[John-Erik]

I was blocked for more files to CNPS so I sent a link to Research Gate.

Direct to a PDF is possible vie GSJournal. See the link below.

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/8719

[John-Erik]

I am sorry to find that no one of CNPS’s 80 members will discuss Sagnac effect with me.

In my opinion VLBI is the perfect tool for detecting the Sagnac effect. We have 2 perfectly synchronized clocks in opposite sides of our planet, and the motion along the line between the clocks is 30 km/s. This explains VLBI aberration equal to stellar aberration.

Ron disproved SRT, but he failed to give a correct alternative to VLBI aberration.

It is very bad that no one will discuss this important issue.

John-Erik

[David]

John:

People are willing to discuss. But you are here to “tell” us your truth. That is fine. But discussion or comments must show wiliness on both sides to change their minds.

You know all truth already. So discussion is not needed.

[John-Erik]

David

Thanks for mail

You said nothing about my article, and instead you attacked me personally, and said that I could not change my mind. You have no right to say so, since you have never with a single word tried to change my opinion. You will not discuss with me and state that this is not needed. You should be willing to discuss with opponents since there is a very small chance that someone will change opinion. Discussions with supporters will never lead to a change.

You said that mainstream will not talk to you. So, in the same way you will not talk to me because I disprove your guru Hatch regarding VLBI. So, I am a dissident in relation to dissidents.

I have written about 4 articles per year for many years, and that is all I can do in hope of finding respons. I have never got a single review. I have also tried the blog and all so called ‘comments’ mention the article only in the first sentence and then they start preaching other religions and also adding links. I have tried all the directors also. Last one was Nick Percival and he promised debate. So, I sent reviews regarding Steven Bruant and Ron Ward and one more. However I got nothing back and his motivation was that he was not qualified.

You talk good words about ‘critical thinkers’ but what is reality? About 20 members have presented theories often explaining everything and having a name of their own. Most of them are only wishful thinking. Very few people write reviews and therefore almost all of these articles just disappear into a dark hole. I stated that Ray Gallucci could perhaps be regarded as a critical thinker, since he writes about articles from other members. However, he protested and said that he had no ambition to be regarded as a critical thinker.

So, the result of many articles and many blogs is not a single review and not a single effort to chang my opinion from 80 members and 7 directors.

John-Erik

[John-Erik]

David

The Scanda<i style=”font-weight: bold;”>lous Sagnac effect:

Scientists have explained the Sagnac effect in 2 ways:

1. A translation integrated along a line.
2. A rotation integrated over a surface.

These 2 descriptions are equal in mathematics, but scientists have not observed that in physics only the first one is valid, as we can see in the case where light is locked in inside a fiber. I have stated so in a number of articles to CNPS and no one has protested.<div>

This means that Sagnac’s result can be generalized to a straight line.

<div>

VLBI:

VLBI is the most perfect tool for testing general Sagnac effect. Communication between 2 stations separeted by the diameter of planet Tellus with the speed c takes 42 milliseconds. The orbiting speed of Tellus is 10^-4 times c. Therefore, propagation time is changed by orbiting speed an amount of +/- 4.2 microseconds. You cannot find a more clear verification of the Sagnac effect. Hatch was right about Einstein, but wrong about VLBI.

So, for gaining correct results in VLBI scientists have to stop Tellus in its orbit and pretend zero speed in relation to Sun, since they do not understand the Sagnac effect.

Test if I can change opinion:

You can read my article “The Scandalous Sagnac Effect” (it is only 2 pages) and point out only one point where I am wrong and you want me to change opinion.

Question:

Who is it that cannot change opinion?

John-Erik

</div></div>

[John-Erik]

David

In your opinion I am:

1. not able to change my mind. I have changed my mind regarding VLBI, since Hatch’s explanation is in conflict with the principle of equivalence and also that the change in ether wind is detected by 1-way Sagnac effect described in my last article, since it is very clear that VLBI is sensitive to the state of motion of the reference frame. Which is proved by the Scandalous… It seems as you have not changed mind regarding VLBI.
2. arrogant in your opinion, although I have been strict in just talking about physics, and your arguments are regarding my mind, and not my theory. This can of course be provocing since my theory is in many points different from yours, and have to be thinking on my integrety.
3. pushy in your opinion, but this is also a property of my mind that you know very little about. However, in just one sense I my be regarded as pushy, and that is regarding the high number of articles I have sent to CNPS. But that problem is solved now since I am not allowed to send more files.

These points are related to my mind and still offer you to point out one example where i am wrong in my theory.<div>

Regards ___________ John-Erik

</div>