Primary roots to SRT and GRT.

[John-Erik Persson]

To all 

1. Newton did not completely understand his own discovery. (No attraction; emergence). So, GRT followed after many years with the help of Einstein.
2. Michelson used the particle model for light, instead of the correct wave model. So, SRT followed after some time, with the help of Einstein.

Take a look at the attachment.

From ____________ John-Erik

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Interferometers measure time differences.
Michelson did not believe he was using the particle model.
The reference or perpendicular arm should have a time delay just as a swimmer swimming across a stream or a wave moving across a stream does.

"We can see that he was wrong by applying the wave model for light and find that ether wind
in the reference arm falls inside the wave fronts."

The only way the ether wind falls within the wave fronts would be ether drag. Then there would be no need for length contraction either.

If the ether is stationary, both arms are affected.

I wouldn't expect relative motion per se to cause any length contraction, much less exactly the amount necessary to nullify the ether wind.

Length contraction and time dilation are highly illogical concepts because they are both ad hoc and involve a reification fallacy. Both fallacies involve dodging the issue of causation they pretend to solve.

According to your wave model, does gravity affect light?

I don't think gravity requires information transfer to function.

Yes, bending space involves the reification fallacy, which begs the question of causation.

It seems that pulling gravity is as good an idea as pushing.

We certainly don't need special or general relativity. Anything good in them is neither original with them nor exclusive to them.

Einstein was completely wrong. Einstein made the most ridiculous mistake in science history [ https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=131011&group=sci.physics.relativity#131011 ]

[John-Erik Persson]

Interferometers measure time differences. Yes
Michelson did not believe he was using the particle model. OK
The reference or perpendicular arm should have a time delay just as a swimmer swimming across a stream or a wave moving across a stream does. Only if he must land in a specific point, but if he does not care if he lands in a different point time delay is not needed.

"We can see that he was wrong by applying the wave model for light and find that ether wind
in the reference arm falls inside the wave fronts."

The only way the ether wind falls within the wave fronts would be ether drag. Then there would be no need for length contraction either.

If the ether is stationary, both arms are affected.

I wouldn't expect relative motion per se to cause any length contraction, much less exactly the amount necessary to nullify the ether wind.

Length contraction and time dilation are highly illogical concepts because they are both ad hoc and involve a reification fallacy. Both fallacies involve dodging the issue of causation they pretend to solve. Time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction are illogical, but no time dilation and doubled Fitzgerald contraction are logical. This means that 2 anti-parallel motions in light are affected by 2 anti-parallel fields acting between atoms to control separations.

According to your wave model, does gravity affect light? Yes, gravity is caused by the ether wind that is causing gravity.

I don't think gravity requires information transfer to function. Gravity depends on data in different points so gravity is caused by the ether.

Yes, bending space involves the reification fallacy, which begs the question of causation.

It seems that pulling gravity is as good an idea as pushing. No gravity is not attraction but emergent due to the ether.

We certainly don't need special or general relativity. Anything good in them is neither original with them nor exclusive to them. 

From ___________________ John-Erik

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/ddc58b00-3184-4be8-be48-96c701713f5an%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The math shows the same difference in time whether he swims straight across or with the current. It is obvious that if he covers a hypotenuse, his trip is longer and takes longer.

Length contraction is not logical because it involves ad hoc and reification fallacy.

I don't think light is affected by gravity.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>No gravity is not attraction<<

double negative

statements with double negative can have two meanings, therefore are ambiguous

can mean

(i) gravity is not an attraction

or

(ii) gravity is an attraction

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/ddc58b00-3184-4be8-be48-96c701713f5an%40googlegroups.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/CA%2BVgi-a11KPj9OndNn24g-xWKG070dmzbqkGapXMCHXLv%2BuXrw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

The math shows the same difference in time whether he swims straight across or with the current. It is obvious that if he covers a hypotenuse, his trip is longer and takes longer. No, if he is minimizing length it takes a longer time. If he is minimizing time the length is larger.

Length contraction is not logical because it involves ad hoc and reification fallacy. Fitzgerald length contraction is not logical. However, doubled length contraction is logical by 2 reasons: First no time dilation needed and second that 2 anti-parallel light motions can be affected by the ether just as 2 anti-parallel forces controlling the atomic separations in a crystal.

I don't think light is affected by gravity. Gravity is caused by a radial motion of the ether and this ether motion affects light speed.

From _________________ John-Erik

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/3e6f45a3-6841-48a8-b2f1-958d1b6b0366n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

When a wave or boat moves across a stream, it is delayed the same amount because of the increased length of the hypotenuse. The only way the length is not increased is if the ether is not stationary.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I think we can easily understand a comma after "no." Then it is just redundant.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence

When a wave or boat moves across a stream, it is delayed the same amount because of the increased length of the hypotenuse. The only way the length is not increased is if the ether is not stationary.

No. The stream causes a delay only in the case when the stream is compensated in order to minimize path and land at the same point. (particle model) If it does not matter where landing on the opposite side takes place it is possible to minimize time instead and time is therefore unchanged. (wave model)

Michelson's mistake was to think in particle terms instead of in waves. This mistake ended up in special relativity.

Regards from _______________ John-Erik

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:22 PM Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we can easily understand a comma after "gravity." Then it is just redundant.

On Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 3:24:52 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/cdefedcb-67be-4e1d-895b-fdc0778a0f35n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

no comma

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/159b100a-7ade-4713-88d8-55c7bbfe1b8cn%40googlegroups.com.