Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 12:44 am I dont know who Demnajov is or what he did, but all experiments Ive heard of show invariance not variance. And I proved invariance with classical wave physics so that makes sense.

I think length contraction is silly because no one has ever measured the arm of the interferometer contract. And there is zero experimental evidence for such contraction. So it doesnt actually happen. Because Lorentz was wrong and made it up to explain the null result of MM experiment which can be explained by classical physics without silly Lorentz transformations.

I hav no doubt that the aetherwind affects the shape of solids.
It might affect length, or it might affect width, or it might affect shape (length/width) in some ratio.
Prof Reg Cahill (Adelaide) showed the correct calibration of MMXs. Except that Demjanov (Obninsk) was the first, in 1968.

crawler wrote: I hav no doubt that the aetherwind affects the shape of solids.

Then prove it. I proved what I claimed (that speed of light is invariant for moving observers in classical physics).

It might affect length, or it might affect width, or it might affect shape (length/width) in some ratio.

It doesn't because no such alteration was ever measured. Because length contraction is simply a mathematical trick that Lorentz made up to explain the invariance aka null result of MM experiment. It has nothing to do with a variance as you seem to imply.

Some relative physicists from Physics forums and Phyiscstackexchange claim that the wavelength does not change for a moving observer, but a quick google search shows that it does just as I have stated:








So they presented a false argument and then banned me when I explained why they are wrong. This again shows just how ignorant they are of classical physics. But they are also arrogant and think they cant be wrong.

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 1:46 am Some relative physicists from Physics forums and Phyiscstackexchange claim that the wavelength does not change for a moving observer, but a quick google search shows that it does just as I have stated:








So they presented a false argument and then banned me when I explained why they are wrong. This again shows just how ignorant they are of classical physics. But they are also arrogant and think they cant be wrong.

Is this a joke? Do you actually believe the physics of the speed of sound are in any way applicable to the physics of the speed of light ?? ,, that light and sound are in any way comparable? You are being silly, right?

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 1:29 am

crawler wrote:I hav no doubt that the aetherwind affects the shape of solids.

Then prove it. I proved what I claimed (that speed of light is invariant for moving observers in classical physics).

It might affect length, or it might affect width, or it might affect shape (length/width) in some ratio.

It doesn't because no such alteration was ever measured. Because length contraction is simply a mathematical trick that Lorentz made up to explain the invariance aka null result of MM experiment. It has nothing to do with a variance as you seem to imply.

No proper (ie gas-mode) MMX has ever been null or invariant (eg Michelson Morley)(Miller Morley)(Demjanov 1968 at Obninsk)(Michelson Gale Pearson with their MGPX)(Sagnac with his SX)(etc)(Cahill 2001-2017 at Adelaide)(etc).
A vacuum-mode MMX gives a null result (nearnuff), which supports length contraction (or width contraction or some other kind of shape change).
Esclangon showed with his EX that the aetherwind gives us angle contraction (due to LC or WC or SC).
I am not sure (i karnt remember)(i used to look closely at this aetherwind stuff & MMXs many years ago) whether Lorentz believed strongly in shape change of some kind (ie due to the aetherwind affecting EM forces governing the shapes of solids). Searle did. I think FitzGerald did. Larmor did.
Otherwize any kind of mirror-light-clock analysis/derivation/model is krapp (but might luckily give the correct gamma/numbers anyhow)(in some instances)(eg Einstein).
Invariance of c is a proof of LC or WC or SC (eg in a vacuum-mode MMX). Koz the aetherwind affects the lengths/shapes of our rods.
Time dilation (ie variance of time) is a myth, but the aetherwind affects the ticking of all processes due to LC or WC or SC.
Change of mass (ie variance of mass) due to speed/velocity (ie due to a change in the aetherwind) is a myth (unless experiments etc show that it is not a myth).

Maol wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 6:45 am Is this a joke? Do you actually believe the physics of the speed of sound are in any way applicable to the physics of the speed of light ?? ,, that light and sound are in any way comparable? You are being silly, right?

I am being just as silly as Maxwell who calculated the speed of light using Newton's equation for speed of sound:

wikipedia wrote:James Clerk Maxwell began working on Michael Faraday's lines of force. In his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force he modelled these magnetic lines of force using a sea of molecular vortices that he considered to be partly made of aether and partly made of ordinary matter. He derived expressions for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability in terms of the transverse elasticity and the density of this elastic medium. He then equated the ratio of the dielectric constant to the magnetic permeability with a suitably adapted version of Weber and Kohlrausch's result of 1856, and he substituted this result into Newton's equation for the speed of sound. On obtaining a value that was close to the speed of light as measured by Hippolyte Fizeau, Maxwell concluded that light consists in undulations of the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.

But I'm sure you're way smarter that silly Max, cause you discovered so many things about light that he could only dream about.

Also, my demonstration is based on the classical theory of light as a wave in aether, do you even understand what that theory is ? What exactly is wrong or silly with my demonstration in the classical framework can you explain ?

@Maol The ideea is that their criticism for my demonstration of light speed invariance using classical physics (and classical Doppler effect) was that the apparent or observed wavelength does not change for a moving observer in classical wave physics, regardless of whether they are sound waves or light waves, and that the product of f' and lambda' would then be c+v or c-v, instead of c as I got using the correct shifted wavelength. Which actually changes in classical physics for a moving observer and when multiplied with the shifted frequency returns an invariant speed of sound/light, which is the speed of the wave in the medium. Therefore their criticism is invalid, and my demonstration is valid.

@Crawler I havent really looked into other MM type experiments except the official ones done by Michelson and Morley. I dont know how reliable or accurate the other ones are, but I can tell MM has done a huge error by not doing the exp in a vacuum. Basically they did it in earth's atmosphere, so light had a preffered medium which was air, not aether. And that air was comoving with the earth, or was stationary relative to earth. So their almost null result was kind of obvious, since in the basement where they made the exp there was no relative motion between air and the earth.

But the full null result in vacuum can also be explained by fully dragged aether, which means that aether is moved by the earth. In that case no aether wind would be measurable since there is no relative motion between earth and aether either. So the ideea that only length contraction can explain it is not correct, since full aether drag also explains it.

And even a stationary aether explains it, because the speed of light does not change because the earth source is moving relative to aether. You just cant add the speed of the earth to the speed of light, as MM did. Light propagates at a constant speed in all directions in the aether no matter how fast the earth/source is moving through it, and no matter what direction its moving in. That is another basic error they made in their calculations. If you use c instead of c+v and c-v, the result is t=2L/c on the horizontal arm, and also t=2L/c on the perpendicular arm (the latter Michelson-Morley calculated correctly the first time, but Lorentz wrongly corrected them and used Pythagoras instead to calculate a diagonal path which light never takes in MM exp because its speed does not add vectorially with the earths speed)

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Tue Dec 30, 2025 4:00 pm @Crawler I havent really looked into other MM type experiments except the official ones done by Michelson and Morley. I dont know how reliable or accurate the other ones are, but I can tell MM has done a huge error by not doing the exp in a vacuum. Basically they did it in earth's atmosphere, so light had a preferred medium which was air, not aether. And that air was comoving with the earth, or was stationary relative to earth. So their almost null result was kind of obvious, since in the basement where they made the exp there was no relative motion between air and the earth.

But the full null result in vacuum can also be explained by fully dragged aether, which means that aether is moved by the earth. In that case no aether wind would be measurable since there is no relative motion between earth and aether either. So the idea that only length contraction can explain it is not correct, since full aether drag also explains it.

And even a stationary aether explains it, because the speed of light does not change because the earth source is moving relative to aether. You just cant add the speed of the earth to the speed of light, as MM did. Light propagates at a constant speed in all directions in the aether no matter how fast the earth/source is moving through it, and no matter what direction its moving in. That is another basic error they made in their calculations. If you use c instead of c+v and c-v, the result is t=2L/c on the horizontal arm, and also t=2L/c on the perpendicular arm (the latter Michelson-Morley calculated correctly the first time, but Lorentz wrongly corrected them and used Pythagoras instead to calculate a diagonal path which light never takes in MM exp because its speed does not add vectorially with the earths speed)

For good info on MMXs i would read the articles by Prof Reg Cahill (at least 20 articles).
And by VV Demjanov (at least 6 articles).
And articles by many other experimenters & researchers etc old & new.

MMXs in vacuum give nearnuff zero fringe shifts, which supports relativistic length contraction of solids (or at least some kind of shape change).
Aether drag duznt exist, as shown by the non-null fringe shifts in MMXs using air or helium or partial vacuum etc.

The background aetherwind blows throo the solar system south to north at 500 km/s about 15 deg off Earth's axis, RA 4:30.
Then we must add or subtract the effect of the Earth's rotation, & the Earth's orbit.
And we must add or subtract the aetherwind accelerating into the Earth & the Moon & the Sun (where the aether is annihilated).

Interestingly this means that the horizontal component of the aetherwind is zero at some latitudes at some times of day at some times of the year (ie all MMXs would show zero fringe shift)(not important).
Demjanov found in 1968 in Obninsk a horizontal component of aetherwind varying from 140 km/s to 480 km/s per day in June, using his twin media MMX.

Nearly forgot, photons slow near mass, hence c in aether in vacuum slows to c' in aether in vacuum near mass, & slows further to c" in the aether in air or water etc (which is anyhow just another stronger version of c' actually)(ie in mass is like near mass, but stronger).
Allso, flowing air/water/glass etc do not drag aether, they drag photons not aether. Fizeau & Fresnel & Co are wrong here.

Why Light Speed Is The LIMIT? What Feynman Uncovered

https://youtu.be/kWCl7diBGos

Maol wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 10:24 am Why Light Speed Is The LIMIT? What Feynman Uncovered

https://youtu.be/kWCl7diBGos

I watched a few bits.... its just Einsteinian dogma..... space-time rubbish.
I doubt that Feynman mentions that light slows near mass (here Einstein was on the right track, for wrong reasons but).
And it is true that our rods (LC) & clocks (ticking dilation) make it complicated to measure light speed.
DeWitte measured variance in light speed. So did others. Prof Reg Cahill explains.

Most modern experiments measure light speed to be invariant, and they use much more precise instuments than Michelson or Miller and others ever used. Like Fabri-Perot interferometers, they are many orders of magnitude more precise.

And I explained quite simply why that happens, without any length contraction or time dilation, pure classical physics, and three major AIs have confirmed my demonstration is valid: Gemini, Copilot (Chatgpt), and Perplexity. Hell, Gemini even bet all its Bitcoins on it ! So Lorentz, Einstein and Feynman were wrong, because they could not understand that the speed of waves is already invariant in classical physics, and the moving observers can only measure a different frequency and wavelength due to Doppler effect, not a different speed of the wave. These relative clowns were confusing the relative speed between observer and the wave with the speed of the wave, which is plain dumb and explains why Einstein was expelled from highschool.

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Sat Jan 24, 2026 3:38 am Most modern experiments measure light speed to be invariant, and they use much more precise instuments than Michelson or Miller and others ever used. Like Fabri-Perot interferometers, they are many orders of magnitude more precise.

And I explained quite simply why that happens, without any length contraction or time dilation, pure classical physics, and three major AIs have confirmed my demonstration is valid: Gemini, Copilot (Chatgpt), and Perplexity. Hell, Gemini even bet all its Bitcoins on it ! So Lorentz, Einstein and Feynman were wrong, because they could not understand that the speed of waves is already invariant in classical physics, and the moving observers can only measure a different frequency and wavelength due to Doppler effect, not a different speed of the wave. These relative clowns were confusing the relative speed between observer and the wave with the speed of the wave, which is plain dumb and explains why Einstein was expelled from highschool.

Optical resonators confirm aetherwind. But i would hav to re-read my files re this stuff.
Yes they are very accurate, that is why they can find aetherwind effects, even in vacuum, in which case they are measuring what can be called 3rd order effects, ie only found at about 10E13 or some such.

Maol wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 6:45 am
Is this a joke? Do you actually believe the physics of the speed of sound are in any way applicable to the physics of the speed of light ?? ,, that light and sound are in any way comparable? You are being silly, right?

You should learn some classical physics history before arguing on a topic you clearly dont know much (if anything) about. Start with Fizeau's discovery for the Doppler effect for light. He used exactly the same equations as I did, which are the classical Doppler equations for any wave in a medium. Fizeau is one of the greatest experimental physicists who ever lived, and the first who has measured the speed of light and who discovered the shifting effect for light, was he being silly too when he discovered that effect ? Or am I being silly because I think just like he did ? If not even better, because Fizeau did not realise than the speed of light is invariant for all moving observers, despite the fact that Fizeau's equations clearly imply that is the case when the observed frequency is multiplied with the observed wavelength:



Even a 6 grader can do the math and see that the fractions cancel out leaving f0lambda0=c !

So I don't know how he missed that, cause it's kinda obvious really, or maybe he assumed that it was so obvious that it was not even necessary to write it down, so that these relative fools could understand why the speed of light is invariant for all observers. Or maybe he used Galileean relativity to calculate the speed of the wave, like most/all physicists erroneusly did, instead of the wave equation, in which case he was not that bright as I thought.

All they needed to do was to use the correct wave speed equation and multiply the observed shifted frequency and wavelength.


That said, it's trully shocking how silly all these physicists were/are. Looks like I am the single person in the world who realised that the product of the observed frequency and wavelength is always c in classical physics, and that the speed of light is INVARIANT without any 'special relativity' and ad-hoc metaphysical non sense like length contraction or time dillation.
Because the only way to calculate the speed of a wave for moving observers is to use the wave equation and Doppler-Fizeau effect, instead of Galileean velocity aditions which cannot apply to waves, because the wave's speed only depends on the properties of the medium, which acts as the preffered frame of the wave, and is NOT frame dependent.

And what's even more shocking is that, even when I explain them why the speed of light is Invariant using only classical physics, and why the Galileean velocity addition cannot be applied to waves, and how to correctly calculate the speed of the wave for moving observers, by multiplying the observed frequency and wavelength, they still don't get it ! And call me names and even ban me for 'denying' their relative non-sense, which their prophet Einstein revealed to them in his 'anno mirablis', when he made many miracles and transformed time into space, and space into time, and dilated time, and contracted space, while he was smoking his crackpipe and made all kind of imaginary experiments in his mind, which proved that his theory was right. It takes a special kind of stupid to be that stupid, as these special relative 'scientists' are. They're almost as stupid as the religious zealots, who will never admit that their religious non-sense doesnt make any sense, and will keep regurgitating the same holyshit which their prophets revealed over and over again, for century after century, while censoring opposing ideeas and banning 'heretical' world views, until the entire world is flooded with their retarded holyshit, and it literally drowns in it (though those are in the terminal stage of stupidity, basically retarded).