[Jerry]

<div>Hi Salih. Thanks for your interest!</div><div>

You wrote,”What do you mean by instantaneous? You know, instant for light means going around the world about 7 times.”

</div><div>

What I mean by “instantaneous” is that light doesn’t travel at all. That when a light source illuminates, it arrives instantly to everything in it’s “way”, whether the distance is a few inches, or a few light years. It is perceived as a presence, that you don’t have to “wait” to see.

</div>

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Why would light take a longer way in the reference arm in MMX?

Isn’t it said that one of the reference arms shortened, or was “pushed” by the ether?

How could we ever know this is a valid theory, since even if you try to measure the alleged shortened reference arm, the yardstick would shorten with it? Is this shortening visible to our eyesight?

What type of evidence is there for this theory?

[Jerry]

To rephrase one of my last sentences.

The acceptance of this highly questionable theory is what at least indirectly led to the highly questionable theory of time dilation.

I want to say that I don’t know with 100% certainty if the constancy of c, or time dilation is incorrect. However, I’d say my “acceptance of them is much less than 1%. 🙂

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. You posted this as an update.

“No, I do not accept magical light speed independent of observer motion. Instead, light speed is constant in relation to the state of motion of the ether.”

I have my extreme doubts regarding the constancy of c myself. The acceptance of this incorrect theory is what at least indirectly led to the also incorrect theory of time dilation.

If the velocity of light is determined relative to the ether, or by the earth’s travel through the ether, would you say the ether is “fixed and stationary” or possibly “unfixed, malleable, or even somewhat swirling around” within all or some areas throughout the universe?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response.

Would you say you accept the idea that the velocity of light is constant? Where it always travels at exactly 186,282 miles per second, regardless of how fast the light source or observer travels relative to each other?

[Jerry]

Hey, I tried to delete those last two responses, yet without luck. I’m sorry if i seemed unfriendly.

[Jerry]

Also, couldn’t we limit the posts we start, instead of having the multiple “Expanding Earth” threads?

[Jerry]

Hi Eugene. Thanks for the link.

“The CNPS website is directing mail for other expanding earth
participants to me and filling mailbox. I don’t need or want the excess
mail.”

Did you mean that my inquiries in this forum annoy you? You know, this is a place where we discuss such ideas. Couldn’t you decline the obligation if it’s too much for you?

[Jerry]

Hi Eugene.

If there were no oceans in the distant past, how did all the water that covers the majority of the surface of earth materialize? Was it at first hidden deep within the earth, such as how “spring water” does? Was it somehow “created” by the massive joining of Hydrogen and Oxygen?

[Jerry]

<div>Also,
</div><div>

“You have not got the result zero. You have no result at all. You have confused the value zero with not existing value.”

Of course, it’s well known that the Michelson and Morley experiment result was “null”. Some considered that as evidence that the ether doesn’t exist. While others thought the null result was illusory, and indirectly proved the ether actually does exist.

So, is the null result what you meant by “result zero” or “value zero”? Then you mentioned “not existing value”. How would these differ exactly? Did you mean that each of these different views look at and accept the same evidence, of the seemingly null result, yet arrive at different conclusions? I don’t think anyone who is familiar with the experiment would disregard it completely, and say it’s without value. Just a thought.

</div>

[Jerry]

<div>Hey, I looked up “anti-parallel” and “orthogonal” and they seem the same, or very similar. How would you personally define them?
</div>

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

To me, the tree analogy seems understandable to a degree. With the history of planet earth, have the number of mountains and oceans ever changed throughout the millennia? I haven’t read too much about the expanding earth theory. Was it ever possibly the cause of earthquakes, or even volcanoes? Isn’t that ascribed to plate tectonics though? What all similarities exist with these two sort of opposing theories?

Also, I could see how the vastness or magnitude of the earth could increase. How would wavelengths increase though? The wavelengths of what exactly?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

“Light in MMX is moving in 2 anti-parallel directions and are affected by the ether wind.

The separation between atoms is controlled by forces moving in 2 anti-parallel directions.”

<div>So this means that the MMX has the two anti-parallel directions, that would seem to create the shape of an X. So what happens when the light doesn’t travel exactly parallel with only one of the directions? That it instead travel between them? Such as this…. —-> X
</div><div>

So if the results of the MMX always turn out appearing “null”, why couldn’t we consider the real possibility that the ether simply doesn’t exist? Since it’s presence doesn’t seem to show up in the experiment, why invent all the complicated hidden conditions to maintain the illusion of the unnecessary ether?

</div>

“In atomic clocks bound electrons move forth and back in relation to the ether wind.

This is done in one dimension of 2 compared to MMX.

So, relative effect is 1-vv/2cc (instead of 1-vv/cc for MMX).

The same as SRT”

So does the atomic clock work as somewhat of a pendulum effect with electrons? How would the ether interfere with that effect? What if the pace of the atomic clock is increased or decreased by the accelerations of the clock? That is, instead of the orientation of the ether? Isn’t the ether’s position constantly reoriented by the spin and orbit of the earth?

[Jerry]

Could you possibly describe why you think that the atomic clock is affected by the ether?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

I agree that time dilation doesn’t exist. You wrote, “the frequency of an atomic clock depends on the ether wind.” Does how you arrived at that conclusion involve length contraction? or that the aether “pushes” objects to shorten?