting in a chair like on the interior wall of an accelerating bus with the chair facing the other side of the bus, instead of facing toward the front.

For your next two sentences, I would characterize the lethargic behavior of the water as merely resistance to being accelerated.  But I concur with you that it (the resistance to being accelerated) has to do with space, the background, the field, the aether, whatever.  Just why/how that is, I'm not yet ready to explain/divulge.

To your first red comment: "Ocean tides due to the Moon appear to testify otherwise."  Tidal water is not is a condition of weightlessness, so it is outside the scope of our discussion.

To your second red comment: "Consider yourself as owning a space ship. You fuel it to escape gravity. After escaping Earth gravity, you check your fuel tank. If you continue in a straight line at uniform speed will the fuel in your tank diminish? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you decide to continue in a circular path at uniform speed will the fuel in your tank diminish? If so, why? If not, why not?"

"By 'escape' I assume you mean far beyond our solar system.  At that point I also assume the thruster is turned off, and coasting along at a constant velocity would ensue, so the fuel in the tank would not diminish. 

If I decide to convert from a linear to a circular path (which would be a neat trick), say to the left, I would rotate the ship to the left 90 degrees.  I would somehow pick a spot (tough to do in the middle of intergalactic space), engage the thruster just the right amount (again, tough to do), and keep the nose constantly pointed at that invisible spot.  If all is miraculously done just right (like I said, a neat trick), my ship would orbit that spot in a circular fashion.  And, yes, since the thruster is engaged, the fuel in the tank would diminish.

If any of my assumptions were not what you intended, please clarify.

Kind regards,
Carl

-----------------

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

The equations describe the phenomena. My method - to use empirical data to measure the unknown quantity by ratio and proportion. Metrology. The equations tells me that gravitational acceleration is at the slow velocity squared of an Ether Toroid compared to speed of light squared. And that say the mass of Earth or Sun or Moon is at speed of light squared. We are at lightspeed.

The ether at large is at lightspeed squared - the ether spread in the entire continuum of the void of space and interval of time. 

Newton, Einstein, Coulomb converge at the Fernandes-186 Ether twin mass.

See Slide and click at three dots for hidden slides. I have solved the Hand of God number below.

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Frank. 

How could  c² apply to the ether at large?  What does that mean?  Does the ether itself travel?  If so, in only one direction?  Into every direction?  What composes the ether?  

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

Speed of light squared = 25812.807 x 3.4818188467453e12 meter squared per second squared

VRK = 25812.807m/s  and FTL = 3.482e12 m/s

VRK is the rotational ring spin speed of a 186-torus where the ring turns about the major torus axis R.

FTL is the pulsation of the skin on the 186-torus by 137.036 to the Planck scale.

So speed of light is about a radial distance of R = 1.36e-29m

And   Mass of Ether x VRK x R = Planck,h   Here De Broglie enters at the convergence point of Newton Einstein Planck and Coulomb. Ether 186-Mass = 1.8592221e-9Kg

And Mass x R = charge squared. This is the source of Electric charge or Oxidation State of atoms.

In other words gravitational acceleration is a radial pulsation in 3d in all directions. 

This gravitational acceleration a =g  is the same value as volt V in eV.

a=g=V      eV/e = V = g

I will get to the word travel over 4 emails or so.

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Frank. 

I don't see why the velocity of light is relevant.  And why squared?  Is the ether somehow connected with the effect of light itself?