On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity.." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > Laurence
> > >
> > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > >
> > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> Laurence
>
> No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
>
> With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
How is doubling a deception, not a deception?

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity.." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > Laurence
> > >
> > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > >
> > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> Laurence
>
> No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
>
> With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":
>
> John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
>
> The situation is even more dramatic. Theoretical physicists know that, in 1887, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and later "borrowed" by Einstein as his 1905 second, "light" postulate:
>
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
>
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> The deliberate lie:
>
> "The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world." http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
>
> Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!" https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>
> Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment)..." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
>
> Brian Cox, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
>
> Ethan Siegel: "The speed of light doesn't change when you boost your light source. Imagine throwing a ball as fast as you can. Depending on what sport you're playing, you might get all the way up to 100 miles per hour (~45 meters/second) using your hand-and-arm alone. Now, imagine you're on a train (or in a plane) moving incredibly quickly: 300 miles per hour (~134 m/s). If you throw the ball from the train, moving in the same direction, how fast does the ball move? You simply add the speeds up: 400 miles per hour, and that's your answer. Now, imagine that instead of throwing a ball, you emit a beam of light instead. Add the speed of the light to the speed of the train... and you get an answer that's completely wrong. Really, you do! This was the central idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity, but it wasn't Einstein who made this experimental discovery; it was Albert Michelson, who's pioneering work in the 1880s demonstrated that this was the case." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/27/five-discoveries-in-fundamental-physics-that-came-as-total-surprises/
>
> Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
>
> Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring." https://www.amazon.fr/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X
>
> Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
The second postulate is not derivable from the MMX because light in the MMX followed Galileo's principle of shared momentum. That was Galileo's point. Namely, that just as on the ship in its cabin moving with uniform linear motion everything shared the same momentum, on Earth at shore everything did even though the Earth was moving.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > Laurence
> > > >
> > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > >
> > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > Laurence
> >
> > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> >
> > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity.. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > > Laurence
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > > Laurence
> > >
> > > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> > >
> > > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> > Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.
> Laurence
>
> You are just repeating historical facts about Lorentz and Poincaré.
> Nothing about TWO ANTIPARALLEL motions.
> Nothing about TWO relativity theories substituted by ONE ether model.
> Nothing about my theory. Do you not understand it?
I understand that it involves ad hoc reasoning, which is deceitful, and that it is etherist relativity theory you think is not relativity.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity.. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > > Laurence
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > > Laurence
> > >
> > > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> > >
> > > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> > Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.
> Laurence
>
> You are just repeating historical facts about Lorentz and Poincaré.
> Nothing about TWO ANTIPARALLEL motions.
> Nothing about TWO relativity theories substituted by ONE ether model.
> Nothing about my theory. Do you not understand it?
I understand that an ether model with length contraction is relativity.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity.. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > > Laurence
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > > Laurence
> > >
> > > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> > >
> > > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> > Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.
> Laurence
>
> You are just repeating historical facts about Lorentz and Poincaré.
> Nothing about TWO ANTIPARALLEL motions.
> Nothing about TWO relativity theories substituted by ONE ether model.
> Nothing about my theory. Do you not understand it?
Anyone rationalizing the MMX to save the ether wind from the null result is a relativist. There is no ether since there is no ether wind.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:48:06 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all.. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > > > Laurence
> > > >
> > > > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> > > >
> > > > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> > > Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.
> > Laurence
> >
> > You are just repeating historical facts about Lorentz and Poincaré..
> > Nothing about TWO ANTIPARALLEL motions.
> > Nothing about TWO relativity theories substituted by ONE ether model.
> > Nothing about my theory. Do you not understand it?
> Anyone rationalizing the MMX to save the ether wind from the null result is a relativist. There is no ether since there is no ether wind.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 2:06:04 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:48:06 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > > > > Laurence
> > > > >
> > > > > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> > > > >
> > > > > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> > > > Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.
> > > Laurence
> > >
> > > You are just repeating historical facts about Lorentz and Poincaré.
> > > Nothing about TWO ANTIPARALLEL motions.
> > > Nothing about TWO relativity theories substituted by ONE ether model.
> > > Nothing about my theory. Do you not understand it?
> > Anyone rationalizing the MMX to save the ether wind from the null result is a relativist. There is no ether since there is no ether wind.
> Laurence
> Sorry, but there is no use in discussions of this kind
> John-Erik
The kind of discussion when you pretend you're not a relativist.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 2:06:04 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:48:06 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:12:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+1, Dono.. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible explanations:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My estimate:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) 95% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) 5% true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > > > > Laurence & Pentcho
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > > > > If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first p
> > > > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not at all the same reason. Time dilation is an absurd illusion caused by ether wind dependent clocks. I have proved how TWO ANTI_PARALLEL motions compensate each other, and you have not understood the idea at all. Double length contraction is needed to explain MMX. We can use Galilean transform. You have not observed that my explanation also is without relativity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regards from __________________________________________________ John-Erik
> > > > > > > Length contraction is a part of relativity. You have not understood elementary logic, and neither did Einstein nor do relativists, or they wouldn't accept relativity. Please get a book on informal logical fallacies and read it.
> > > > > > Laurence
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, no, no, double length contraction is NOT a part of relativity theories. You must read all my posts again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
> > > > > Time dilation and length contraction (relativity) were needed exactly to save the ether from the ether wind. Einstein kept the and dumped the ether. He was a loon. There is no ether. Relativity was originally an etherist creation. Lorentz and Poincare were etherists.
> > > > Laurence
> > > >
> > > > You are just repeating historical facts about Lorentz and Poincaré.
> > > > Nothing about TWO ANTIPARALLEL motions.
> > > > Nothing about TWO relativity theories substituted by ONE ether model.
> > > > Nothing about my theory. Do you not understand it?
> > > Anyone rationalizing the MMX to save the ether wind from the null result is a relativist. There is no ether since there is no ether wind.
> > Laurence
> > Sorry, but there is no use in discussions of this kind
> > John-Erik
> The kind of discussion when you pretend you're not a relativist.

Assume that a light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Einsteinians want the speed of light relative to the observer to remain constant, but for this to happen, the motion of the observer should somehow change (decrease) the distance between subsequent pulses. And, obviously, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the distance between subsequent pulses.

How do Einsteinians solve the problem? There is a simple directive:

When you teach Doppler effect in light, avoid moving observer - talk about moving source only. If you still decide to teach moving observer, don't discuss speed of light relative to the observer and distance between pulses (wavelength) simultaneously.

The directive is universally obeyed. So far I have found only three exceptions:

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength...The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:19:33 AM UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Assume that a light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:
>
> https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
>
> Einsteinians want the speed of light relative to the observer to remain constant, but for this to happen, the motion of the observer should somehow change (decrease) the distance between subsequent pulses. And, obviously, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the distance between subsequent pulses.
>
> How do Einsteinians solve the problem? There is a simple directive:
>
> When you teach Doppler effect in light, avoid moving observer - talk about moving source only. If you still decide to teach moving observer, don't discuss speed of light relative to the observer and distance between pulses (wavelength) simultaneously.
>
> The directive is universally obeyed. So far I have found only three exceptions:
>
> Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength...The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html
>
> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html
>
> Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho

See my earlier post where I said that expressing GRT clock prediction in terms of escape velocity instead of gravity potential gave the same equation for SRT and GRT clock predictions. So, SRT effect can be caused by a tangential ether wind and GRT effect can be caused by a radial instead. THEREFORE, ONE ETHER MODEL INSTEAD OF TWO RELATIVITY THEORIES. NO TIME DILATION AND NO EFFECT IN THE REFERENCE ARM

You will also see the effect in the measuring arm is real but compensated by TWO MOVING ANTI-PARALLELL FORCES. This contraction must be TWO times the Lorentz'.

THEREFORE: DOUBLE CONTRACTION AND NO TIME DILATION EXPLAINS MMX.
No relativity and Galilean transform instead. What is your opinion?

With best regards from ________________________________ John-Erik