Dear John

Sorry, the link of the first reference is this. The other link works well.

I said inertial and non-inertial systems of reference. The Sagnac experiment is an experiment related to non-inertial systems of reference, so any analysis of this experiment should be done having in mind a theory that considers non-inertial systems. The paper I cited on the one-way speed of light explains why the speed of light is constant when is measured.

Regards

Israel

Your paper assumes sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in transverse arm. That is wrong. No effect in transverse arm.

Regards ____________________ John-Erik

Dear John

It is not an assumption per se, it is derived from the theory. If you think it is wrong you should develop the corresponding mathematical formulation and submit it to a journal.

Regards

Israel

Israel

I have described how, in 1882, the effect in transverse arm was introduced in error. In the law of reflection in a mirror we must use wave vector c and only longitudinal component of the ether wind, since mirrors are transparent to the ether wind. Therefore in advanced optical systems we only can detect wave front normal with very high precision by means of phase. The vector sum can only be roughly estimated based on amplitude.

Sagnac effect is physically described by a translating line (not by a rotating area). That line can be straight and not closed, as seen in the Sagnac correction in GPS).

Crystals must be built by positioning of atoms based on the ether. So, positioning forces move force and back between atoms with speeds c+v and c-v in the same way as light between mirrors in MMX. So, real and compensated effect in longitudinal arm.

So, with correct interpretation all tests you assume to confirm Lorentz invariance are in fact demonstrating Galilean invariance.

I suggest that you read IS THE ETHER WIN DECIDABLE? again.

Regards _________________ John-Erik

    Dear John

    Thanks for the reply, it is not necessary that you post it in my entry to call my attention; I check my posts. Thanks for the reference. In my previous post I gave you an advice: If you think you are right try to publish your results in a well recognized journal. I think, that's the best you can do.

    Good luck in the contest!

    Regards

    Israel

    Thank you very much.

    I will read your article.

    Good luck.

    Regards ______________ John-Erik

    15 days later

    dear John, I presume that questions always give rise to new ideas that May rewrite physics in this age. old read/review my take on how anthropic bias is the basis of science here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks in advance,all the best.

      Otis

      You asked about my view on stellar aberration.

      I think that ether wind cannot tilt a wave front, since the ether wind adds the same velocity to all points on the wave front. To change orientation needs different ether wind in different points. This means that only a GRADIENT in ether wind can change a wave front. No wave front tilting in transverse arm in MMX either. MMX was misunderstood in transverse arm by a particle thinking.

      Observer motion is different and has the same effect on a wave front as on a particle. So, when we observe a fix star there is no REAL bending only an illusion.

      You mentioned Ed Klingman. I think I read an article by Ed a couple pf years ago.

      Perhaps I am more clear in my latest paper. I send a copy, and if you want you can send it to Ed.

      Regards ___________________ John-ErikAttachment #1: The_Michelson_Question_in_PDF.pdf

      Thank you for your answer. I understand your statement that either motion or a gradient of ether wind can cause a wavefront to bend. But is it possible to show that the bending causes the wavefront to align perpendicular to the direction of propagation by the time it arrives at the surface of the Earth? It would seem that this condition is necessary for a telescope on the surface of the earth to focus the star correctly and to explain stellar aberration.

      Best Regards, Otis

      Dear Erik Persson,

      You may read my new comment on Klingman's page. We answer the question why SRT is successful and fundamentally wrong at a time.

      Eckard Blumschein

      9 days later

      Dear John.erik,

      You and I had a few discussions when in NPA. At that time you were promoting the aether and I was suggesting that the background of space being gravity itself provides your aether. In your new paper you suggest 'a unification between ether wind and force of gravity' . This is exactly what I have promoted.

      We have also agreed about a pushing type of gravity. You mention here about Fatio and his connection with Newton while I took on the LeSage similar view and solved the mistaken errors that killed the 'Proper " view of gravity for both Le Sage and Fatio.

      You have also done some nice graphs that take on the fixed speed of light.

      I am printing out your paper to support my ideas. I Rate your paper very good! Perhaps mine will sound good to you.

      I wish you the very best

      Paul Schroeder

      Dear John-Erik

      Glad to read your work again.

      I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

      While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

      I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

      Warm Regards, `

      Vladimir

      5 days later

      Vladimir

      I have read your paper, and I found it very intersting. As you said, it really contains food for thought.

      Many thanks for that paper, and good luck for you.

      Regards ________________ John-Erik

      Write a Reply...