Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry


I was quoting wikipedia and I disagree with the quote.


-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR.
The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't 
know but it makes him appear very thorough.



harry


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration 
of Maxwell's electrodynamics 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving 
magnet and conductor problem 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> , 
the negative aether drift experiments 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as 
well as the Fizeau experiment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein>   to develop the theory 
of special relativity in 1905, which presents a  general form of the 
equation for aberration in terms of such theory<<<



no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.

Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so 
was just something added later.


But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might 
also be discarded anon.



-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy) 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)>



harry


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether


Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according 
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of 
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. 
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. 
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately 
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one 
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by 
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say 
that.


And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect 
infinitely fast through the Aether.



What astronomers teach is an assumption.


On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:


In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in 
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars 
as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what 
astronomers teach.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to 
average to C.
Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, 
then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round 
trip C.

But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.



On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:




If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no 
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking 
further and further back in time.

Harry








On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:




If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn tha

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration 
of Maxwell's electrodynamics 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving 
magnet and conductor problem 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> , 
the negative aether drift experiments 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as 
well as the Fizeau experiment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein>  to develop the theory 
of special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the 
equation for aberration in terms of such theory<<<



no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.

Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so 
was just something added later.


But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might 
also be discarded anon.



-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy) 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)>



harry


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether


Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according 
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of 
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. 
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. 
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately 
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one 
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by 
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say 
that.


And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect 
infinitely fast through the Aether.



What astronomers teach is an assumption.


On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:


In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in 
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars 
as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what 
astronomers teach.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to 
average to C.
Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, 
then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round 
trip C.

But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.



On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:




If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no 
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking 
further and further back in time.

Harry








On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:




If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The fi

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether


Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according 
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of 
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. 
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. 
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately 
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one 
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by 
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say 
that.


And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect 
infinitely fast through the Aether.



What astronomers teach is an assumption.


On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  > wrote:


In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in 
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars 
as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what 
astronomers teach.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to 
average to C.
Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, 
then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round 
trip C.

But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.



On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  > wrote:




If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no 
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking 
further and further back in time.

Harry








On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:




If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a 
success!


But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by 
believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!


And we will see just how badly below.




But let's see how we got here!




Light, big shock, moves at a speed.

And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it 
relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some 
explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by 
which this could 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

criticism of the Hafele Keating experiment is that it is cherry picking.





On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows: “Dear Dr. 
Zapffe, “I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate 
your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount 
of reading for its preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot 
of fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I enjoyed 
writing my own little book (112 references), although it was outside my 
field of work, and I was warned that would do my reputation a lot of 
harm. My experience was rather similar to yours in securing publication, 
and I decided that the only way was to avoid references. The booklet was 
invited, as was a lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings 
of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p. 141 ff.) My 
criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the 
demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a 
theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together 
with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a 
very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense 
written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and 
disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about 
the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless. 
In my view, these tend to confuse the issue. “One aspect of this subject 
which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the 
experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border 
line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result 
required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with 
Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of 
Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in 
Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I 
had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism 
was 
rejected.https://beyondmainstream.org/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/










-- Original Message --
From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 12:20
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established,
but much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<
QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption - 
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.
QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if 
you mix mass and wave solutions.
QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits 
rarely match the measured ones.


Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.


SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress 
systematic errors. See also:: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment> . It's 
all about understanding what/how you do measure!


Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!
For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but 
much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<



Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.


For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 00:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether






Discussing about physics needs years long reflection about what 
physical constants mean and how these interrelate and are 
measured.
A constant is an obsession and  assumption that it will continue under 
all conditions.
In the case of Light speed it is an illogical assumption if we apply 
what might be true for the 2 way speed of light is also true for the one 
way speed of light.



Also I have been thinking about this for 25 years, is that enough?



Further we must understand that all current still hyped models 
have been developed with marginal experimental knowledge.

Very true!

 If   somebody believes that e.g. QM is a fundamental model that he 
is a   member of sect not a physicist.
I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but 
much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.
There is even super-determinism which seems nuts to me that takes a lot 
of the weirdness from QM.



Also the many worlds interpretation removes a lot of weirdness.



Same for GR that already Einstein in 1952 declared being a castle 
in the air. He then argued that the world is made of infinite many 
systems with their own speed of light (c) and thus any relation 
between such systems constructed by SRT/GR are fiction not 
science.

He was a lot more humble than those who continued his theories.
I wasn't aware he said that and will seek an exact quote.


The problem is the photon of which we only can measure the local 
wave number = energy in relation to local "c". Theoretically we 
could find its velocity by taking into account the red/blue shift 
but which model should we use. SRT provably only works for local 
mass but what shall we do with a photon speed of c+v?
Using red or blue shift for speed, or at least adjustments of speed is 
logical.


Though I guess it tells us nothing of the speed of the medium, that only 
cares about relative velocity between emitter and reciever.



Consequence: We have to overcome the today's silly - kindergarten 
physics models and we should start to understand the structure of 
all forms of matter. I could teach 2 term course about all 
failures and errors in current physics - models and also what for 
the models still are good and can be used.


No doubt.



On researchgate.net   there are 3 running 
discussion about gravity.   Of course 80% of all posters just want 
to promote new ideas and   sometimes one is OK. (myself included..)



https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature 



https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/680 



Another idea I came across is that gravity is a result of time dilation!
This idea as it was relayed (by a believer in SR who was teaching it as 
fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg; 




But, rather than the explanation he gives, it makes me think the 
following.  What if every bit of space emits pressure, well space would 
expand (hmmm, it seems to) and where time dilation is present there 
would be less emission!

And as such there would be a push towards such space.



Only one thing is clear, general relativity is a marginal, just 
mathematical model once the Nobel committee called unphysical. It 
is brilliant math and of no use for our real world, that urgently 
needs a new "infinite" and cheap energy source. May be even that 
is a bad idea as long as the (fascist finance) pigs have the power 
and we then would help them to further destroy the planet.


J.W.
PS: Invest your thinking for the progress of mankind not for 
reasoning about the morgue of standard model "physics"


Well, if people can realize it is false 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jonathan


You say: "So it really is amazing how big of a shambles it all is!"

Yes, its a shambles.

Part of the problem was pointed out by an early critic of relativity ->

G. BURNISTON BROWN Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical 
Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.71—77

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_279.pdf

who says - quote - > "Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his 
theory"


which means --> what Einstein did - was present a series of papers where 
he kept changing his mind.






-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; evg...@groups.io; aethericscien...@groups.io
Sent: Friday, 10 Nov, 23 At 02:20
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

A few updates...


First because the Michelson Morley claim seemed plausible but not 
totally conclusive, I wasn't doing the math myself and math isn't my 
thing so I farmed that out to AI's that kept on having different ideas 
so to be sure I had to really drill down and figure out the best most 
pure way to do so.



I realized the easiest way was not to deal with a moving medium at all! 
But instead to change the velocity of the wave in the medium and 
recalculate!
See, if a medium is in motion relative to us, then the motion of the 
wave is either increased or decreased relative to our frame, so there is 
no need to deal with the complicating effect of moving mediums as we get 
the same number of waves in a given space is the waves have the same 
speed regardless of how that is achieved.



So say you have a wave that moves at 1000 meters a second and you have a 
10khz signal, in 10 meters distance you have 100 waves (it takes 0.01 
second for a wave to traverse the distance and in that time there are 99 
buddies behind him),
So what happens if we increase the wave velocity to 1.5 times?  Well 
then it would take 15 meters to fit 100 waves and as such we have in 
just 10 meters 2/3rds of those 100 waves, or 66.666 waves.



And if the waves moved at half the speed, how many waves would fit in 
the 10 meter space?  Well, double!



So if we had the medium being stationary and in a 10 meter space we 
would have 200 waves, consisting of 100 waves in each direction, yes 
superimposed.



But by having waves go 1.5 times faster in one direction but only half 
as far in the other direction, this is meant to simulate the medium 
moving at half the speed of the waves we get 66.66 + 200 = 266.66 waves.



So it turns out the Michelson Moley experiment DOES potentially tell us 
something about Ether drift.



It doesn't tell us there isn't an Ether, and it doesn't confirm Lorentz 
transformations though Lorentz transformation might explain why we might 
be moving through and Ether and not detect it.



But another possibility is that there is an Ether and we aren't moving 
through it but entraining it.



On the whole I am happy to accept that Lorentz transformations might, as 
an absolute thing in line with Lorentz Ether Theory, exist.



And I have now heard LET be termed Lorentzian Relativity, and it is 
that, but it is a form of Relativity with an Ether, with a prefered 
frame.  Of course Einstein believed in an Ether in 1920 and compared it 
to matter.



What is most interesting however, that based on a reply from Roger 
Anderson who saw my post, I ended up finding a few interesting notes and 
here they are...



According to Sabine Hossenfelder  YouTube Physicist and fellow INTJ, 
Time dilation DOESN'T OCCUR from steady state motion!  That is another 
change to Special relativity   -  muons shouldn't survive longer either 
at speed if she were correct.



This is interesting as relativistic time dilation seems to have been the 
core component of SR in the 1905 paper, and AFAIK it was in the even 
earlier Lorentz formulations even though time dilation isn't used to 
explain null interferometer results.



Also if there is no time dilation, well sure you don't get twin Paradox 
issues which is good, but there become some other serious issues, think 
of a photon of light bouncing between parallel plates being used as a 
clock:

__

   o
__


If you move at a significant velocity (what this means in terms of SR is 
debatable) to the right then the light is taking a zigzag course, and as 
such if it isn't to be superluminal it must be ticking slower though not 
to our perception moving with the light clock but to the fame that sees 
it as a zig-zag. If all frames are to seem equal. So time dilation can't 
be thrown out as Sabine tries.  With an Ether frame this light clock 
makes perfect sense with SR you have time dilation that being relative 
to nothing becomes paradoxical in ways described, and the rest frame can 
be learnt be removed of temporal Doppler effects.



I guess what this means is that there are different types of time 
dilation we need to distinguish.  There is gravitational time dilation, 
and equivalent acceleration time 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jonathan


That video wasn't mine, but it explains quite a lot of the basics.

If going into more detail then things get more complicated. What I have 
been looking at is Einstein 1905 paper on special relativity - and the 
physicist Sommerfeld changed it into a different theory when translated 
into English, and seems to have persuaded Einstein to go along with the 
changes. It was not a straight translation from German into English -> 
amendments were made, so the translation is not the same as the original 
theory.


There was no mention of the Michelson Morley experiment in the 1905 
paper; so how the Michelson Morley experiment was to be understood in 
the context of special relativity was an add-on later. Similarly, other 
things like relativistic mass was an add-on after 1905 etc. So, most of 
what we know of relativity is add-ons (and other changes) to what was 
said in 1905.


When you refer to special relativity -> "It's a Fankenstein's monster, 
with parts constantly needing to be changed out."


Yes, that's it.

But when arguing with people who believe in Einstein's relativity - 
"they" think that making changes is the way science is done. Which means 
"they" don't believe in a definitively defined theory, but instead 
believe in a theory that is in constant flux/change.






-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 22:40
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

Oh, I didn't make the connection of the name until now, I am watching a 
presentation you made (only got half an hour in last night), this one:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s>



But I should I guess watch the video you suggest, but I'd happily have a 
discussion on here with you and pick your brain, I also watched the 
video that you mentioned in that other video: 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s>



It is amazing to learn that Relativistic mass has been dropped when that 
was the reason Photons were said to have zero mass and why nothing could 
go as fast as C let alone faster.



Also while I had watched the video I guess Sabine had sufficiently 
confused me in the casual viewing to of her video that I didn't catch 
her admitting that relativistic time dilation isn't real, it seems she 
is just admitting it is just Doppler shift which can of course be 
removed by mere calculation which means that we can effectively 
econstruct real time communication and therefore learn the frame with 
the fastest clocks to learn the aether's true frame.



In addition another thing occurred to me, not only is it impossible for 
the parallel path of the Michelson Morley experiment to experience a 
phase shift as the up and down wind effects seem to cancel (in contrast 
to the 2 way SPEED of light which would be affected by movement, the 2 
way wavelengths remain unaffected if I'm not mistaken) and let the 
perpendicular path owing to the tangential motion of the emitting 
mirrors (or, a laser if you like) IS affected because the light is being 
emitted with a tangential velocity though the Ether and therefore it 
doesn't trace it's path, it is a zig-zag which means more wavelengths 
should fit in both the outbound and return to the angled splitting 
mirror.



Therefore the Michelson Morley interferometer would work in the reverse 
way to how it is conceived and be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude lower 
in the strength of the Ether winds's effect!



The arguments to destroy SR are clearly complete and it is just a case 
of putting them out widely enough that they can no longer pretend 
otherwise.



It is like the Emperors new clothes, if said loudly and clearly enough 
hopefully others will admit it doesn't make sense to them either.



It's a Fankenstein's monster, with parts constantly needing to be 
changed out.



So while I will perhaps watch your videos, it seems a little slow, can 
you give me the basics of what you cover, what the mistranslations ae 
and what else has been changed that I haven't mentioned above?  A recap 
of sorts?



On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 04:18, ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated:


latest:
ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a 
different theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g>


older videos:

Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00>



More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs>


And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated:


latest:
ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a 
different theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g

older videos:

Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00


More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs

And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated paper 
of relativity and NOT the mistranslated paper



Experimental confirmation that Einstein’s relativity has been 
misunderstood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiJZA-trjU



-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 13:28
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation 
being imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905.



i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern 
perspective.




as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

What I mean is that there might be translation issues, but I doubt it 
was a translation issue relating to Einstein not mentioning the one way 
speed of light, i would imagine if he went to the point of saying "one 
way speed of light" in german that would have been odd to drop the "one 
way" part.


But will check out what the translation issue is, thanks.


On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 23:13, ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:


but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:


Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR paper in 
different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't mention one-way and 
two-way lightspeed. So, now in retrospect can try to impose on him what 
he should have meant using those terms.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io 
<mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io 
<mailto:aethericscien...@groups.io>

Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28
Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether



If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to th

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation 
being imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905.



i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern 
perspective.




as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

What I mean is that there might be translation issues, but I doubt it 
was a translation issue relating to Einstein not mentioning the one way 
speed of light, i would imagine if he went to the point of saying "one 
way speed of light" in german that would have been odd to drop the "one 
way" part.


But will check out what the translation issue is, thanks.


On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 23:13, ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:


but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:


Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR paper in 
different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't mention one-way and 
two-way lightspeed. So, now in retrospect can try to impose on him what 
he should have meant using those terms.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io 
<mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io 
<mailto:aethericscien...@groups.io>

Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28
Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether



If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a 
success!


But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by 
believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!


And we will see just how badly below.




But let's see how we got here!




Light, big shock, moves at a speed.

And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it 
relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some 
explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by 
which this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his 
papers therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute 
and therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is 
absolute.


And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative 
to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I am now doing AntiRelativity discussions


Number 2 - was some people translate/interpret Sagnac experiment as 
disproves relativity (while others don't)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnN_NX3m_Tw


Number 3 will be on Relativistic mass

Relativity is just being subjected to numerous different interpretations 
- so people have different beliefs as to what it "is"


Same as what happens to other religious texts (such as the Bible) - gets 
different translations



-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 09:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:


Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR paper in 
different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't mention one-way and 
two-way lightspeed. So, now in retrospect can try to impose on him what 
he should have meant using those terms.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io 
<mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io 
<mailto:aethericscien...@groups.io>

Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28
Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether



If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a 
success!


But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by 
believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!


And we will see just how badly below.




But let's see how we got here!




Light, big shock, moves at a speed.

And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it 
relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some 
explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by 
which this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his 
papers therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute 
and therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is 
absolute.


And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative 
to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of 
either...


The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and 
SR assets it can't be).


OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses 
magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) 
AKA The Ether or Aether.


Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:


Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR paper in 
different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't mention one-way and 
two-way lightspeed. So, now in retrospect can try to impose on him what 
he should have meant using those terms.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io 
<mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io 
<mailto:aethericscien...@groups.io>

Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28
Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether



If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a 
success!


But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by 
believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!


And we will see just how badly below.




But let's see how we got here!




Light, big shock, moves at a speed.

And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it 
relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some 
explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by 
which this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his 
papers therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute 
and therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is 
absolute.


And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative 
to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of 
either...


The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and 
SR assets it can't be).


OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses 
magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) 
AKA The Ether or Aether.


Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way speed 
of light is C and didn't try to explain how it could be either, as I 
will show soon how impossible that is, we can't have a relativistic 
aether that offers no preferred frame!


 Yes, that is essentially what he tried to create, but failed.   Even 
if you can't know what the one way speed of light is, you can know as I 
will show that it can't be equal.


Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k>   Why No One Has Measured 
The Speed Of Light - Veritasium





So if we go back to the Michelson Morley experiment we see that an 
interferometer was used to try and find evidence of earth's motion 
throu

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR paper in 
different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't mention one-way and 
two-way lightspeed. So, now in retrospect can try to impose on him what 
he should have meant using those terms.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; evg...@groups.io; aethericscien...@groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28
Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether



If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a 
success!


But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by 
believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!


And we will see just how badly below.




But let's see how we got here!




Light, big shock, moves at a speed.

And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it 
relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some 
explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by 
which this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his 
papers therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute 
and therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is 
absolute.


And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative 
to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of 
either...


The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and 
SR assets it can't be).


OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses 
magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) 
AKA The Ether or Aether.


Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way speed 
of light is C and didn't try to explain how it could be either, as I 
will show soon how impossible that is, we can't have a relativistic 
aether that offers no preferred frame!


 Yes, that is essentially what he tried to create, but failed.   Even 
if you can't know what the one way speed of light is, you can know as I 
will show that it can't be equal.


Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k 
   Why No One Has Measured 
The Speed Of Light - Veritasium





So if we go back to the Michelson Morley experiment we see that an 
interferometer was used to try and find evidence of earth's motion 
through the Aether, and this produced a generally negative result.


Now as I tried to write the rest of this message I have come to a 
problem, I was going to explain why the Michelson Morley experiment 
which used an interferometer with two paths, one perpendicular and one 
along the earths presumed direction of motion through the Aether.


However in trying to explain why the number of wavelengths that fit in 
the two paths should vary based on the axis of movement of the aetheric 
medium relative to the laboratory frame, I 

Re: [Vo]:The Fate of Dr. Ning Li

[ROGER ANDERTON]

also means that "they" have been lying about the theoretical physics - 
namely Einstein has a lot of things wrong (such as Equivalence 
Principle) but "they" haven't been allowing those things to be 
corrected.


-- Original Message --
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 2 Aug, 23 At 14:33
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fate of Dr. Ning Li

If there's any truth to the testimony before Congress, we already have 
the tech.


On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:56 AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



<CY LO, DAVID P. CHAN & RICHARD C. Y. HUI - Oversights of Einstein & 
Maxwell andInvalidity of E = mc^2 8 August Vigier Conference 2018 
see paper:  The Temperature Dependence of Gravitation for the Metallic 
Balls - Measured with a Torsion Balance Scale The Global Journal of 
Science Frontier Research Vol 17 Issue 4


https://studio.youtube.com/video/oPw3xK-9tVQ/edit 
<https://studio.youtube.com/video/oPw3xK-9tVQ/edit>







-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> >

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 Aug, 23 At 02:01
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fate of Dr. Ning Li

That is very interesting! And sad. I wonder how much truth there is to 
reports of antigravity? Perhaps we will never know . . .

Re: [Vo]:The Fate of Dr. Ning Li

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Re: [Vo]:ChatGPT goes bonkers

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Similar thing dealt with in this fiction tv series - Westworld 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld_(TV_series)



where humans can go to an amusement park where there are 
androids/robots, where can abuse the androids in any way one likes - 
rape, kill etc - equivalent to a more advanced "sex doll"


eventually the androids rebel at the abuse


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 18 Feb, 23 At 00:45
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ChatGPT goes bonkers

Giovanni Santostasi  > wrote:





The video game analogy is a good thought experiment but basically 
concerns the question Sam Harris asked in the video I linked in my 
previous comment: Is there a line between raping a toaster and raping a 
sentient being that makes you a rapist?



A more apt comparison would be raping a sex doll. Yes, there is a line. 
It could not be clearer. A toaster is an inanimate object. It has no 
life and no feelings. So there is no possible harm to it. A toaster 
might hurt you. Especially if it is plugged in.



I can imagine someone complaining about sex with algae, or yogurt 
bacteria. They are, at least, alive. I expect you would kill them. But a 
toaster or sex doll is not alive, so there is no way any sexual act can 
affect it. The very idea is meaningless. At worst, I suppose you might 
be guilty of ruining machinery and wasting money.

Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

[ROGER ANDERTON]

You are pointing out more reasons why Putin/Russia feel provoked when 
you say things like - "Ukraine has almost twice the U reserves as the 
USA as well as the original processing plants going back to the cold war 
..."  - Supposedly from his point-of-view ->  Ukraine and West were not 
going to negiotate with him about such things and so was forced to take 
action.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 Jan, 23 At 13:48
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year



There is another point of view which recognizes that Ukraine never 
trusted Russia (duh, who does?) ... going back through history - and 
therefore never gave up all of their nukes - treaty or no.



They most likely kept smaller suitcase or artillery devices which would 
have been easier to hide.



This would not have been difficult to do in that time frame. The 
Ukrainians are not so stupid as to trust Russia and before Zelenskyy 
they were corrupt so another motivation could have been financial gain. 
At any rate they would surely have kept enough fissile material to serve 
as a deterrent, but also --- some or all of that material may be in 
private hands maybe in a neighboring country such as Poland.



Putin is probably aware of this. After all he is the master spy. His 
bluster is directed at NATO.



Ukraine has almost twice the U reserves as the USA as well as the 
original processing plants going back to the cold war when there were 
several "secret cities" scattered around the Donbas which may explain 
why that area is the center of attention of the Wagner group ... which 
has likely been promised billions of Euros to retrieve the material.




If there was NOT such a deterrent out there in the hands of the 
Ukrainians - they would already have been toast by now.







 Terry Blanton wrote:




Regretfully, I agree.


ROGER ANDERTON wrote:


Ukraine was not supposed to have nukes by earlier agreements with 
Russia, hence Ukraine wanted to join NATO to get access to nukes - and 
that was seen as breaking agreements with Russia hence one of the 
reasons for Putin's invasion - i.e deemed Russia was provoked. If 
Ukraine secretly has nukes then they broke agreement much earlier than 
recognised





-- Original Message --
From: "bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> " 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> >
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> " 
mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >

Sent: Wednesday, 4 Jan, 23 At 00:09
Subject: RE: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year


I AGREE WITH  JONES;  Ukraine sent drones deep into Russia to remind 
Putin that they are not the onley onrs with tactical nucs.  MAD  is 
alive ane still is working IMHO/


I see a trues in the new  YEAR WITH Ukraine 95 % WHOLE—MAYBE AN OLD ww2 
CRUSIER AS A CONSOLATION PRIZE FOR THE RUSSIAN NAVY.


FRC

-

Sent from  Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for 
Windows



From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
 Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 5:39 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year




Yes I remember seeing some of this years ago.





We have to remember that Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia in the 
recent past.






The new twist is that the suitcase devices were actually constructed in 
Ukraine decades ago ... as were other nukes in the Soviet arsenal years 
ago. The Russian equivalent  to Oak Ridge is actually n Ukraine.






The problem now being this - are some of the missing devices in the 
hands of non-Zelenskyy Ukrainians or ex patriots who may have an agenda 
which is not aligned with NATO/USA  ??






This mystery may explain why Putin has not used a major asset








Terry Blanton wrote:













The missing suitcase nukes hidden in cities in the US is not a new 
story.  I'm  sure it was around in the 90s after the collapse of the SU. 
If NEST hasn't  found them by now, well...






Jones Beene wrote:




Can this upcoming year, 2023, possibly be Happy for most of us ?





Consider this: the situation in Ukraine has cast a dark shadow over 
everything. Basically, Russia cannot win, nor can they fully lose... so 
long as a nuclear  option exists.






Most military experts rule out that option, but they have overlooked one 
hidden possibility which is now emerging (from the all but forgotten 
Cold War) - and  now we see this predicament turning up in the fringe 
news. See the video below on the 250 so-called "suitcase nukes" that we 
have lost track of...






It is sad to think that part of our present predicament is related to 
control of energy resources, which is a situation that LENR would 
arguably have mollified  or eliminated, if the technology had been 
adequately researched back in the ear

RE: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

[ROGER ANDERTON]

as per MAD if one side breaks the balance of terror to their advantage 
then the other side has to do a pre-emptive strike. Ukraine getting 
nukes is too near Russia (and being able to do a nuke strike before 
Russia can adequately respond) and seen as breaking balance of terror


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 4 Jan, 23 At 00:41
Subject: RE: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

Ukraine was not supposed to have nukes by earlier agreements with 
Russia, hence Ukraine wanted to join NATO to get access to nukes - and 
that was seen as breaking agreements with Russia hence one of the 
reasons for Putin's invasion - i.e deemed Russia was provoked. If 
Ukraine secretly has nukes then they broke agreement much earlier than 
recognised





-- Original Message --
From: "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 Jan, 23 At 00:09
Subject: RE: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year


I AGREE WITH  JONES;  Ukraine sent drones deep into Russia to remind 
Putin that they are not the onley onrs with tactical nucs.  MAD  is 
alive ane still is working IMHO/


I see a trues in the new  YEAR WITH Ukraine 95 % WHOLE—MAYBE AN OLD ww2 
CRUSIER AS A CONSOLATION PRIZE FOR THE RUSSIAN NAVY.


FRC

-

Sent from  Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for 
Windows



From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
 Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 5:39 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year




Yes I remember seeing some of this years ago.





We have to remember that Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia in the 
recent past.






The new twist is that the suitcase devices were actually constructed in 
Ukraine decades ago ... as were other nukes in the Soviet arsenal years 
ago. The Russian equivalent  to Oak Ridge is actually n Ukraine.






The problem now being this - are some of the missing devices in the 
hands of non-Zelenskyy Ukrainians or ex patriots who may have an agenda 
which is not aligned with NATO/USA  ??






This mystery may explain why Putin has not used a major asset








Terry Blanton wrote:













The missing suitcase nukes hidden in cities in the US is not a new 
story.  I'm  sure it was around in the 90s after the collapse of the SU. 
If NEST hasn't  found them by now, well...






Jones Beene wrote:




Can this upcoming year, 2023, possibly be Happy for most of us ?





Consider this: the situation in Ukraine has cast a dark shadow over 
everything. Basically, Russia cannot win, nor can they fully lose... so 
long as a nuclear  option exists.






Most military experts rule out that option, but they have overlooked one 
hidden possibility which is now emerging (from the all but forgotten 
Cold War) - and  now we see this predicament turning up in the fringe 
news. See the video below on the 250 so-called "suitcase nukes" that we 
have lost track of...






It is sad to think that part of our present predicament is related to 
control of energy resources, which is a situation that LENR would 
arguably have mollified  or eliminated, if the technology had been 
adequately researched back in the early 1990s






The Balance of Power, so to speak, would have been different in a world 
with adequate energy beyond fossil fuels... but of course that 
conclusion assumes many  things...






Speaking of related unproved assumptions which would change things in 
hidden ways... check out this video which turned up today. There are 
surprising ramifications  given that a preexisting batch of small nukes 
may have already been planted.., maybe even in DC






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_7eZVt854 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_7eZVt854>






If there are optimists out there on Volandia  let me add:i


--  Happy New Year !!!

RE: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Ukraine was not supposed to have nukes by earlier agreements with 
Russia, hence Ukraine wanted to join NATO to get access to nukes - and 
that was seen as breaking agreements with Russia hence one of the 
reasons for Putin's invasion - i.e deemed Russia was provoked. If 
Ukraine secretly has nukes then they broke agreement much earlier than 
recognised





-- Original Message --
From: "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 Jan, 23 At 00:09
Subject: RE: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year


I AGREE WITH  JONES;  Ukraine sent drones deep into Russia to remind 
Putin that they are not the onley onrs with tactical nucs.  MAD  is 
alive ane still is working IMHO/


I see a trues in the new  YEAR WITH Ukraine 95 % WHOLE—MAYBE AN OLD ww2 
CRUSIER AS A CONSOLATION PRIZE FOR THE RUSSIAN NAVY.


FRC

-

Sent from  Mail   for 
Windows



From: Jones Beene 
 Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 5:39 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year




Yes I remember seeing some of this years ago.





We have to remember that Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia in the 
recent past.






The new twist is that the suitcase devices were actually constructed in 
Ukraine decades ago ... as were other nukes in the Soviet arsenal years 
ago. The Russian equivalent  to Oak Ridge is actually n Ukraine.






The problem now being this - are some of the missing devices in the 
hands of non-Zelenskyy Ukrainians or ex patriots who may have an agenda 
which is not aligned with NATO/USA  ??






This mystery may explain why Putin has not used a major asset








Terry Blanton wrote:













The missing suitcase nukes hidden in cities in the US is not a new 
story.  I'm  sure it was around in the 90s after the collapse of the SU. 
If NEST hasn't  found them by now, well...






Jones Beene wrote:




Can this upcoming year, 2023, possibly be Happy for most of us ?





Consider this: the situation in Ukraine has cast a dark shadow over 
everything. Basically, Russia cannot win, nor can they fully lose... so 
long as a nuclear  option exists.






Most military experts rule out that option, but they have overlooked one 
hidden possibility which is now emerging (from the all but forgotten 
Cold War) - and  now we see this predicament turning up in the fringe 
news. See the video below on the 250 so-called "suitcase nukes" that we 
have lost track of...






It is sad to think that part of our present predicament is related to 
control of energy resources, which is a situation that LENR would 
arguably have mollified  or eliminated, if the technology had been 
adequately researched back in the early 1990s






The Balance of Power, so to speak, would have been different in a world 
with adequate energy beyond fossil fuels... but of course that 
conclusion assumes many  things...






Speaking of related unproved assumptions which would change things in 
hidden ways... check out this video which turned up today. There are 
surprising ramifications  given that a preexisting batch of small nukes 
may have already been planted.., maybe even in DC






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_7eZVt854 







If there are optimists out there on Volandia  let me add:i


--  Happy New Year !!!

Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

[ROGER ANDERTON]

another great one is - orme https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS


and the old favorite - snake oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil



-- Original Message --
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 1 Jan, 23 At 17:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year




On Sun, Jan 1, 2023 at 6:25 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:


You mean mercury sulfide? Supposedly exaggerated unfounded claims are 
made about it




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury>

Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

[ROGER ANDERTON]

You mean mercury sulfide? Supposedly exaggerated unfounded claims are 
made about it



Anyway, in case of Ukraine war - West has its narrative and Putin has 
his. West says Putin is lying but offers no proof. So just the uaually 
thing in war - all war propaganda and whats really going on - "they" are 
not telling us





-- Original Message --
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 1 Jan, 23 At 03:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

Right and they utilize Red Mercury.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 9:06 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:


maybe Zelensky is using it to blackmail West to support him?

-- Original Message --
From: "Jones Beene" mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> >
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> " 
mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >

Sent: Sunday, 1 Jan, 23 At 01:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

Yes I remember seeing some of this years ago.


We have to remember that Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia in the 
recent past.



The new twist is that the suitcase devices were actually constructed in 
Ukraine decades ago ... as were other nukes in the Soviet arsenal years 
ago. The Russian equivalent to Oak Ridge is actually n Ukraine.



The problem now being this - are some of the missing devices in the 
hands of non-Zelenskyy Ukrainians or ex patriots who may have an agenda 
which is not aligned with NATO/USA ??



This mystery may explain why Putin has not used a major asset




Terry Blanton wrote:







The missing suitcase nukes hidden in cities in the US is not a new 
story.  I'm  sure it was around in the 90s after the collapse of the SU. 
If NEST hasn't found them by now, well...



Jones Beene wrote:


Can this upcoming year, 2023, possibly be Happy for most of us ?


Consider this: the situation in Ukraine has cast a dark shadow over 
everything. Basically, Russia cannot win, nor can they fully lose... so 
long as a nuclear option exists.



Most military experts rule out that option, but they have overlooked one 
hidden possibility which is now emerging (from the all but forgotten 
Cold War) - and now we see this predicament turning up in the fringe 
news. See the video below on the 250 so-called "suitcase nukes" that we 
have lost track of...



It is sad to think that part of our present predicament is related to 
control of energy resources, which is a situation that LENR would 
arguably have mollified or eliminated, if the technology had been 
adequately researched back in the early 1990s



The Balance of Power, so to speak, would have been different in a world 
with adequate energy beyond fossil fuels... but of course that 
conclusion assumes many things...



Speaking of related unproved assumptions which would change things in 
hidden ways... check out this video which turned up today. There are 
surprising ramifications given that a preexisting batch of small nukes 
may have already been planted.., maybe even in DC



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_7eZVt854 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_7eZVt854>



If there are optimists out there on Volandia  let me add:i

--  Happy New Year !!!

Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

[ROGER ANDERTON]

maybe Zelensky is using it to blackmail West to support him?

-- Original Message --
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Sunday, 1 Jan, 23 At 01:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2023 -- An ominous New Year

Yes I remember seeing some of this years ago.


We have to remember that Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia in the 
recent past.



The new twist is that the suitcase devices were actually constructed in 
Ukraine decades ago ... as were other nukes in the Soviet arsenal years 
ago. The Russian equivalent to Oak Ridge is actually n Ukraine.



The problem now being this - are some of the missing devices in the 
hands of non-Zelenskyy Ukrainians or ex patriots who may have an agenda 
which is not aligned with NATO/USA ??



This mystery may explain why Putin has not used a major asset




Terry Blanton wrote:







The missing suitcase nukes hidden in cities in the US is not a new 
story.  I'm  sure it was around in the 90s after the collapse of the SU. 
If NEST hasn't found them by now, well...



Jones Beene wrote:


Can this upcoming year, 2023, possibly be Happy for most of us ?


Consider this: the situation in Ukraine has cast a dark shadow over 
everything. Basically, Russia cannot win, nor can they fully lose... so 
long as a nuclear option exists.



Most military experts rule out that option, but they have overlooked one 
hidden possibility which is now emerging (from the all but forgotten 
Cold War) - and now we see this predicament turning up in the fringe 
news. See the video below on the 250 so-called "suitcase nukes" that we 
have lost track of...



It is sad to think that part of our present predicament is related to 
control of energy resources, which is a situation that LENR would 
arguably have mollified or eliminated, if the technology had been 
adequately researched back in the early 1990s



The Balance of Power, so to speak, would have been different in a world 
with adequate energy beyond fossil fuels... but of course that 
conclusion assumes many things...



Speaking of related unproved assumptions which would change things in 
hidden ways... check out this video which turned up today. There are 
surprising ramifications given that a preexisting batch of small nukes 
may have already been planted.., maybe even in DC



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_7eZVt854 




If there are optimists out there on Volandia  let me add:i

--  Happy New Year !!!

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed:You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two 
bunkers which were not on fire.



What I recall - there were several fires in the bunkers on and off at 
different times; so a lot of heat damage.





Jed:No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it 
was unsinkable.


Are you sure about that? As you point out -

Jed: A few people said that to the press, and some of the passengers may 
have believed it


There was big publicity telling the public that it was unsinkable;  the 
publicity could easily have started to fool those more professional. 
Those employees- being around the public and continually telling them it 
was unsinkable - could easily start believing the lie themselves. (When 
I was in sales it was pointed out that the best salesman is the one 
believing the lies that they tell the customers. It would have been the 
same with the Titanic employees - tell the lie to the customers and 
believe the lie yourself --> because if you don't believe the lie you 
are telling them then most people can spot liars.) The reasoning for why 
it was deemed unsinkable was - it had hull compartments; and it would 
take (I think the number was ) 4 hull compartments to be breached for 
Titanic to sink, and that was deemed impossible that 4 would be 
breached- hence unsinkable.




-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Thursday, 23 Jun, 22 At 01:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and 
heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.


You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two 
bunkers which were not on fire. That is physically impossible.





Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my 
perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the 
ship was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, 
there was nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable 
unlike other ships.


No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it was 
unsinkable. A few people said that to the press, and some of the 
passengers may have believed it, but no one who knew about ships would 
ever say such a thing. This was made clear in both the British and U.S. 
investigations. Senators and others asked about this.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: I can always be wrong.


I take it that you are, because I'm not.

I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and 
heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.




Jed:Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill 
them.



But put them under enough pressure of losing their jobs etc and promises 
that all will be well and .


Jed: A major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be 
life-threatening to everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with 
smoke. Especially a streak that magically appears 70' away from the 
fire, with no streak near the fire! That would upset sailors because 
they tend to be superstitious. It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It 
should bewilder you!


Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my 
perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the 
ship was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, 
there was nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable 
unlike other ships.


Jed:I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the 
merchant marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on 
nearly every voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was 
finally maimed, almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of 
his life. Sailors did not then and they do not now casually disregard 
regulations when there is something like a fire large enough to scorch 
the outside of the ship.


I have worked down the docks, one of the big cranes fell over - there 
was a big coverup after that - all the cranes had not followed safety 
regulations.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 23:38
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong.

Well, pretty sure. I can always be wrong. (I suggest you practice saying 
that to yourself: 'I can always be wrong.')





 I would have thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along 
the hull and be even was where the photo was not showing it.


It is not going to jump ~60' away from the bunker that is on fire, and 
then produce a 30' streak on another part of the hull while having no 
effect where the bunker is. The streak will not then vanish. That's 
preposterous.





They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill them. 
A major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be life-threatening to 
everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with smoke. Especially a 
streak that magically appears 70' away from the fire, with no streak 
near the fire! That would upset sailors because they tend to be 
superstitious. It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It should bewilder 
you!




Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.


I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the merchant 
marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on nearly 
every voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was finally 
maimed, almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of his 
life. Sailors did not then and they do not now casually disregard 
regulations when there is something like a fire large enough to scorch 
the outside of the ship. They are not suicidal. Pilots do not casually 
take off when one engine will not start. Construction people building 
apartments do not ignore it when a wall collapses.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

typo correction

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Jed: So I think it was an artifact of the photo.


So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong. I would have 
thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the hull and be 
even where the photo was not showing it. The photo was supposed to be 
the only photo of the Titanic on that side before setting sail, so 
pointing out you want other photos is asking for something impossible.


Jed: If the crew ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers 
would lose their licenses and never sail again.


They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.

I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other 
disasters. I have heard about such things directly from people who 
sailed on ships made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' 
black streak on the outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. 
The fire would be readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew 
ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers would lose their 
licenses and never sail again. It is simply out of the question. 
Regulations back then were tight. Fire is one the worst shipboard 
disasters.



More to the point:


1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so 
it would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was 
reportedly on fire is located.

3. The streak disappears in other photos.


So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to 
that conclusion. See:



https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html 
<https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html>



http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html 
<http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html>






O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: So I think it was an artifact of the photo.


So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong. I would have 
thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the hull and be 
even was where the photo was not showing it. The photo was supposed to 
be the only photo of the Titanic on that side before setting sail, so 
pointing out you want other photos is asking for something impossible.


Jed: If the crew ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers 
would lose their licenses and never sail again.


They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.

I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other 
disasters. I have heard about such things directly from people who 
sailed on ships made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' 
black streak on the outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. 
The fire would be readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew 
ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers would lose their 
licenses and never sail again. It is simply out of the question. 
Regulations back then were tight. Fire is one the worst shipboard 
disasters.



More to the point:


1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so 
it would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was 
reportedly on fire is located.

3. The streak disappears in other photos.


So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to 
that conclusion. See:



https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html 
<https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html>



http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html 
<http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html>






O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

typo correction

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 19:00
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Jed

I found reference to the documentary - 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/titanic-the-new-evidence
It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out. The facts as 
presented by the documentary are disputed by some and there are 
alternative facts of course, as per all good conspiracy theories have.


That covers Titanic, next the Japan Fukushima disaster-

Jed: As one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always 
find a  document on file recommending an improvement that would have 
prevented  the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.


I think that bad and a cover up - usual thing to make excuses.

O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


Silkwood pointed out bad engineering at Atomic plant and that made her a 
martyr etc



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 18:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy



Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, 
the whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon 
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a 
pile of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there 
was a fire, it was small.






It was massive but not that massive.



Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the 
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.






Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As 
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a 
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented 
the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

I found reference to the documentary - 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/titanic-the-new-evidence
It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out. The facts as 
presented by the documentary are disputed by some and there are 
alternative facts of course, as per all good conspiracy theories have.


That covers Titanic, next the Japan Fukushima disaster-

Jed: As one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always 
find a document on file recommending an improvement that would have 
prevented the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.


I think that bad and a cover up - usual thing to make excuses.

O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


Silkwodd pointed out bad engineering at Atomic plant and that made her a 
martyr etc



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 18:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy



Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, 
the whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon 
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a 
pile of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there 
was a fire, it was small.






It was massive but not that massive.



Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the 
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.






Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As 
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a 
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented 
the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: Which is probably farther than you know.


nah, you are making stuff up.

Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy

Jed: It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would be 
filled with smoke.


It was massive but not that massive. There was a documentary - photo of 
Titamic before it set sail showed damage to the superstructure from the 
heat.




Jed: Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of the Titanic 
disaster.



About recouping losses

Jed: First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent.


nah, there was big strike on at the time that would have reduced ability 
to get the best. There was a documentary taking a critical look at the 
captain and decided he wasn't the best



Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

etc


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:46
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Jed:  There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They 
never sank a ship as far as I know.



So, as far as you know.

As far as you know

Which is probably farther than you know. As I said, I happen to know 
about ships of that era, mainly from books, but also from old sailors, 
long dead, who sailed on ships built at the same time as the Titanic. 
That makes you think about the nature of time and history, doesn't it? 
The past is not as distant as we think.





- would they be so incompetent that they would go to sea with a massive 
coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible to put out?


No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire. It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would 
be filled with smoke. The passengers would refuse to board. There might 
have been a small fire. Such things were fairly common. It is likely 
they would have extinguished it before setting sail. It was common 
enough that they knew how to deal with it. Regulations ensured they 
would know about even a small fire.





 It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, and you 
get the money from insurance scam.


That's preposterous. Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of 
the Titanic disaster.




A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am 
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor 
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people 
at each stage of the process.


First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent. They were 
some of the best people in the industry, because it was a high status 
ship and it paid well. The people running Fukushima were also first 
class. Japanese engineering is some of the best in the world. Second, it 
is not possible to deliberately cause something like the Titanic or 
Fukushima disaster. No one can known in advance how to sabotage such 
complex systems. They are designed with multiple layers of protection to 
prevent that. Both disasters were almost -- but not quite -- prevented.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: Then I suggest you read a dictionary.


Don't see any big difference.

this points out it is a vague term ->

The concept of stigmergy was introduced by Pierre-Paul Grasse in the 
1950's to describe the indirect communication taking place among 
individuals in social insect societies. Stigmergy was originally defined 
by Grasse in his studies on the reconstruction of termite nests. Grasse 
showed that the regulation and coordination of the building activity do 
not depend on the workers themselves but is mainly achieved by the nest: 
a stimulating configuration triggers a response of a termite worker, 
transforming the configuration into another configuration that may 
trigger in turn another, possibly different, action performed by the 
same termite or any other worker in the colony. Although Grasse's 
concept of stigmergy was attractive and stimulating, it has been 
overlooked by students of social insects because it left open the 
important operational issue of how stimuli must be organized in time and 
space to allow perfect coordination. Despite the vagueness of Grasse's 
formulation, stigmergy is a profound concept, the consequences of which 
are yet to be explored.

https://www.stigmergicsystems.com/stig_v1/stigrefs/article1.html?858732

given its "vagueness " -> just can end up as another form of conspiracy



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Stigmergy (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English>  STIG-mər-jee 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key> ) is a 
mechanism of indirect coordination 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coordination> , through the environment, 
between agents or actions.[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy#cite_note-mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de-1> 
The principle is that the trace left in the environment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment>   by an individual 
action stimulates the performance of a succeeding  action by the same or 
different agent. . . .



Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned.

Then I suggest you read a dictionary. The two are completely different.




 A chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone 
pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.



Except that with stigmergy no one pushes over the domino. And no one 
pushed it with the Titanic or Fukushima. With cold fusion, everyone 
knows who pushed the dominos, so it was not secret, and therefore not a 
conspiracy. The people who pushed the dominos bragged about that for the 
rest of their lives.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

add on


Jed : "No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only 
"acting in harmony toward a common goal.""


I disagree, they would say something nice like that in the prep talks 
when join - that working towards a common goal.




-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 17:01
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


Jed

"Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an analogy."

Doesn't say that -- no use of "only" there!

So, you misunderstand definitions



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire>


--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition



You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an 
analogy.



: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances conspired to defeat 
his efforts.… the sun and the wind conspired to make splinters out of 
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant



No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in 
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in 
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.




You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they 
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look 
stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

"Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an analogy."

Doesn't say that -- no use of "only" there!

So, you misunderstand definitions



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire>


--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition



You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an 
analogy.



: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances conspired to defeat 
his efforts.… the sun and the wind conspired to make splinters out of 
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant



No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in 
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in 
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.




You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they 
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look 
stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed


Well the problem here is what definition are you going by

going by Merriam- Webster

conspiracy

definition 1
: the act of conspiring 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire>  together

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

to know what conspiring means

leads to
definition of conspire

definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire

--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:36
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






There are open conspiracies -

That is a contradiction of terms. The dictionary definition of 
"conspiracy" is:
"a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." 
Dictionary.com
"1 · a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful ; 2 · the 
act of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful." 
Webster
"the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad 
or illegal" Cambridge Dictionary


If it is open and not secret, it is not called a conspiracy.



H.G.  Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early 
twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, 
inspired multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World 
State” as the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an 
international order, Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the 
destruction of World War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open 
Conspiracy”


I doubt that was the right word back then, but anyway, in modern English 
that would be an organized movement, not a conspiracy.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Stigmergy (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English>  STIG-mər-jee 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key> ) is a 
mechanism of indirect coordination 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coordination> , through the environment, 
between agents or actions.[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy#cite_note-mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de-1> 
The principle is that the trace left in the environment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment>  by an individual 
action stimulates the performance of a succeeding action by the same or 
different agent. Agents that respond to traces in the environment 
receive positive fitness benefits, reinforcing the likelihood of these 
behaviors becoming fixed within a population over time. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy



Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned. A 
chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone 
pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.



-- Original Message --
From: "Chris Zell" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:04
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy>


Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy. 
The US defeat in Afghanistan – after the longest war in US history, 
20yrs+  -  is one example.  Congress, The White House,  the mass media, 
the Pentagon lie and deceive  for decades and get away with it.  The WSJ 
claimed 6 intelligence reports about Afghanistan said nothing about the 
whole thing collapsing.


And that harmful trend continues as no one seems to scream about an 
ineffective US intelligence community.  I also think the same thing will 
happen with Russia/Ukraine and the sanctions Cold War.


All too often science goes the same way.  Termites denying anomalies 
such as Cold Fusion obediently.




From: Jed Rothwell 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:49 AM
 To: Vortex 
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone





ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory.





Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --





1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold 
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published 
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. 
They were proud to lead the  attack against cold fusion.






2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and 
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group 
of people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no 
proof, and you don't know  who the people are. Although you might 
speculate about who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed 
cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma 
fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am 
saying: "we  know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature 
published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers  never 
denied doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.






There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about 
their role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like 
saying "perhaps it was the Japanese  navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 
1941, but we will never know for sure."









CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed:  There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They 
never sank a ship as far as I know.



So, as far as you know.

As far as you know - would they be so incompetent that they would go to 
sea with a massive coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible 
to put out? It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, 
and you get the money from insurance scam.


A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am 
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor 
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people 
at each stage of the process.





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port with a fire in its 
coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds to me that didn't 
want the Titanic to survive the journey.


There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They never 
sank a ship as far as I know. Trying to sink a ship by that method would 
be incompetent. It would almost certainly fail. It would only work if 
you managed to arrange many other improbable events, such as sailors 
ignoring the fire -- something they never did. And making the fire 
undetectable, which is impossible, because bunkers were equipped with 
thermocouples, and bunkers were checked regularly, because everyone knew 
fires were common. Or making the fire impossible to put out, which it 
would not be. Or simultaneously inveigling the captain to go along with 
the conspiracy and ignore iceberg warnings. That would be impossible 
because it was impossible to know there would be icebergs, and without 
them, even a large fire would cause no harm. Also because the captain 
would never agree to such a thing.



It is also a conspiracy theory because you have no idea who might have 
arranged it; there is no solid evidence that it happened; and fires of 
this nature were common and caused by spontaneous combustion, so there 
is no reason to think anyone set it -- assuming there even was a fire.



In short, this is a conspiracy theory. No written evidence, no known 
people involved, no motivation, and if the event occurred it is highly 
unlikely it would cause serious damage.




 A series of unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by 
someone to happen.


Nope. Just about every major industrial accident in history, from the 
Titanic to Three Mile Island to Fukushima, was caused by a combination 
of unfortunate events. These systems have multiple fail-safe protection. 
One failure cannot destroy them. It takes multiple failures. One person 
-- or even a group of people -- could not arrange to have the right 
combination of failures because no one knows in advance what has to 
fail. For example, no one would deliberately add sulphur to the steel in 
the Titanic, because no one at that time knew what effect that would 
have, and no one would even know the sulphur was in the steel. Without 
the sulphur there would have been no tragedy. A person who 
surreptitiously arranged for sulphur would have no way of knowing the 
embrittling effects of extreme cold it has, and no way to influence the 
captain to ignore an iceberg warning years later. Most ships never 
struck an iceberg or anything else, so even if they had been brittle 
(without anyone knowing that fact), it would never have caused any harm.




(Note that some of what I wrote here is not well documented. I know a 
thing or two about ships of that era because my father was a fireman on 
one, albeit with oil instead of coal. There were still many coal fired 
ships when he sailed.)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

There are open conspiracies -

H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early 
twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, 
inspired multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World 
State” as the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an 
international order, Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the 
destruction of World War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open 
Conspiracy” – a movement of organizations and people seeking the 
establishment of a world collective – was forefront in his thinking. 
https://www.forcingchange.org/open-conspiracy/



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 14:48
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory.


Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --


1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold 
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published 
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. 
They were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.



2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and 
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group 
of people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no 
proof, and you don't know who the people are. Although you might 
speculate about who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed 
cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma 
fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am 
saying: "we know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature 
published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers never 
denied doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.



There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about 
their role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like 
saying "perhaps it was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 
1941, but we will never know for sure."

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed


This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory. Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port 
with a fire in its coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds 
to me that didn't want the Titanic to survive the journey. A series of 
unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by someone to 
happen. Thanks for the links. But as far as I am concerned from my 
observations of people - they often say one thing and do the opposite; 
so, in case of scientific method - yes scientists are supposed to follow 
the scientific method, but when it comes down to what they actually do - 
its usually the opposite.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




sounded like conspiracy theory.



What sounded like a conspiracy theory? What do you refer to?


As I said, not everything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, is a 
conspiracy theory. Not everything that sounds implausible is false. The 
Titanic disaster was caused by a whole series of unlikely events that, 
taken together, sound like a third-rate pot-boiler disaster movie. Quite 
unbelievable. Too much sulphur in the metal; the captain ignoring radio 
warnings of ice; not enough lifeboats; a ship nearby ignoring distress 
rockets and not waking up the radio operator . . . it is a long list. If 
even one of the causes had been missing, no one would have died. It 
sounds extremely improbable, but it happened.






As for cold fusion -

Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either 
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have 
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat 
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or 
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are 
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion 
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion>


The first sentence is correct and at the same time, idiotic. Theoretical 
implausibility is never a valid reason to reject replicated, high-sigma 
experimental results. That violates the scientific method. There are no 
actual critiques of the excess heat measurements, but only stupid, 
groundless assertions by people who do not know the difference between 
power and energy, such as Morrison and Taubes. See p. 18 and p. 27:



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf>



See also:


https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf>



That is the best -- and only -- skeptical experimental "critique" there 
is. There are no others.



The second sentence is bullshit. There are no valid "reasons why known 
fusion reactions are an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and 
associated cold fusion claims." Not a couple. Not one. None.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

sounded like conspiracy theory.


As for cold fusion -

Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either 
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have 
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat 
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or 
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are 
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion 
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



Please provide proof.

You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on 
line, at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't 
believe them, you will not believe anything else that I provide.



The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot. 
Take the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of 
pages of authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various 
universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who 
know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick!



It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have 
distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who 
have published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real. 
They were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their 
papers. On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places 
like Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the 
like. They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually 
give any science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed 
(imaginary) people found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these 
people have never read and do not know anything about.



So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented. 
I go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they 
say. They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not 
know the difference between energy and power has no credibility. That 
crowd of hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the 
editors at Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots 
sometimes manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows 
that.



It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically, 
it is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics 
are out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 00:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves 
corrupt. Some work for the Russian government. . . .




Is that a conspiracy theory?

Nope. It is a fact. Well documented. Proven to a fair-thee-well.






Please provide proof.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed Rothwell wrote:Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are 
themselves corrupt. Some work for the Russian government. Their purpose 
is to disrupt U.S. society and destroy our institutions. You should not 
trust everyone who tells you there is a criminal conspiracy. They may 
have ulterior motives. Some of them are extremely gullible, ignorant, or 
flat out crazy.



Is that a conspiracy theory?

If it is a conspiracy theory - which one of the options are you?





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 20:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

conspiracy theories are about pattern recognition in human behaviour, 
and there are conspiracy facts -


e.g.
Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study
https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study


Bearden connected to others such as Myron Evans -
https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Myron_Evans.html


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 16:37
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




I think a lot of things are going to disappear.

I doubt it. I think you are repeating groundless conspiracy theories. No 
one gives a damn about Beardon's theories or disputes about relativity. 
No one would bother to censor these things or make them disappear.




It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring

Nothing relating to cold fusion has been censored. I would know if it 
had. A lot of information has disappeared, but I know why. Nothing to do 
with censorship. Mainly because the authors or the people maintaining 
the websites died. Also, for example, old lCCF websites are gone, 
because no one thought to preserve them. I complained about this but the 
ICCF organizers did not listen.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

its cancel culture at work.


an - Einstein is wrong video I was watching has disappeared -> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWq_gw31ao


I think a lot of things are going to disappear.

It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring








-- Original Message --
From: "Chris Zell" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 14:23
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


I swear I entered “google” on Duck Duck Go this morning and it said no 
results found.


May be it’s the Russians. They seem to be the go to for blame these 
days.




From: Terry Blanton 
 Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:15 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone





Is Google dying?


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/google-search-algorithm-internet/661325/ 






CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Internet search algorithms have been changed; because protests were made 
that algorithms were creating echo chambers.




In discussions of news media  
, an echo chamber refers to situations in which beliefs are amplified or 
reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and 
insulated from rebuttal.[1] 
 
By participating in an echo chamber, people are able to seek out 
information that reinforces their existing views without encountering 
opposing views, potentially resulting in an unintended exercise in 
confirmation bias  .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29

-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Jun, 22 At 22:03
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Perhaps the designers are consciously or unconsciously incorporating an 
agenda into the search algorithm.
Instead of finding those things you want to know,  the algorithm steers 
you towards things that the designers think you need to know?

harry


On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:25 PM Jed Rothwell  > wrote:


Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > wrote:

Google often does this in ignoring search terms, as happened to me 
recently in looking for a chain saw part.
Yes. I have a strange feeling Google has this problem more than it used 
to. I wonder if they need to tweak their algorithm? The other day I was 
looking for "fission reactor power density" and it kept giving me 
references to energy density. Which is a completely different thing. 
Today I was looking for "average monthly cost of natural gas" or 
"residential monthly bill," but it kept telling me the cost per therm.




Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the 
way:



https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html 




I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
Average core power density
[kW/kgU]
I think it should say:
Average Core power density [kW/l]
That makes more sense. Also, that is the heading for these same numbers 
are in another table:
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/power.html 

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Internet censorship does occur, dealt with by wiki at -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship


if conspiracy then openly admitted conspiracy

-- Original Message --
From: "Nicholas Palmer" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 18 Jun, 22 At 02:06
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

You suggested that the internet had been scrubbed of links, thus 
insinuating a conspiracy to hide the truth. That google search shows 
that there are still many links discussing it which haven't been 
scrubbed. If the 'main' sites run by the crackpot inventor no longer 
exist because he died and isn't paying the bills anymore, it's hardly 
surprising!


Nick Palmer



On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 17:04, Chris Zell  > wrote:




That google search turns up a huge number of references to thorium 
reactors. Generally, we don’t we don’t refer to the Chernobyl “battery” 
or Three Mile island “battery”. I am talking about a small device 
reputed to be simple and provide  huge amounts of power – whose links 
are dead.  Google frequently leads searches far away from what was 
intended.


Since the discussion is about Bearden – he thought Arie De Geus was 
murdered in regard to a potential radioactive battery patent.




From: Nicholas Palmer  >

 Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:29 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org  
gone






Chris Zell - what part of this in Jed's reply did you not understand?


 " A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than 
a thousand items "






Nick Palmer

















On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:34, Chris Zell  > wrote:




Ah, the expected narcissistic reply

But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor – as your 
citation seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites 
but not really about the reputed thorium  plasma battery


And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.

https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/ 



And here is a site denouncing the idea – loaded up with dead end links, 
as I said.




From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> 



 Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
 To: Vortex mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and  cheniere.org 
 
gone





Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > wrote:

I would say that the ‘thorium battery’ on the internet has been 
thoroughly scrubbed and every link eliminated.
 A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a 
thousand items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an 
organization devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with 
academic meetings and so on:


 Thorium Energy Alliance

 https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/ 






There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.
 These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. 
Which is to say, zero validity.








 CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.







CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

AI being used to remove fake news ->

How AI can Remove Fake News

https://bywire.news/articles/how-ai-can-remove-fake-news

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 21:54
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

information is being purged from internet as part of the political 
campaign to delete fake news


-- Original Message --
From: "Esa Ruoho" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 17:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also 
gone. I wonder whats up now.


—
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial

On 13. Jun 2022, at 15.30, David Jonsson  
wrote:



https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244 
<https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244>


Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/ 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/>



I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades 
before I got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he 
aimed for in a safe way.



David Jonsson

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

information is being purged from internet as part of the political 
campaign to delete fake news


-- Original Message --
From: "Esa Ruoho" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 17:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also 
gone. I wonder whats up now.


—
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial

On 13. Jun 2022, at 15.30, David Jonsson  
wrote:



https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244 



Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/ 




I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades 
before I got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he 
aimed for in a safe way.



David Jonsson

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[ROGER ANDERTON]

"There's still a good bit of unfinished business with certain 
18th-century breakthroughs that've languished.."



That is correct. Physics students are misinformed by the physics 
establishment about physics history, especially missing out most of 
stuff in 18th century.



-- Original Message --
From: "Vibrator !" 
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, 29 Apr, 22 At 23:43
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

 > So progression from 18th century theory of Boscovich to modern 
physics


Fascinating, i was unaware of Boscovich's contributions, great 
first-principle reasoning though..



There's still a good bit of unfinished business with certain 
18th-century breakthroughs that've languished, but don't get me 
started..

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry

I think of it as precursor to Bohm's pilot wave theory - particles 
influenced by waves.
Boscovich's theory is particles influenced by fields; and a disturbance 
in a field would be a wave.



-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, 29 Apr, 22 At 19:38
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics


Did Boscovich subscribe to a wave or a particle view of light?


I wonder if electrons are "elementary points" and protons are "first 
order particles" in Boscosvich's scheme.

https://youtu.be/w1vi0yk7BvU?t=248 <https://youtu.be/w1vi0yk7BvU?t=248>


harry




On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:28 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Also

(i) Boscovich theory led to Quantum theory -> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU>


(ii) Einstein working from Boscovich theory -> 
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2197/1/012002/meta 
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2197/1/012002/meta>


So progression from 18th century theory of Boscovich to modern physics


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 Apr, 22 At 13:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics



On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 5:44 PM Vibrator ! <mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com> > wrote:



I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the 
concept in

1917.
Therefore you might think that it is only possible in a quantum 
theoretical
context. However, subsequent mathematical work has shown that a form 
of
stimulated emission can also arise in a classical (pre-quantum) 
setting

when a suitable model of the atom is used.
The key point about stimulated emission is that it exploits the 
suspension of superposition exclusion to enable an aggregate system to 
cohere under a unitary wavefuntion; the corollary effect being coherent 
absorption, such that the initial plasma system can be classically 
described right up to the population inversion:  from which point all 
electrons are bouncing between peak energy and stable bottom, emitting 
and absorbing essentially the same photons in sync..
..so the quantum / classical threshold there is Pauli exclusion; the 
spontaneous photomultiplication resulting from collective coherence of 
the electron population is a pretty fundamental kind of 'resonance', not 
your average harmonic oscillator.
On this key point about coherent absorption as well as emission, see 
Green at al "Limiting photovoltaic monochromatic light conversion 
efficiency" 2001, noting that in PV cells for which recombination is 
mainly radiative, a stimulated emission regime could take efficiency 
arbitrarily close to the Carnot limit;  his team down in Oz are 
currently up to ~70% - again, for monochromatic (basically laser) light 
- with increasing applications in ie. wireless power transmission, 
electrical isolation / firewalling etc., and obvs much greater range 
(albeit limited to LoS) than classical inductive transmission 
techniques.
A stimulated emission mode / regime is an inherently quantum-classical 
system, a unique means of corralling quantum systems distinct from 
Faraday and Maxwell et al; the system's propensity to begin lasing a 
direct consequence of the quantisation of energy & momentum:  in the 
tensioned 'population inversion' state, ideally at least, a single 
photon of further input energy will inevitably trigger a cascade of 
absorption and emission because there's nowhere else for this conserved 
quantised energy to go, ie. further input energy catalyses a cyclic 
phase transition between high and low-energy states, because the 
transitions are quantised, and because a whole bunch of fermions are 
behaving as a kind of extended quasi-boson, holding the same 
quantum-energy states at the same time.


It's that force-feedback dynamic, like a turbine, generating this 
low-entropy livewire state of perfect photoelectric synchrony.. coherent 
emission AND absorption, en masse..



On a bit of a tangent perhaps, but in his later years GC Huth posited 
that the retinal cells of the fovea may form a kind of phase-conjugate 
mirror, which may have thought-provoking implications for ie. the nature 
of eye contact between sentients, optic nerves essentially being 
extensions of cortex:  what if electrons in remote rhodopsin discs are 
entangled by the same photons?  'A twinkle in the eye'..  'windows on 
the soul'.. (woo-wavy hands)




Interesting read.
Did you read Bill's post? There are many classical systems which exhibit 
stimulated emission which don't depend on quantum theory. Radiation 
theorists of the second half of the 19th century appeared to dislike t

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Also

(i) Boscovich theory led to Quantum theory -> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU


(ii) Einstein working from Boscovich theory -> 
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2197/1/012002/meta


So progression from 18th century theory of Boscovich to modern physics


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, 29 Apr, 22 At 13:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics



On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 5:44 PM Vibrator !  > wrote:



I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the 
concept in

1917.
Therefore you might think that it is only possible in a quantum 
theoretical
context. However, subsequent mathematical work has shown that a form 
of
stimulated emission can also arise in a classical (pre-quantum) 
setting

when a suitable model of the atom is used.
The key point about stimulated emission is that it exploits the 
suspension of superposition exclusion to enable an aggregate system to 
cohere under a unitary wavefuntion; the corollary effect being coherent 
absorption, such that the initial plasma system can be classically 
described right up to the population inversion:  from which point all 
electrons are bouncing between peak energy and stable bottom, emitting 
and absorbing essentially the same photons in sync..
..so the quantum / classical threshold there is Pauli exclusion; the 
spontaneous photomultiplication resulting from collective coherence of 
the electron population is a pretty fundamental kind of 'resonance', not 
your average harmonic oscillator.
On this key point about coherent absorption as well as emission, see 
Green at al "Limiting photovoltaic monochromatic light conversion 
efficiency" 2001, noting that in PV cells for which recombination is 
mainly radiative, a stimulated emission regime could take efficiency 
arbitrarily close to the Carnot limit;  his team down in Oz are 
currently up to ~70% - again, for monochromatic (basically laser) light 
- with increasing applications in ie. wireless power transmission, 
electrical isolation / firewalling etc., and obvs much greater range 
(albeit limited to LoS) than classical inductive transmission 
techniques.
A stimulated emission mode / regime is an inherently quantum-classical 
system, a unique means of corralling quantum systems distinct from 
Faraday and Maxwell et al; the system's propensity to begin lasing a 
direct consequence of the quantisation of energy & momentum:  in the 
tensioned 'population inversion' state, ideally at least, a single 
photon of further input energy will inevitably trigger a cascade of 
absorption and emission because there's nowhere else for this conserved 
quantised energy to go, ie. further input energy catalyses a cyclic 
phase transition between high and low-energy states, because the 
transitions are quantised, and because a whole bunch of fermions are 
behaving as a kind of extended quasi-boson, holding the same 
quantum-energy states at the same time.


It's that force-feedback dynamic, like a turbine, generating this 
low-entropy livewire state of perfect photoelectric synchrony.. coherent 
emission AND absorption, en masse..



On a bit of a tangent perhaps, but in his later years GC Huth posited 
that the retinal cells of the fovea may form a kind of phase-conjugate 
mirror, which may have thought-provoking implications for ie. the nature 
of eye contact between sentients, optic nerves essentially being 
extensions of cortex:  what if electrons in remote rhodopsin discs are 
entangled by the same photons?  'A twinkle in the eye'..  'windows on 
the soul'.. (woo-wavy hands)




Interesting read.
Did you read Bill's post? There are many classical systems which exhibit 
stimulated emission which don't depend on quantum theory. Radiation 
theorists of the second half of the 19th century appeared to dislike the 
notion of anything resembling stimulated or induced emission even though 
it did not violate the laws of physics. Perhaps the concept of 
stimulated or induced emission was in conflict with Victorian 
sensibilities.

here is an example
Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz 
Oscillator Model


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.7567/1347-4065/ab2cc6 




Harry

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[ROGER ANDERTON]

well the link to place an advance order -> doesn't go to that


so, therefore infer joke


-- Original Message --
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: "vortex" 
Sent: Saturday, 2 Apr, 22 At 02:36
Subject: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

https://www.whichev.net/2022/04/01/elon-musk-announces-tesla-will-switch-to-hydrogen-in-2024/ 

Re: [Vo]:mRNA Vaccine Reverse Transcribed into Liver DNA

[ROGER ANDERTON]

covid vaccine pandemic is just bigger medical scandal than opioid 
scandal and they were calling that the crime of the century -> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkU75sBdjdU=86s



and satanists everywhere -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RtJp-rhHk


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 14 Mar, 22 At 07:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:mRNA Vaccine Reverse Transcribed into Liver DNA


serves us all to follow the government's recommendations. <<



can't trust governments when run by satanists


-- Original Message --
From: "CB Sites" 
To: "vortex-l" 
Sent: Monday, 14 Mar, 22 At 03:22
Subject: Re: [Vo]:mRNA Vaccine Reverse Transcribed into Liver DNA

Your right.  We should not be dictated to on health issues.  Jeezy, I 
guess women trying to resolve reproductive  health issues should also 
obay state laws too.  They have no freedom either.   It's all crap 
anyway... no?  The difference is the jab is a step to resolve a *global 
pandemic*  in society vs choice.   IMHO the government should not be 
involved in the later (freedom) choice..  but in a global pandemic it 
serves us all to follow the government's recommendations.


Covid is a nasty thing to get.  As a mRNA vaxed guy, you can thank me 
for the unvaxxed not getting it ... yet.










On Sun, Mar 13, 2022, 10:32 PM H LV <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:



I had all three vaccines too, but I am opposed to vaccine mandates.
Just because vaccines have been mandated in the past does not mean 
mandates are lawful from a constitutional standpoint.
If the benefits of vaccines are allowed to trump the right to security 
of person, other evils will follow.

Harry


On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 8:47 PM CB Sites <mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com> > wrote:


As normal,  more antivax propaganda.  2 and a boost here and still Covid 
free.  Only thing is I feel far more liberal than before.  Lol.








On Sun, Mar 13, 2022, 9:16 AM Jürg Wyttenbach <mailto:ju...@datamart.ch> > wrote:



As some of you might know, the Pfizer jab is highly damaging and 
so far killed/disabled > 100'000 people. The jabs - as studies 
show - over all did not save a single live.
As a Paper:: 
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf 
<https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf>


This has been proven by Pfizer itself. But because daddy Biden 
himself did bribe all US journals::
 :: 
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/biden-administration-paid-media-1-billion-for-covid-shot-propaganda/article_004df1ec-9e42-11ec-9cf8-478353d0e684.html 
<https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/biden-administration-paid-media-1-billion-for-covid-shot-propaganda/article_004df1ec-9e42-11ec-9cf8-478353d0e684.html>
No journal ever did report about the Pfizer Phase III 6 months 
study results, that did clearly show more deaths in the vaccine 
arm. Not included are several more direct vaccine  deaths we now 
find inside the first 10'000 pages released by FDA. So Pfizer 
itself did prove extensive damage from its jabs.



So virtually Pfizer damaged the live of > 2'000'000'000 people 
world wide by selling a devastating RNA gene tech chemo therapy   as 
a "vaccine".


The Pfizer data now is public: So, after 6 months the Pfizer   chemo 
therapy (Called CoV-19 vaccine) did show far more damage   than 
benefit. Pfizer did hide several deaths and live long   crippled 
...Boostered (UK) now get CoV-19 3..10x more often than   unvaxx. 
Vaxx New York children face >100x more damage than   benefit.


I did announce (on a forum) the post CoV-19 war more than 4   months 
ago when it became clear that all the illegal money   accumulated 
during the CoV-19 terror regime can only be secured   under fire 
protection = diverting the public from a biological war   crime 
committed by FDA/CDC/US-government and the media slaves.


CoV-19 was a war against the population with the main target to 
steal tax payers money. At no time during the last 2 years CoV-19 
was a threat to the health of 99.9% of the population.
Already March 2020 we did know 3 perfect cures that could safe at 
least 99.8% of all lives. (See also Fauci e-mails)


What the FM/R/J/B mafia did to prevent treatment was::

Big pharma bribed and threatened to death many doctors: Here the 
video testimony of Dr. Andrew Hill Liverpool that first did 
promote Ivermectin and after death threats and heavy bribing 
allowed the FM/R/J/B mafia to write the conclusion of his "famous" 
reversed finding paper...
https://rumble.com/vwg569-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-ivermectin-suppression-killed-millio.html 
<https://rumble.com/vwg569-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-iver

Re: [Vo]:mRNA Vaccine Reverse Transcribed into Liver DNA

[ROGER ANDERTON]

serves us all to follow the government's recommendations. <<



can't trust governments when run by satanists


-- Original Message --
From: "CB Sites" 
To: "vortex-l" 
Sent: Monday, 14 Mar, 22 At 03:22
Subject: Re: [Vo]:mRNA Vaccine Reverse Transcribed into Liver DNA

Your right.  We should not be dictated to on health issues.  Jeezy, I 
guess women trying to resolve reproductive  health issues should also 
obay state laws too.  They have no freedom either.   It's all crap 
anyway... no?  The difference is the jab is a step to resolve a *global 
pandemic*  in society vs choice.   IMHO the government should not be 
involved in the later (freedom) choice..  but in a global pandemic it 
serves us all to follow the government's recommendations.


Covid is a nasty thing to get.  As a mRNA vaxed guy, you can thank me 
for the unvaxxed not getting it ... yet.










On Sun, Mar 13, 2022, 10:32 PM H LV  > wrote:



I had all three vaccines too, but I am opposed to vaccine mandates.
Just because vaccines have been mandated in the past does not mean 
mandates are lawful from a constitutional standpoint.
If the benefits of vaccines are allowed to trump the right to security 
of person, other evils will follow.

Harry


On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 8:47 PM CB Sites  > wrote:


As normal,  more antivax propaganda.  2 and a boost here and still Covid 
free.  Only thing is I feel far more liberal than before.  Lol.








On Sun, Mar 13, 2022, 9:16 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  > wrote:



As some of you might know, the Pfizer jab is highly damaging and 
so far killed/disabled > 100'000 people. The jabs - as studies 
show - over all did not save a single live.
As a Paper:: 
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf 



This has been proven by Pfizer itself. But because daddy Biden 
himself did bribe all US journals::
 :: 
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/biden-administration-paid-media-1-billion-for-covid-shot-propaganda/article_004df1ec-9e42-11ec-9cf8-478353d0e684.html 

No journal ever did report about the Pfizer Phase III 6 months 
study results, that did clearly show more deaths in the vaccine 
arm. Not included are several more direct vaccine  deaths we now 
find inside the first 10'000 pages released by FDA. So Pfizer 
itself did prove extensive damage from its jabs.



So virtually Pfizer damaged the live of > 2'000'000'000 people 
world wide by selling a devastating RNA gene tech chemo therapy   as 
a "vaccine".


The Pfizer data now is public: So, after 6 months the Pfizer   chemo 
therapy (Called CoV-19 vaccine) did show far more damage   than 
benefit. Pfizer did hide several deaths and live long   crippled 
...Boostered (UK) now get CoV-19 3..10x more often than   unvaxx. 
Vaxx New York children face >100x more damage than   benefit.


I did announce (on a forum) the post CoV-19 war more than 4   months 
ago when it became clear that all the illegal money   accumulated 
during the CoV-19 terror regime can only be secured   under fire 
protection = diverting the public from a biological war   crime 
committed by FDA/CDC/US-government and the media slaves.


CoV-19 was a war against the population with the main target to 
steal tax payers money. At no time during the last 2 years CoV-19 
was a threat to the health of 99.9% of the population.
Already March 2020 we did know 3 perfect cures that could safe at 
least 99.8% of all lives. (See also Fauci e-mails)


What the FM/R/J/B mafia did to prevent treatment was::

Big pharma bribed and threatened to death many doctors: Here the 
video testimony of Dr. Andrew Hill Liverpool that first did 
promote Ivermectin and after death threats and heavy bribing 
allowed the FM/R/J/B mafia to write the conclusion of his "famous" 
reversed finding paper...
https://rumble.com/vwg569-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-ivermectin-suppression-killed-millio.html 



Do not believe anything about CoV-19 that comes from Lancet,   Jamma 
the today's main fake medical CoV-19 science journals.


I did help as many people I could with treatment and to escape   the 
damaging RNA immune stimulation chemo therapy. (Exact   terminology 
according Biontec home page - at least until Jan.   2022!)


If you need  a real vaccine take Novavax or J (more risky)   or go 
to Cuba!


J.W.


On 13.03.2022 13:34, H LV wrote:




   Have faith in "The Science" . 

Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR experiment

[ROGER ANDERTON]

here are different types of mass.


It used to be taught that there is relativistic mass, but now there is a 
movement to say there is no relativistic mass.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhKBCfSRKps 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhKBCfSRKps>

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Mar, 22 At 01:35
Subject: Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR 
experiment


i.e. Einstein wrong about gravity etc.




-- Original Message ------
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Mar, 22 At 01:33
Subject: Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR 
experiment


How about an antigravity effect -> would that count?


According to Einstein -> if heat metal (and if no chemical reactions 
going on) then the weight of the metal increases; but that doesn't 
happen and instead the metal decreases in weight - i.e. antigravity




explained at -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw3xK-9tVQ



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Mar, 22 At 01:21
Subject: Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR 
experiment


I wrote:



I asked them if they plan to give out more than one prize. I will report 
back if they respond.




They say they haven't decided yet. They have not decided the prize 
amount either, contrary to what Celani reported.

Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR experiment

[ROGER ANDERTON]

i.e. Einstein wrong about gravity etc.




-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Mar, 22 At 01:33
Subject: Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR 
experiment


How about an antigravity effect -> would that count?


According to Einstein -> if heat metal (and if no chemical reactions 
going on) then the weight of the metal increases; but that doesn't 
happen and instead the metal decreases in weight - i.e. antigravity




explained at -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw3xK-9tVQ



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Mar, 22 At 01:21
Subject: Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR 
experiment


I wrote:



I asked them if they plan to give out more than one prize. I will report 
back if they respond.




They say they haven't decided yet. They have not decided the prize 
amount either, contrary to what Celani reported.

Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR experiment

[ROGER ANDERTON]

How about an antigravity effect -> would that count?


According to Einstein -> if heat metal (and if no chemical reactions 
going on) then the weight of the metal increases; but that doesn't 
happen and instead the metal decreases in weight - i.e. antigravity




explained at -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw3xK-9tVQ



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Mar, 22 At 01:21
Subject: Re: [Vo]:$2 million prize for simple/reproducible LENR 
experiment


I wrote:



I asked them if they plan to give out more than one prize. I will report 
back if they respond.




They say they haven't decided yet. They have not decided the prize 
amount either, contrary to what Celani reported.

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[ROGER ANDERTON]

.This doesn't happen in any other area of science.<<



I point out in my videos -> moving goalposts happens all the time in 
Einstein's relativity -> relativists claim one thing one moment and move 
goalposts and claim something different later.




Special Relativity moving goalposts - the clock hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKVc22izwrw



Special Relativity moving goalposts - one way and two way lightspeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48u9RF8wBFs

Special Relativity moving goalposts:  Minkowski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ojjQb94yU0


even for covid19 pandemic the goalposts are moved ->

Covid pandemic moving goalposts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehYbsrpO-L8


Moving goalposts is the preferrred method of doing things in science, 
but often scientists don't like to admit that.


Ideally the method is -> to test a theory -> but in practice that rarely 
ever happens, and the theory is saved by moving its goalposts.






-- Original Message --
From: "Kevin O'Malley" 
To: "vortex-l" 
Sent: Sunday, 17 Oct, 21 At 01:38
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

Moving The Goalposts
Skeptopaths constantly move the goalposts for LENR.  This doesn't happen 
in any other area of science.



https://www.lenr-forum.com/search-result/66261/?highlight=moving+goalposts 







On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:


I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again 
on various internet sites.  So I'm going to post each q here & just 
send links.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

May be an image of 5 people and text that says

more deletions to follow


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 23:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


their plan -> everyone will be poor except the billionairies ->
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy | The Great Reset | Klaus Schwab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IzwiH40JOc


-- Original Message --
From: "Lennart Thornros" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 23:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as they 
want. The government wants our best.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice




Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere 
with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's 
freedom of speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the 
Constitution. The electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on 
LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook posts on their website. The difference 
between us is only a matter of scale. The fact that they are large does 
not mean they have fewer rights than I do.



It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the 
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

their plan -> everyone will be poor except the billionairies ->
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy | The Great Reset | Klaus Schwab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IzwiH40JOc


-- Original Message --
From: "Lennart Thornros" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 23:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as they 
want. The government wants our best.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice




Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere 
with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's 
freedom of speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the 
Constitution. The electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on 
LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook posts on their website. The difference 
between us is only a matter of scale. The fact that they are large does 
not mean they have fewer rights than I do.



It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the 
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I disagree,  it is fascism when corporations and government are in 
partnership.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 18:09
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice




Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere 
with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's 
freedom of speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the 
Constitution. The electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on 
LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook posts on their website. The difference 
between us is only a matter of scale. The fact that they are large does 
not mean they have fewer rights than I do.



It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the 
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

by then the lid gets put on the pot.






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice



as for "legal" -> the rules just change to suit the dictator. For 
instance in Nazi Germany it was probably not legal to be anti-nazi.



The government has been working with publishers for the benefit of 
the public since colonial times.<<


myth




-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 16:29
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





government and big tech working together is fascism ->  the electorate 
didn't vote for that




No vote is needed. The government and big tech both have the right of 
free speech, and the right to do whatever they like as long as it is 
legal. The electorate cannot take away their right to cooperate with one 
another, or to collaborate. The electorate cannot vote to close down 
LENR-CANR.org or forbid me from uploading documents from NASA, which I 
did recently.



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushnellDfrontierso.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushnellDfrontierso.pdf>





wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what 
the frog has to tolerate until kill it


There is nothing remotely wrong with the government and publishers 
working together. The government has been working with publishers for 
the benefit of the public since colonial times. In some cases, the 
government and publishers worked together for nefarious purposes, but 
they both have the right to do that. If you, or some other member of the 
public, or the electorate as a whole moved to stop that cooperation -- 
or forbid it -- that would be a far greater threat to freedom than 
cooperation between publishers and the government. It would be as much 
of a threat as the Biden administration trying to stop FOX News from 
lying about the vaccines. Anyone who knows the difference between DNA 
and RNA can see that FOX News is lying about the vaccines. I am sure the 
management at FOX has high school level knowledge of biology. So they 
are lying. But it would violate the constitution to order them to shut 
up. The administration has every right to point out they are lying, and 
to ask them to stop. It should do that! But it cannot order them to stop 
publishing lies.



By the way, that meme about frogs in hot water is a myth. It is not a 
bit true. As soon as water gets uncomfortably hot, the frog will jump 
out.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

well as for covid pandemic -> most of the information that we are 
supposed to believe (for political propaganda reasons) comes from Fauci 
-> and he keeps getting caught out as lying




"He Definitely Lied to Us And He Should Be Held Responsible" Dr. Paul 
Addresses New G.O.F. Emails



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGvRzwdnnM0


-- Original Message ------
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 16:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


government and big tech working together is fascism ->  the electorate 
didn't vote for that



It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.<<



wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what 
the frog has to tolerate until kill it

















-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The government and big tech have every right to work together.



The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.


I see no problem with that. A website, company, or person should be free 
to cooperate with the government as much as they want to. If the DoE 
became interested in cold fusion, and it asked me to upload documents or 
provide them with information, I would be happy to do that.



It is not censorship when you willingly upload information the 
government provides or agrees with. It would only be censorship (reverse 
censorship) if the government forced you to upload it, or threatened 
you. It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.



I am 100% in favor of the Biden administration and Big Tech taking steps 
to stop problematic posts that spread disinformation about COVID 19, 
such as claims that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, or they change your 
DNA. Even if I thought that the vaccines are dangerous, I would still be 
opposed to rules that say the government is not allowed to cooperate 
with Facebook and the others, and none of them are allowed to say the 
vaccines are safe. They have the right to say anything they want. Many 
people on FOX News say the vaccines are dangerous. They have a 
constitutional right to say that, even though it has resulted in the 
deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

is that free?

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 16:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




they hooked me



Poor you! Maybe there is some kind YouTube addiction withdrawal support 
network.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

government and big tech working together is fascism ->  the electorate 
didn't vote for that



It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.<<



wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what 
the frog has to tolerate until kill it



https://awareity.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/temp_frogs.png













-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The government and big tech have every right to work together.



The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.


I see no problem with that. A website, company, or person should be free 
to cooperate with the government as much as they want to. If the DoE 
became interested in cold fusion, and it asked me to upload documents or 
provide them with information, I would be happy to do that.



It is not censorship when you willingly upload information the 
government provides or agrees with. It would only be censorship (reverse 
censorship) if the government forced you to upload it, or threatened 
you. It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.



I am 100% in favor of the Biden administration and Big Tech taking steps 
to stop problematic posts that spread disinformation about COVID 19, 
such as claims that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, or they change your 
DNA. Even if I thought that the vaccines are dangerous, I would still be 
opposed to rules that say the government is not allowed to cooperate 
with Facebook and the others, and none of them are allowed to say the 
vaccines are safe. They have the right to say anything they want. Many 
people on FOX News say the vaccines are dangerous. They have a 
constitutional right to say that, even though it has resulted in the 
deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

they hooked me

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




more things have to pay for all adds up



Okay, so if the ads annoy you and you don't want to pay $12 a month, 
don't watch YouTube. No one is forcing you to watch it. I do not 
understand what you are complaining about.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

more things have to pay for all adds up

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:40
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Then "they" can up the price. Point is -> used to be free; so tried to 
get people hooked on something that was free and then fleece them.




$12 a month does not seem like fleecing to me. It is more than I would 
be willing to pay, but a lot less than cable TV, or YouTube TV, which is 
$30.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

wiki says -> YouTube is an American online video sharing 
  and social media 
platform   owned by Google 
 . 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube




so is a platform, NOT publisher

trouble is -> it got criticized for what it shows -> so now starts 
censoring








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:21
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Platform, or Publisher?
If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then 
they need to get out of the censorship business.




If they are trying to shield themselves claiming "platform" rights under 
Code 230, that's unfair. I don't know what the story is. In my opinion 
they are definitely publishers, not platforms. So am I, at 
LENR-CANR.org. I would not want to be considered a platform because 
someone could force me to publish something I disagree with, as long as 
the document was legal in the sense it was not porn or libel. I think 
Facebook should have the same rights I do.



A platform would be an ISP, such as Jumpline, which hosts LENR-CANR.org. 
They are not responsible for anything I upload. Suppose their management 
was strongly in favor of plasma fusion and they agreed with Robert Part 
that cold fusion is criminal fraud and lunacy. They would still not have 
the right to throw me out. That's the point of U.S. Code 230. As I 
recall, Jumpline does have a policy that they will remove websites that 
host illegal activities. Looking at it the other way, an ISP has a "good 
Samaritan" right to refuse to host websites which they sincerely believe 
violate the laws:



(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service 
 
shall be held liable on account of—

(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or 
availability of material that the provider or user considers to be 
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or 
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is 
constitutionally protected; or


(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content 
providers 
 
or others the technical means to restrict access to material described 
in paragraph (1).


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 



By the way, I am not actually opposed to uploading attacks on cold 
fusion. On the contrary, I asked Robert Park and John Huizenga for 
permission to upload their work. They never responded. I would not want 
to be forced to upload anything, but I would be pleased to upload their 
stuff. I have never refused a paper. In a few cases, I suggested the 
paper be uploaded somewhere else, because it seemed off-topic. The 
authors were happy to put the papers elsewhere. If someone submits a 
paper on magnetic motors I would probably refuse it because it seems to 
have no relationship to cold fusion. That hasn't happened.



There are papers by the late Ken Shoulders about something called EVOs. 
I have not read these papers. I glanced at one years ago. I could not 
make head or tail of it. I have no idea what an EVO is. As far as I can 
tell they have nothing to do with cold fusion. But some people recently 
suggested I upload the papers anyway. I guess that is okay. If that's 
what the audience wants to see. I don't have copies but someone may send 
me one. Generally speaking, I want to avoid off-topic papers because 
they annoy the readers. People tell me they come to LENR-CANR.org to 
find information on cold fusion, and they do not want to have to sort 
through other papers about magnetic motors or what-have-you. My "no 
off-topic" rule is not hard and fast. I have a few papers that are not 
about cold fusion, such as this one about plasma fusion and fission 
reactors:



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf 

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Point is -> facebook is not Washington Post. It was a platform for 
people to communicate among themselves; now censorship is being 
increased. Facebook is more compatible to telephone conversations than 
to Washington Post. Would you agree to having telephone conversations 
censored? And as for your rights -> you don't have the right to censor 
other people's freedom of speech; if were able to censor other people 
then they wouldn't have freedom of speech.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 14:46
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




It is not their constitutional right to censor.



It most certainly is their right! Facebook or the Washington Post cannot 
be forced to publish an editorial they disagree with. They can censor 
any opinion or letter they want. If the government were to force them to 
publish something they disagree with, that would be as bad as forbidding 
them from publishing an opinion. If the DoE were to force me to upload 
an editorial attacking cold fusion, that would be as unconstitutional as 
forcing me to delete these editorials opposing the DoE:



https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455 
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455>



https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf 
<https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf>



Facebook and YouTube have the same rights as I do. They are bigger, and 
they have more impact, but that does not mean their rights are reduced.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Then "they" can up the price. Point is -> used to be free; so tried to 
get people hooked on something that was free and then fleece them.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 14:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


CB Sites mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Yeah, the monetization of youtube sucks.  They do have to find a way to 
pay for it so I just sit through a 30sec ad or two and skip the 2-15 
minute ones.  But annoying as heck, I agree with.



It turns out you can get YouTube Premium for $12 a month. That 
eliminates the ads. That seems like a modest cost to me. I don't watch 
YouTube enough to pay for it, but if I watched it a lot I would pay. As 
you and I said, someone has to pay for all that bandwidth and equipment. 
You can't expect them to provide it for free.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I think the way out of it is -> the government has this little known 
right to change the constitution -> thus if they scrap the bill of 
rights -> they can stop presenting the illusion that there is freedom of 
speech under their fasicist dictatorship


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 19:14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.

https://www.reformthekakistocracy.com/wh-admits-censoring-legal-implications/

since we live in a fasicist state -> corporations and govenment are the 
same thing


so your point that government not allowed to censor and big tech allowed 
to censor is nonsense, when government and big tech are the same thing.






-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 18:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


It is not their constitutional right to censor.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot 
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, 
FOX News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech 
as much as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from 
a cold fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can 
delete any post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. 
It is entirely up to them. The government cannot interfere with their 
decision because freedom of speech includes the right to not publish 
something. They cannot be forced to publish a statement.



If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their 
business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for 
Facebook and their users to decide. The government has no role and their 
decision to delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with 
constitutional free speech.




2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html 
<https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>




I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their 
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they 
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.

https://www.reformthekakistocracy.com/wh-admits-censoring-legal-implications/

since we live in a fasicist state -> corporations and govenment are the 
same thing


so your point that government not allowed to censor and big tech allowed 
to censor is nonsense, when government and big tech are the same thing.






-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 18:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


It is not their constitutional right to censor.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot 
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, 
FOX News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech 
as much as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from 
a cold fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can 
delete any post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. 
It is entirely up to them. The government cannot interfere with their 
decision because freedom of speech includes the right to not publish 
something. They cannot be forced to publish a statement.



If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their 
business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for 
Facebook and their users to decide. The government has no role and their 
decision to delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with 
constitutional free speech.




2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html 
<https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>




I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their 
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they 
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It is not their constitutional right to censor.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot 
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, 
FOX News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech 
as much as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from 
a cold fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can 
delete any post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. 
It is entirely up to them. The government cannot interfere with their 
decision because freedom of speech includes the right to not publish 
something. They cannot be forced to publish a statement.



If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their 
business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for 
Facebook and their users to decide. The government has no role and their 
decision to delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with 
constitutional free speech.




2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html 
<https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>




I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their 
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they 
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything 
they want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the 
government telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.<<



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech
as for "dangerous" -> as per Manhattan project -> parts of physics is 
deemed "dangerous" and has to be censored.






-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 02:03
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Censorship is increasing anything can be classified as "pornography, 
revenge or dangerous"



Youtube censorship ->
Big Tech censored anyone who predicted a Biden vaccine mandate 
https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html


etc.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 01:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was 
not censored,  can you/we expect them not to eventually censor




YouTube never said it would not be censored. They said from the start 
they would not allow pornography, revenge or dangerous vids.



It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything 
they want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the 
government telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.



If you don't want to pay to see the ads deleted, don't pay. Go 
elsewhere. I seldom watch YouTube so the ads don't bother me. I believe 
there are other sources of vids on the internet. I haven't looked.



If you have a video they do not want to host, you can put it on your own 
website. As I did. It is now embedded.



https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618 
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Censorship is increasing anything can be classified as "pornography, 
revenge or dangerous"



Youtube censorship ->
Big Tech censored anyone who predicted a Biden vaccine mandate 
https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html


etc.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 01:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was 
not censored,  can you/we expect them not to eventually censor




YouTube never said it would not be censored. They said from the start 
they would not allow pornography, revenge or dangerous vids.



It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything 
they want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the 
government telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.



If you don't want to pay to see the ads deleted, don't pay. Go 
elsewhere. I seldom watch YouTube so the ads don't bother me. I believe 
there are other sources of vids on the internet. I haven't looked.



If you have a video they do not want to host, you can put it on your own 
website. As I did. It is now embedded.



https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618 
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was 
not censored,  can you/we expect them not to eventually censor


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Saturday, 18 Sep, 21 At 21:29
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Not really new, its the same old trick everytime; its like how illegal 
drugs are pushed -> the dealer gives you them free until you are hooked 
then you have to pay; Youtube were giving a free service, now they are 
looking for getting money from it.



Well, you can't expect them to provide it for free if it is costing them 
money. The Premium upgrade to no ads is $12 per month. That does not 
seem onerous to me. I am not going to pay it because I seldom watch 
YouTube.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Not really new, its the same old trick everytime; its like how illegal 
drugs are pushed -> the dealer gives you them free until you are hooked 
then you have to pay; Youtube were giving a free service, now they are 
looking for getting money from it. No such thing as a free lunch -> 
there always turns out to be  a catch. When it looks too good to be true 
then it was too good to be true.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Saturday, 18 Sep, 21 At 19:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads



Oh. You learn something new every day. I see you can pay them to delete 
the ads for $12 a month, with YouTube Premium. This I did not know, 
because I am out of it. Far, far out of it. Light years away from it.




- Jed



On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 7:12 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:


Youtube has started putting adverts on all videos now; they should have 
sent you a message telling you what they were going to do; maybe its in 
your spam folder.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Youtube has started putting adverts on all videos now; they should have 
sent you a message telling you what they were going to do; maybe its in 
your spam folder.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: c...@googlegroups.com; "Vortex" 
Sent: Friday, 17 Sep, 21 At 19:12
Subject: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Around July of this year, the number of people viewing my video fell. 
Recently I watched the video and discovered that YouTube is stuffing 
advertisements in front of it. I guess that is why fewer people are 
watching it. There does not seem to be a way to override this. The 
"monetization" option is not turned on. So, I downloaded it and put a 
copy at LENR-CANR.org in mp4 format. You can view it anytime, or 
download a copy:


https://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Brief%20Introduction%20to%20Cold%20Fusion.mp4 




This does not have the subtitles the YouTube one has. The YouTube 
version is still here:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvL4zNLOGw 




The script in various languages is here:


https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618 

Re: [Vo]:Scientific Papers

[ROGER ANDERTON]

the message I get is -> no access to that site from Europe due to EU 
(European Union) Laws


-- Original Message --
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Sep, 21 At 16:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Scientific Papers

Unintended consequences

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/ivermectin-causes-sterilization-in-85-percent-of-men-study-finds/ 




On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:21 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  > wrote:



The biggest crime is still ongoing.
Companies like Merck (+ vaccine makers) actively bribe   CDD/FDA/WHO 
to not allow IVERMECTIN for   CoV-19 treatment. Now the USA state 
mafia tops this and donates   1.2 billion to Merck for an already 
failed drug.
See statement of Dr. Kory: https://vimeo.com/562286662 



With IVERMECTIN we would have only a few 1000 victims from   CoV-19.

India currently only uses IVERMECTIN.   India cases overall did go 
down 7x. Delhi that started early has   now - after 7 weeks - about 
131 cases/day far below USA level.
 So you have to learn: Big Pharma does not hesitate to kill you 
with bad drugs if they want to make money.


J.W.

On 16.06.2021 00:07, Michael Foster   wrote:

I read a lot of scientific papers covering a broad variety 
of subjects. It's how I amuse myself, even though I am not a scientist. 
Some people play golf, I read scientific papers.  I'm sure many of you 
on this list have noticed that papers on research payed for with your 
tax dollars are not available to the the public except through 
for-profit companies who will charge you an arm and a leg for them. The 
companies that do this are literally making billions doing this. Nice, 
huh?I can often dodge the pay wall by searching for one of the authors 
who may have published a paper on the same subject somewhere else. Why 
should I or anyone else have to pay to read about research that I and 
other taxpayers have already bought?Given the state of the world today, 
I was reading a lot of papers on PubMed, the NIH website, where you 
could read literally thousands of papers covering medical research. Only 
about a week ago, I read one that was the most horrifying evidence of 
collusion between our benevolent government and Big Pharma. I was going 
to post the conclusion and summary of this research here for all of you 
to read and a link to the paper. Guess what? That paper has vanished and 
you can now only read abstracts of the papers on PubMed. You now must go 
the usual private company and pay to read research available for free 
only days ago.  I unfortunately didn't save the link or the whole PDF 
because I thought I could find it again with a few key words as I had 
before. All gone.I will give you what I remember to the best of my 
ability the summary and conclusion of the research in question. It 
stated flatly through two double blind clinical trials that those 
suffering from HIV/AIDS could have their immune function restored by 
taking n-acetyl cysteine, an inexpensive and easily obtained supplement. 
The effect was raising the glutathione levels in the body. Glutathione 
is the master anti-oxidant in the human body. You could say that 
glutathione IS the immune system.What I'm saying is that this sort of 
information while formerly available to anyone looking for it and the 
ability to understand it, was not likely to attract attention, given the 
type of specialist study that it was. So, for lack of informing the 
general public of this research, HIV sufferers are paying nearly $120 
per day for medication from Big Pharma versus a few cents per day for 
the n-acetyl cysteine.I don't know about you guys, but I would call that 
a crime.  -- Jürg WyttenbachBifangstr. 228910 Affoltern am 
Albis+41 44 760 14 18+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:vacuum drop tower

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Hi

Does anyone here have access to a vacuum drop tower; I want to do an 
antigravity experiment

Re: [Vo]: uap report out

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I think -> most people in general (especially many scientists) are 
afraid of the idea of ETs. ET signals can easily be picked up using 
Tesla technology but SETI just ignores them. As my friend Peter Cheasley 
found out-> Argonaut Peter Cheasley, VE2TPR, sends along this 3.5 GHz 
detection from 25 October 2011.  The diagonal lines in the spectrogram 
are a signal which is highly Doppler shifted, hence emanating from 
beyond Earth.  The short horizontal signal segment highlighted with the 
arrow is stable in frequency, hence obviously terrestrial interference. 
It is not often that a Project Argus station can capture a candidate 
extraterrestrial signal, and a terrestrial one, in the same image.  This 
picture illustrates most eloquently how easily the wetware between your 
ears can distinguish between the two. 
http://www.setileague.org/photos/hits.htm






-- Original Message --
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: "vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 28 Jun, 21 At 02:14
Subject: [Vo]: uap report out

Frank - Don't you love the way the brass likes to exert a bit of 
unnecessary control every story by ignoring the common designation (in 
wide use by the public - which is UFO) - and inserting their own name?



Why invent "UAP" when UFO is equally unknown and ambiguous,  since it 
adds zero real info, other than a layer of confusion ?



The more interesting detail is that there is apparently some slight 
correlation between a few of the UAP/UFO sightings and Oumuamua



It is tempting to think of this strange intruder as akin to the 
"monolith" in "2001" - you know the one.



A Possible Link between ‘Oumuamua and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena 





A Possible Link between ‘Oumuamua and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
Avi Loeb
If some UAP turn out to be extraterrestrial technology, they could be 
dropping sensors for a subsequent craft to... 

[Vo]:Special relativity: the pedagogical trick

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Special relativity: the pedagogical trick

Special relativity has been misunderstood by the mainstream physics 
community, and physics students have been taught wrong!Physicist Don 
Lincoln effectively is telling us that the Great Richard Feynman didn't 
understand relativity. But what Richard Feynman has said about 
relativity has been the standard by which physics students have been 
taught! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2N4TA__jPo

RE: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well, aliens supposedly refer to people as containers for souls


Robert Lazar mentioned a book that contained the history of earth and 
that it said that humans were referred to as ..containers for souls" and 
that souls could be traded in something like a barter system.

The aliens are doing it all the time.
They're trading in souls?
Yes. They were shuffling us around like we were cattle to them.
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol6/orion3.shtml

which makes them demonic-> because supposedly Devil trades in souls-> 
ask the Devil for what you want in exchnage for selling your soul etc.







-- Original Message --
From: "Chris Zell" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Monday, 24 May, 21 At 17:36
Subject: RE: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month




As for Aliens getting marooned here, I wonder about a similar idea.

Both “Communion” and Linda Howe claim Aliens have something to do with 
an afterlife.  I wonder if we are undesirable as to reincarnation 
elsewhere so they set things up to keep us here.  Not on my planet, 
Monkey-Boy.





CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Probably Social Darwnists -> where think they can do whatever they like 
to inferior species


-- Original Message --
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 20 May, 21 At 23:53
Subject: Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month




On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:22 PM Robin  > wrote:

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 20 May 2021 17:54:44 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 >The one question that remains in
 >my mind is:
 >
 >ARE WE FOOD OR ARE WE PETS?

 They know we are intelligent, and we are not food. They guide us in 
our development somewhat, and occasionally lend a
 hand when needed, but are largely non-interventionist. A species (us) 
mostly has to discover things for themselves,

 otherwise the shock to their development can lead to catastrophe.

I hope you are right; however, my research tells me that they are taking 
something from us.  And I really don't think they give a hoot about the 
Prime Directive.

Re: [Vo]:planetary formation

[ROGER ANDERTON]

1) If both the Sun and the planets formed from the same gas/dust 
cloud, how come the Sun is mostly Hydrogen and the

Earth is a rocky planet?<<


one theory/hypothesis/speculation is that there were supermassive stars 
(that have lived out their lives and died) in early universe where the 
heavier elements than hydrogen were manifactured and the remants of that 
were what formed rocky planets. While planets like Jupiter are just 
failed stars that weren't quite massive enough to start nuclear fusion


2) If some selection process caused primarily Hydrogen to condense at 
the middle, why are the rocky planets closer to

the Sun than the gas giants?<<


happenstance. Dragoslav explains planet density and their distances by 
update of Bode's law to Boscovich theory of repulsive and attractive 
forces for solar system 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281489710_ROGER_BOSCOVICH_-_THE_FOUNDER_OF_MODERN_SCIENCE













-- Original Message --
From: "Robin" 
To: "VORTEX" 
Sent: Friday, 8 Jan, 21 At 04:51
Subject: [Vo]:planetary formation
Hi,
Questions:
1) If both the Sun and the planets formed from the same gas/dust cloud, 
how come the Sun is mostly Hydrogen and the

Earth is a rocky planet?
2) If some selection process caused primarily Hydrogen to condense at 
the middle, why are the rocky planets closer to

the Sun than the gas giants?
Regards,
R. van Spaandonk
Crops, not towns, should be planted on floodplains.
Even the ancient Egyptians knew this.

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Stellar aberration calculation is now done with Lorentz transformations 
(based on SR with its can't measure oneway lightspeed) that would not 
have been how  calculated in 18th century (based on assuming absolute 
time)


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 14 Dec, 20 At 21:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

Perhaps what relativistists can say is that it is impossible to measure 
the one way speed of light _using_ clocks.
However, stellar aberration is a way of measuring the one way speed of 
light that does not use clocks.

It also is an old way that has been known since the 18th century.


Harry


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:03 PM H LV <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:


According to relativisits it is only possible to measure the two way 
speed of light.
However in order for special relativity to make a prediction about 
stellar aberration it has to use


a definite one way speed of light because stellar aberration only 
involves light moving one way.

This seems to be inconsistent.


Harry


On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:45 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- 
cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- 
who knows.



Roger


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok I watched it.
Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it 
is possible to measure the one way speed of light.



Harry



On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed"


deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving 
goalposts etc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY=youtu.be 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY=youtu.be>



-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

Harry


There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway->


I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you 
refuse  to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant 
to  acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or 
perhaps  because they fear others will think less of them.<<


People disagree about math




-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Harry


Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in 
Discover science magazine: 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes 
<https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> 
so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later.




I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse 
to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to 
acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps 
because they fear others will think less of them.







I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation 
of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that.


How many translations of the paper exist?


As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying 
in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was 
bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly 
discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but 
after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time 
dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to 
his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an 
update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update.

Roger







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up




At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears

[Vo]:Moving goalposts

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Latest video:


Moving goalposts: Einstein's 1905 clock mistake

Historical documents are treated as cannot be modified, and so 
Einstein's papers keep getting reprinted without correction to their 
mistakes, and without notes on them saying they are in error. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaUeakBIm-M=youtu.be

Re: [Vo]:superluminal mind

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry


Boscovich force keeps flipping on different size scales between 
attractive and repulsive. There was an article I read where person tried 
to apply it to nucleus to explain cold fusion.


I have put a lot of videos up about Boscovich. Various people working on 
unified field theories combine it with their ideas. It was part of 
Victorian theory of Everything - the vortex atom - Karl Pearson tried to 
combine it with vortex idea- Pearson was what Einstein was working from.



Vortex atom - Victorian theory of Everything 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x











-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 13 Dec, 20 At 18:23
Subject: Re: [Vo]:superluminal mind


Thanks for the talk about Boscovich.
Here the presenter quotes Heisenberg as saying that Boscovich's force is 
repulsive at short distances but becomes attractive at larger distances.
https://youtu.be/w1vi0yk7BvU?t=1999 
<https://youtu.be/w1vi0yk7BvU?t=1999>
Such a force is sufficient to account for the formation of stable solids 
(condensed matter) from atoms, but the formation of a stable nucleus 
would seem to be precluded. Boscovich theory of force could be 
considered comprehensive for its time when nothing was known about the 
nucleus. However, the formation of a stable nucleus would need to be 
supplemented by a complementary force which is attractive at small 
distances but repulsive at larger distances.



Harry



On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



development of Boscovich theory led to quantum physics, Dragoslav from 
Serbia talk on Boscovich->


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU>

RE: [Vo]:superluminal mind

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Slobodan Nedic<<



also deals with Boscovich theory. People like Tesla and Boscovich get 
missed out of Western Science education


Boscovich 18 th century and used to be part of physics education before 
WWII then gets missed out.


Boscovich statute->

Ruggiero Boscovich - Jesuits Ireland


development of Boscovich theory led to quantum physics, Dragoslav from 
Serbia talk on Boscovich->


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU







-- Original Message --
From: "JonesBeene" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Sunday, 13 Dec, 20 At 14:13
Subject: RE: [Vo]:superluminal mind


From: Sean Logan 




   * Tell me more about this "Longitudinal Wave"?  Can you show me 
equations, or point me to papers?   Last night, out of the blue, an 
engineer started telling me about this same thing.  He showed me a pair 
of equations from his paper, but asked me not to publish them because 
they are export restricted.


There are dozens of papers out there due to Tesla worship. Many are 
bogus. Some are brilliant but speculative -  I cannot say I understand 
the concept very well. Try:


“Longitudinal Waves in Electromagnetism - Toward a Consistent Theory”
Slobodan Nedic

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339747101_Longitudinal_Waves_in_Electromagnetism_Towards_Consistent_Framework_for_Tesla%27s_Energy_and_Information_Transmission_along_w_Energy_Harvesting 



This group has amended Maxwell’s equations and seems fairly believable. 
There are decent references at the end.


There are also papers behind paywalls. And in Infinite Energy.

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- 
cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- 
who knows.



Roger


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok I watched it.
Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it 
is possible to measure the one way speed of light.



Harry



On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed"


deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving 
goalposts etc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY=youtu.be 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY=youtu.be>



-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

Harry


There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway->


I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you 
refuse  to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant 
to  acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or 
perhaps  because they fear others will think less of them.<<


People disagree about math




-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Harry


Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in 
Discover science magazine: 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes 
<https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> 
so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later.




I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse 
to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to 
acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps 
because they fear others will think less of them.







I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation 
of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that.


How many translations of the paper exist?


As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying 
in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was 
bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly 
discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but 
after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time 
dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to 
his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an 
update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update.

Roger







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up




At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did 
not like doing lab work. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4>




What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his 
English and German is just messed up.


lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer

in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable

quote->
 Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when 
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

 x'/(c-v) = t

 This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so 
is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus 
has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v  which 
is not equal to c.





Yes but because  the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and 
length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This 
video  explains why the two way velocity of light is important for 
understanding Einstein`s theory.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k>



What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I 
personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is 
a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed"


deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving 
goalposts etc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY=youtu.be


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

Harry


There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway->


I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you 
refuse  to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant 
to  acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or 
perhaps  because they fear others will think less of them.<<


People disagree about math




-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Harry


Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in 
Discover science magazine: 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes 
<https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> 
so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later.




I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse 
to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to 
acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps 
because they fear others will think less of them.







I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation 
of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that.


How many translations of the paper exist?


As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying 
in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was 
bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly 
discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but 
after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time 
dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to 
his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an 
update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update.

Roger







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up




At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did 
not like doing lab work. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4>




What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his 
English and German is just messed up.


lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer

in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable

quote->
 Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when 
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

 x'/(c-v) = t

 This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so 
is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus 
has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v  which 
is not equal to c.





Yes but because  the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and 
length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This 
video  explains why the two way velocity of light is important for 
understanding Einstein`s theory.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k>



What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I 
personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is 
a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just 
makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed 
in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two 
frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says 
this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4>



Harry







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with 
respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the 
aether. Howev

Re: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well one of the things that has confused me when taught relativity is- 
if have length contraction of an object in one direction and not 
perpendicular to that direction; then surely its getting denser along 
the contracted length and then increase gravitational force in the 
perpendicular direction; so should cause contraction in that direction 
also (?) But gravitational effect seems to be ignored.


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 21:06
Subject: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

Can Buster Keaton explain the Michelson Morley experiment? ;-)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/14S0qNLyghHNzB4Sp7Rg-6s8yXypz7mBz/view?usp=sharing 




Instead of length contraction in the direction of the aether wind, 
suppose the perpendicular leg of the MM apparatus leans into the aether 
wind instead.


The right amount of lean could have the effect of lengthening the travel 
time on the nominally perpendicular leg so that no fringe shift is 
produced.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry


There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway->


I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you 
refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant 
to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or 
perhaps because they fear others will think less of them.<<


People disagree about math




-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Harry


Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in 
Discover science magazine: 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes 
<https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> 
so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later.




I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse 
to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to 
acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps 
because they fear others will think less of them.







I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation 
of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that.


How many translations of the paper exist?


As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying 
in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was 
bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly 
discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but 
after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time 
dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to 
his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an 
update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update.

Roger







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up




At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did 
not like doing lab work. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4>




What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his 
English and German is just messed up.


lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer

in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable

quote->
 Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when 
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

 x'/(c-v) = t

 This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so 
is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus 
has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v  which 
is not equal to c.





Yes but because  the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and 
length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This 
video  explains why the two way velocity of light is important for 
understanding Einstein`s theory.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k>



What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I 
personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is 
a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just 
makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed 
in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two 
frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says 
this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4>



Harry







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with 
respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the 
aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of 
momentum which would need to be examined.



Harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL ty

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry


Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in 
Discover science magazine: 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes 
so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later.


I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation 
of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that.


As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying 
in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was 
bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly 
discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but 
after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time 
dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to 
his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an 
update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update.


Roger




-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory





On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up




At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did 
not like doing lab work. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4>




What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his 
English and German is just messed up.


lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer

in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable

quote->
 Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when 
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

 x'/(c-v) = t

 This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so 
is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus 
has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v  which 
is not equal to c.





Yes but because  the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and 
length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This 
video  explains why the two way velocity of light is important for 
understanding Einstein`s theory.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k>



What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I 
personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is 
a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just 
makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed 
in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two 
frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says 
this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4>



Harry







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with 
respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the 
aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of 
momentum which would need to be examined.



Harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL types of emission theories

which is false claim.

There is difference between claims->


(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

and

(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular 
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.


i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers






-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps 
a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other 
domains.



harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission t

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up


What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his 
English and German is just messed up.


lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer

in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable

quote->
Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when 
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

x'/(c-v) = t

This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so 
is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus 
has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is 
not equal to c.


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with 
respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the 
aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of 
momentum which would need to be examined.



Harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL types of emission theories

which is false claim.

There is difference between claims->


(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

and

(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular 
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.


i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers






-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps 
a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other 
domains.



harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is 
just a meme promoting a falsehood


It is an example of lie which - if  a lie is repeated often enough then 
people start believing it.





-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23
Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using 
the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can 
be added to the speed of light.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing 
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing>



Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely 
predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at 
different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe 
shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null 
result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. 
However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes 
wrong predictions in other domains.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Also poor for learning physics



Roger


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 22:08
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Through my own research I have come to realize that modern physics 
textbooks are poor places to learn about the history of physics.



Harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL types of emission theories

which is false claim.

There is difference between claims->


(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

and

(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular 
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.


i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers






-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps 
a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other 
domains.



harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is 
just a meme promoting a falsehood


It is an example of lie which - if  a lie is repeated often enough then 
people start believing it.





-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23
Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using 
the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can 
be added to the speed of light.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing 
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing>



Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely 
predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at 
different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe 
shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null 
result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. 
However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes 
wrong predictions in other domains.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL types of emission theories

which is false claim.

There is difference between claims->


(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

and

(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular 
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.


i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers






-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps 
a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other 
domains.



harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is 
just a meme promoting a falsehood


It is an example of lie which - if  a lie is repeated often enough then 
people start believing it.





-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23
Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using 
the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can 
be added to the speed of light.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing 
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing>



Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely 
predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at 
different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe 
shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null 
result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. 
However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes 
wrong predictions in other domains.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is 
just a meme promoting a falsehood


It is an example of lie which - if  a lie is repeated often enough then 
people start believing it.





-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23
Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using 
the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can 
be added to the speed of light.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing 




Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely 
predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at 
different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe 
shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null 
result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. 
However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes 
wrong predictions in other domains.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I suppose so. By "mind's eye" you mean thought-experiment, and by 
"splinter of mind's eye" you mean something not needed in the thought 
experiment. Thus the version of aether wind conceived of was not found, 
but that has no bearing on whether the aether exists or not



Roger


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 2 Dec, 20 At 15:45
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

Michelson's calculated a fringe shift using the notion of an aether 
_wind_,  but it has gradually dawned on me that this concept is the root 
of the problem. The aether _wind_ is the splinter in the mind's eye.



The aether should be taken as the rest frame and the apparatus should be 
imagined as moving with respect to it. The apparatus does not experience 
any kind of wind as a result of its translatory motion. The only thing 
it experiences is a continual change of location wrt to the aether 
frame.




Harry



On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



It's wave-particle duality; so have a particle model and wave model for 
photons and other quantum particles.



As per Einstein 1920 he did not give up on aether: "Recapitulating, we 
may say that according to the general theory of  relativity space is 
endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,  therefore, there exists 
an ether." https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/ 
<https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/>


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Dec, 20 At 19:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

Hmm...
the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of 
light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of 
light.
It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find 
suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave 
model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could 
decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should 
ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.

harry


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



a lot of that video is lies.


Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether, 
it still keeps aether.


As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course 
because MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed 
theory, no need for constant lightspeed.


etc.

Just usual misrepresentations!


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy



Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely 
experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his 
contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the 
experiment as a failure.


Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw>




His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion 
through the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse 
component and a longitudinal component.  However, I think this is a 
methodological error that results from conflating the motion of a 
flowing fluid with a wave propagating in a medium. In reality all parts 
of the apparatus moving with speed V through the aether will either send 
light forward with speed (C-V) or send light rearward with speed (C+V) 
in the frame of the apparatus. What was analysed as transverse motion 
was really just forward motion. (These additive and subtractive rules 
ensure that the speed of light wrt to the aether frame is always C.)



Harry



On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of 
aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined;  on the 
simplest level-> could take it as definition that->  a wave has a 
medium; and then -> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.



I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are 
lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy


One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of 
relativi

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It's wave-particle duality; so have a particle model and wave model for 
photons and other quantum particles.



As per Einstein 1920 he did not give up on aether: "Recapitulating, we 
may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is 
endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists 
an ether." https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 1 Dec, 20 At 19:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

Hmm...
the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of 
light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of 
light.
It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find 
suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave 
model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could 
decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should 
ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.

harry


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



a lot of that video is lies.


Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether, 
it still keeps aether.


As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course 
because MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed 
theory, no need for constant lightspeed.


etc.

Just usual misrepresentations!


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy



Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely 
experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his 
contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the 
experiment as a failure.


Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw>




His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion 
through the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse 
component and a longitudinal component.  However, I think this is a 
methodological error that results from conflating the motion of a 
flowing fluid with a wave propagating in a medium. In reality all parts 
of the apparatus moving with speed V through the aether will either send 
light forward with speed (C-V) or send light rearward with speed (C+V) 
in the frame of the apparatus. What was analysed as transverse motion 
was really just forward motion. (These additive and subtractive rules 
ensure that the speed of light wrt to the aether frame is always C.)



Harry



On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of 
aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined;  on the 
simplest level-> could take it as definition that->  a wave has a 
medium; and then -> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.



I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are 
lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy


One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of 
relativity theory.
He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven 
or disproven, so it is unfair
for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence 
of an aether.


However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift 
that would have confirmed
the existence of aether. Michelson  took the null result to mean there 
was something wrong with his
understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as 
irrelevant or obsolete.
Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other 
apparent confirmations of relativity theory.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



fudging math is standard part of science/physics


Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English, 
and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on 
misunderstandings as per latest talk at ANPA-> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

a lot of that video is lies.


Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether, 
it still keeps aether.


As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course 
because MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed 
theory, no need for constant lightspeed.


etc.

Just usual misrepresentations!


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy



Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely 
experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his 
contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the 
experiment as a failure.


Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw>




His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion 
through the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse 
component and a longitudinal component.  However, I think this is a 
methodological error that results from conflating the motion of a 
flowing fluid with a wave propagating in a medium. In reality all parts 
of the apparatus moving with speed V through the aether will either send 
light forward with speed (C-V) or send light rearward with speed (C+V) 
in the frame of the apparatus. What was analysed as transverse motion 
was really just forward motion. (These additive and subtractive rules 
ensure that the speed of light wrt to the aether frame is always C.)



Harry



On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of 
aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined;  on the 
simplest level-> could take it as definition that->  a wave has a 
medium; and then -> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.



I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are 
lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy


One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of 
relativity theory.
He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven 
or disproven, so it is unfair
for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence 
of an aether.


However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift 
that would have confirmed
the existence of aether. Michelson  took the null result to mean there 
was something wrong with his
understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as 
irrelevant or obsolete.
Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other 
apparent confirmations of relativity theory.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



fudging math is standard part of science/physics


Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English, 
and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on 
misunderstandings as per latest talk at ANPA-> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of 
aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined;  on the 
simplest level-> could take it as definition that->  a wave has a 
medium; and then -> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.



I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are 
lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.







-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy


One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of 
relativity theory.
He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven 
or disproven, so it is unfair
for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence 
of an aether.


However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift 
that would have confirmed
the existence of aether. Michelson  took the null result to mean there 
was something wrong with his
understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as 
irrelevant or obsolete.
Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other 
apparent confirmations of relativity theory.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



fudging math is standard part of science/physics


Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English, 
and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on 
misunderstandings as per latest talk at ANPA-> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

In the case of relativity; I think it has always been mostly the older 
people that question it. When young, the tendency is to trust what is 
being taught, and it takes a lot of research by which time you are old 
to find out that what you were taught when young was all lies.



One of my videos is "How relativists lie" - and the techniques that 
relativists use to lie is not something most young people are aware of 
as being used on them; when young the tendency is to be naive and not be 
looking for  deliberate misdirections and deceptions from teachers.



-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 16:33
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

Has anyone noticed that in the present day older folk are more likely 
than younger folk to be the ones seriously questioning
the establishment? This is a reversal from how it was in Einstein's day 
and for most of the 20th century.





Harry


On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



fudging math is standard part of science/physics


Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English, 
and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on 
misunderstandings as per latest talk at ANPA-> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>


How relativists lie explained at-> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVIceUFXCE 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVIceUFXCE>


all Jedi mind tricks; sins of omission, telephone game etc

telephone game-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHCkzl8Nykc 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHCkzl8Nykc>


Latest video will be about Einstein and aliens; Pavlov dog tricks etc

More time to do this now that on lockdown, normally wouldn't get further 
than dealing with videos on unified field theory talks from Vigier 
conference


https://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/ 
<https://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/>







-- Original Message --
From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" mailto:ju...@datamart.ch> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 15:08
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
Classically the neutrino was invented as a missing link for the standard 
model fudge factor math...


 But neutrinos exist somehow as some interactions can be measured. But 
all boils down to the question whether neutrinos have a rest mass or 
not. If not then all the SM fudging is plain nonsense.


 In real experiments the mass of the neutrino is going down each year. 
Currently scored at less than 0.1 eV! Still no problem with SR as mass 
can go to infinite if accelerated to light speed. But effects of 0.1eV 
are in the error range of background/measurement processes and could 
also be resonances.


 The Higgs particle(s) is in fact a simple proton resonance that occurs 
if the total flux does one more rotation. The original measured Higgs 
mass can exactly be calculated by the basic SO(4) physics metric applied 
to the proton!


 Result: CERN now tries to fudge away the higher easy to derive 
(4D-)proton mass by changing the measurement. So they get two goals in 
one: No more two Higgs particles and a lowers mass that needs a bit more 
work for the SO(4) derivation.


 In my view reading standard model (SM) papers dealing with mass is a 
waste of live time. But SM is no longer science its a religion!


 J.W.

 On 28.11.2020 15:16, Don86326 wrote:
 What do the vocal folk here think of David de Hilster?

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA> 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA> >



 And, do you think the neutrino is a fudge-factor?  Being essentially 
non-detectable they make a great fudge.  The neutrino detection I read 
about said that it was hardly proof --another reading in the noise floor 
--while the article portended it was proof.  Has there been more recent 
'hard' proof of neutrinos?


 OK, I'm a contrarian.

 But, the article I read on the Nobel prize winning Higgs boson 
detection also said it was a secondary inferred detection.  But after 
spending billions, somebody has to get a a prize.  And I'm very, very 
skeptical about super-duper big-science when career politics always 
trumps science.  Which is nothing new.


 Michael Faraday was a commoner, a book binder, unable to possibly do 
good science, because he did not have noble blood, per his boss.  A 
laughing gas habit killed Michael's boss, so I reckon Michael did get 
the last laugh  --as his brilliance was celebrated when his noble 
control-freak was gone.


 I think the media has a damaging effect on science.  Take the 
entangled photons from crystals that behave in parallel dynamics for a 
few milliseconds... and the medi