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 mot
t;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.
t 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
> Subj
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 hav
gt;
> 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: R
>>>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: Specia
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
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)
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
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 t
On 12.11.2023 01:50, Jonathan Berry wrote:
Another idea I came across is that gravity is a result of time dilation!
Gravity, as shown exactly in SOP, is a very weak "nuclear" force. Time
dilation as origin of a force is a nice fantasy - just good for a Disney
movie.
J.W.
--
Jürg
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
t.
But will check out what the translation issue is, thanks.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 23:13, ROGER ANDERTON
wrote:
but it is
-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subjec
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
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
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
Also if the speed of light depended on direction would it even be possible
to establish a reliable communication link between a transmitter and a
receiver which are moving at different inclinations and at different
speeds?
Harry
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 1:19 PM H L V wrote:
>
> If the one way
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
wrote:
> If you ask most people, most
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]:Polish
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]:Po
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 b
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
t;one way" part.
But will check out what the translation issue is, thanks.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 23:13, ROGER ANDERTON
wrote:
> but it is
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jonathan Berry"
> 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 tra
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 <mai
se 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: Spe
: "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 spee
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
