[Vo]:Fuel cell electrodes

[Robin]

Hi,

Now that you are using vacuum deposition, you might try any of the transition 
metals on a graphene base.
In particular, Nickel, Iron, or Titanium, all of which interact with Hydrogen, 
and Nickel in particular is used as a
catalyst in organic chemistry.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Silver Palladium "breakthrough" ?

[Jones Beene]

https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2023-11-13-researchers-aim-make-cheaper-fuel-cells-reality

Should not P get a little credit for this catalyst - not to mention J? 

... and/or ... is LENR involved in the improvement ? 

Re: [Vo]:Oh-My-God particle

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:13:10 +0100:
Hi,

The problem with a remote origin is that friction will slow it down. 
Interstellar space is not empty, just scarcely
populated.

>Plasma jets from black holes are ejected up to 60c relative to our 
>motion. Thus I would be modest and concede that we humans still lack the 
>knowledge to fully understand what can happen with matter.
>
>
>J.W.
>
>
>On 28.11.2023 20:11, Robin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Given that it can't have come from deep space, it must have been created 
>> locally. Since nothing local is capable of
>> generating such high energy fundamental particles, a small piece of plasma 
>> from the Sun, rather than a single particle,
>> seems probable.
>>
>> Cosmic rays are detected with multiple detectors all being triggered at the 
>> same time, and the assumption is made that
>> the concurrent arrival of multiple lower energy particles is too unlikely. 
>> However the Sun emits bits of plasma
>> frequently, so it's not inconceivable that a tiny plasma cloud arrives all 
>> at the same time.
>>
>> In short the high energy is due to multiple particles arriving concurrently, 
>> not due to a single high energy particle.
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Oh-My-God particle

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Plasma jets from black holes are ejected up to 60c relative to our 
motion. Thus I would be modest and concede that we humans still lack the 
knowledge to fully understand what can happen with matter.



J.W.


On 28.11.2023 20:11, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Given that it can't have come from deep space, it must have been created 
locally. Since nothing local is capable of
generating such high energy fundamental particles, a small piece of plasma from 
the Sun, rather than a single particle,
seems probable.

Cosmic rays are detected with multiple detectors all being triggered at the 
same time, and the assumption is made that
the concurrent arrival of multiple lower energy particles is too unlikely. 
However the Sun emits bits of plasma
frequently, so it's not inconceivable that a tiny plasma cloud arrives all at 
the same time.

In short the high energy is due to multiple particles arriving concurrently, 
not due to a single high energy particle.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Oh-My-God particle

[Robin]

Hi,

Given that it can't have come from deep space, it must have been created 
locally. Since nothing local is capable of
generating such high energy fundamental particles, a small piece of plasma from 
the Sun, rather than a single particle,
seems probable.

Cosmic rays are detected with multiple detectors all being triggered at the 
same time, and the assumption is made that
the concurrent arrival of multiple lower energy particles is too unlikely. 
However the Sun emits bits of plasma
frequently, so it's not inconceivable that a tiny plasma cloud arrives all at 
the same time.

In short the high energy is due to multiple particles arriving concurrently, 
not due to a single high energy particle.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Invention

[Robin]

Hi,

A metal plate containing millions of square pits, each 45.589 nm on a side, 
that is exposed to Hydrogen gas, may emit
electrons with a maximum energy of 40.8 eV minus the work function of the 
metal. These electrons may then be collected
on an anode to drive an external current between the anode and the metal plate.

Alternatively, the plate just gets hot and can function as part of a boiler.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Video: Making activated palladium with Dr. Edmund Storms

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> A few comments:-
>
> 1) I seem to recall someone else having used Calcium Oxide before.
>

Dufour in transmutation studies.

Iwamura also in transmutation studies.


Note that Ed explains the role of the inert calcium oxide particles here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthenatureoc.pdf (starting on pages 4
and 5)

Re: [Vo]:Video: Making activated palladium with Dr. Edmund Storms

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:59:24 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Wonderful!!
>
>See:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjtPZR55r30

A few comments:-

1) I seem to recall someone else having used Calcium Oxide before.

2) Perhaps unrelated, but 36 microns is the wavelength of a photon with an 
energy of 0.034 eV. If this is divided by the
fine structure constant (alpha) we get an energy of 4.72 eV which is slightly 
larger than the dissociation energy of the
H2 molecule. (This may explain why the Calcium Oxide crystal can't be larger 
than 36 microns.)
A further division by alpha yields 646.745 eV which is close to the value that 
Prof. Leif Holmlid associates with what
he calls H0.

3) I saw somewhere on the Net, that someone showed that the masses of 
fundamental particles are linked by the fine
structure constant. Perhaps alpha is the size reduction you get when you wrap a 
photon into a self reinforcing
structure?

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Video: Making activated palladium with Dr. Edmund Storms

[Jed Rothwell]

Wonderful!!

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjtPZR55r30

[Vo]:Claytor paper presented at NSF/EPRI Workshop in 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded an early paper by Claytor:

Claytor, T.N., et al. *Tritium and neutron measurements of a solid state
cell*. in *NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Materials*.
1989. Washington, DC.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumand.pdf

Abstract


A solid state "cold fusion" cell was constructed to test for
nonequilibrium D-D fusion in a solid. The stimulus for the design was the
hypothesis that the electrochemical surface layer in the Pons -Fleischmann
cell could be replaced with a metal- insulator-semiconductor (MIS) barrier.
Cells were constructed of alternating layers of palladium and silicon
powders pressed into a ceramic form and exposed to deuterium gas at 110
psia , resulting in a D/Pd ratio of 0.7. Pulses of current were passed
through the cells to populate nonequilibrium states at the MIS barriers.
One cell showed neutron activity and had a large amount of tritium. Other
cells have produced tritium at a low rate consistent with neutron emission
at or below the threshold of observability. The branching ratio for n/p was
about 3 x 10^-9 in all the experiments where a substantial amount of
tritium has been found.


One of the cells produced a substantial amount of tritium:

. . . [T]ritium analysis showed that cell 2 had 1300 times the fill gas
concentration of tritium, amounting to 3.5 x 10^15 atoms of tritium. This
level, although substantially above background, is equivalent to only 65
ppb.


The NSF/EPRI Workshop is described here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf

These experiments are also described here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumgen.pdf

Several other experiments produced large amounts of tritium, such as
Bockris, Storms and Will. See:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf

Skeptics ignore the tritium because it is compelling proof that cold fusion
is a nuclear reaction. They pretend that heat is not compelling, even
though it exceeds the limits of chemistry thousands of times over. They
want to claim that cold fusion does not produce clear evidence of a nuclear
reaction, even though anyone can see that it does. They mean it does not
produce the evidence *they want to see.* They are looking for proof that
cold fusion is actually plasma fusion, and it produces a deadly flux of
neutrons and no significant heat. They want that because it fits
their theories and -- more importantly -- because it means cold fusion has
no practical use, and does not threaten plasma fusion funding. Messinger
correctly described the infuriating, know-nothing attitude of the skeptics
at ARPA-E and elsewhere:

The hypothesis is that excess heat is caused by the release of nuclear
binding energy through low-energy nuclear reactions. But, as I have written
before, and ARPA-E stressed in their funding opportunity announcement, such
kind of evidence for LENR is insufficient due to the ambiguous nature of
heat . . .



I have uploaded a number of new papers lately:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009

Re: [Vo]:different temperatures

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 17 Nov 2023 19:26:01 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin  wrote:
>
>
>> I have an electric heater that can be controlled to within 1/10 of a
>> degree centigrade . . .
>
>
>That is remarkable. That is a laboratory grade thermostat.

I should have said precision, not accuracy. It can be done with a DS18B20, a 
microprocessor, and a relay.
[snip]
Actually, the sensor is under the window, so cold air coming off the window 
will fall onto the desk, and hit the sensor.

>Get an IR camera!
>(Borrow one . . . they are expensive.) 

No, not worth the trouble.
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:different temperatures

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> I have an electric heater that can be controlled to within 1/10 of a
> degree centigrade . . .


That is remarkable. That is a laboratory grade thermostat.



> The only explanation I can think of is that the house is well insulated
> and has a long time constant, so that early in
> the morning the walls are still warm from the previous afternoon, while
> the air in the room is cool, thanks to contact
> with the cooler glass window, resulting in the thermostat registering a
> low temperature . . .


That is interesting. Put a thermometer near the windows. Get an IR camera!
(Borrow one . . . they are expensive.)

[Vo]:different temperatures

[Robin]

Hi,

I have an electric heater that can be controlled to within 1/10 of a degree 
centigrade, and also temperature monitoring
software that reports the temperature.
I have noticed that early in the morning I am comfortable with a temperature of 
22ºC, but as we approach noon I need the
temperature to be about 25ºC. 
Initially, I thought this was strange because the external temperature is 
colder early in the morning.
The only explanation I can think of is that the house is well insulated and has 
a long time constant, so that early in
the morning the walls are still warm from the previous afternoon, while the air 
in the room is cool, thanks to contact
with the cooler glass window, resulting in the thermostat registering a low 
temperature, while my body still feels
comfortably warm due to thermal radiation from the walls. As the day 
progresses, the temperature of the walls drops,
forcing my body to rely more heavily on air temperature, so I need the 
temperature to be higher.

Thoughts?

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

SR is quite a solid model as it can adequately "predict" the electron 
mass/energy in a storage ring.


I use the word solid because all current models of physics, also called 
standard model, have a very low precision (usually < 4 digits without 
fudging) and thus never can be basic models.


The problem is obvious as since more than 80 years mathematicians 
dominate physics, mostly people with no clue of real physics = experiment.


For the SOP model of mass/force structure I get 8..10 digits precision, 
what is shocking for some folks as it could first time be close to a 
basic model. Thus since about 2 years I try to educate physicists about 
the silly errors we find in all historic models (QM,QED,QCD,GR,..).


The most silly in GR is the 3 rotation anti symmetric stress energy 
tensor that is impossible for real mass As as said most 
mathematicians missed basic physics - here rotor mechanics. Once you 
know the basics you no longer can take serious most peoples in the field.



J.W.

On 12.11.2023 22:10, H L V wrote:

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 
 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"
 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)
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

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

[H L V]

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 
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" 
> 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)
>
> harry
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
> 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" 
>> 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 <
>> 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 <
>>>> 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 furt

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

[H L V]

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

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

harry

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>>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 <
> 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 <
>>> 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 <
>>>>> 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 inerti

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 <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 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 

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

[H L V]

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 
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 <
>> 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 <
 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 be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his 

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

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. 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 <http://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/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/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 
<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; 
<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 

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

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 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

[Jonathan Berry]

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 then mankind would make better
progress.

It is far from my main thrust.

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Discussing about physics needs years long reflection about what physical 
constants mean and how these interrelate and are measured.


Further we must understand that all current still hyped models have been 
developed with marginal experimental knowledge. If somebody believes 
that e.g. QM is a fundamental model that he is a member of sect not a 
physicist.


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.



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?



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.



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


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"




On 09.11.2023 11:52, Jonathan Berry wrote:
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 
 wrote:


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 n

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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 <
> 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 <
>>> 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. >>> 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 

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

[H L V]

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 
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 <
>> 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. >> 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 

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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 
> 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.
>> > 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.
>> 

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

[H L V]

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 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 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.
>> > 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 

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

[H L V]

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 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.
>  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 have found a problem, it seems that the
> number of wavelengths would not change even if the 2 way speed of light was
> speed wasn't constant!
> It is worth noting that the Michelson Morley experiment didn't measure
> light speed at all, 

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 dila

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

[CB Sites]

It's always interesting to question what is considered our standard point
of view even when it works so well.  Special Relativity is common sense in
my opinion and is why I would never give it up.   However, what always
bugged me was time and using it as a 4th dimension.  One of the concepts of
space-time that is the stuff of SCI-FI, is you could warp space-time in
such a way that the fabric of Space-Time could fold allowing for
fast-than-light travel (FLT).  The warping of space-time does require
extreme bending but in places like black holes, the event horizon provides
a great conceptual model of zero time.  It's what gives rise to concepts
like the Holographic Universe.

I recall on a thought experiment (exploring common sense) I was looking at
the concept of fractional dimensions. Like the Mandlebrot, but the question
I asked myself was, what would a fractional dimension look like if we
experienced one?   There has been a movie of the flat world (a 2D universe)
experiencing its interaction with a 3D world.  You know the circle forming
when viewing a 3d sphere interesting a plane.   So my thought experiment
was what if one and only one of the dimensions was fractional?   Normally
we think of dimensions as X,Y,Z and t, which act like a 4D index into space
(X,Y,Z) and time (t).  If you pick a space dimension like X, we can
envision it as a horizontal position in space.  What would it look like if
X was fractional?   Common sense would say that it would have a
boundary that is no longer an integer but could be limited to only a
direction forward (note forward is a reference to time).  However, from the
Flatworld POV, such a clipping of a dimension would be a dimension that can
only progress forward.

What if time was in reality a fraction dimension incapable of time
reversal?  Time as a fraction dimension could not move backward.  From our
perspective, time is an arrow, a ray, but what if that is what the 4th
dimension is?  A fractional dimension.   When you look at special
relativity from that perspective, things make a little more sense
conceptually.  It really makes the Holographic Universe concept seem even
more profound.

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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 dilation (G-force time dilation, one
experiment reportedly disproved), illusory Doppler shift time dilation
(which can be removed by calculation) and the TRUE time dilation, which has
been hidden by SR all this time because it is relative to motion through an
Ether!  This is absolute motion based time dilation and with it the light
clock stops being so impossible and paradoxical.

And according to various Youtubers and even the LLM's, Relativistic mass
was thrown out as a part of Relativity in 2008!?  This was a shock to me!
Also it wasn't in Einstein's original theory either.
It is interesting how I have heard it as the reason Photons can't have any
rest mass, because it would turn infinite at C, and same with the utter
impossibility of FTL travel.
Originally it wasn't e=mc2, it was e0=mc2.  This means that only rest mass
is considered!  The most 

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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

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

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 
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
>
>
> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 translati

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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 
wrote:

> 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 
> 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" 
>> 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.
>> > 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 polarizabi

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

[Jonathan Berry]

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON 
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" 
> 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.
>  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 Mic

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 
<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 

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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. 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 have found a problem, it seems that the
number of wavelengths would not change even if the 2 way speed of light was
speed wasn't constant!
It is worth noting that the Michelson Morley experiment didn't measure
light speed at all, nor would time dilation have any effect on interference
fringes, only wavelength matter, or more to the point the number of them
that fit along the path.
It seems that the Doppler shift from super and sub-luminal light would lead
to the same number of wavelengths in the round trip back to the angled
plate that initially splits the beams and then recombines the light for the
detector.
So while the number of wavelengths that fit in the path change for each
direction it sums to the same number on the round trip!

I would note that I had some weird variable answers from LLM's sometimes
using the wrong Doppler shift equation is used so it works best if you have
it manually calculate the number of waves that would fit in based on the
distance and the speed of light (presuming of course a variable speed)
which gives you the travel time and the frequency of light gives you the
number of wavelengths.
The point is that you get a null result from calculating the round trip on
an interferometer path even if we don't use Lorentz transformations and
assume light isn't C, not even the 2 way speed of light!
So while the SPEED of light of the round trip might or might or might not
be constant based on motion though the Aether, the Michelson Morley
experiment tells us NOTHING about the movement of the Aether or the speed
of light!
Now, EVEN IF the Michelson Morley experiment had the potential to detect
motion through the Aether signifying a need for a solution (though it
DOESN'T) Lorentz contraction could be used for the null result but the
Lorentz's Ether Theory is compatible with the speed of light not being
constant in each direction, indeed it requires it!
It only makes the 2 way speed of light constant.
And so how does Lorentz contraction and time dilation work and why doesn't
it make the one way speed of light C?
Because if you are moving through the Aether, light that is coming towards
you and hence presumed to have added velocity above that of C only becomes
even faster when your watch ticks fewer times while it passes, and if your
ruler is shorter it has less distance to go further speeding up light from
your perspective (if you could measure said one way speed).
And if somehow the speed of light were magically C in the one way sense
(again, Einstein never made this claim apparently and certainly no math
support how this impossible thing could occur) , then the addition of
Lorentz transformations only make it all superluminal again!
Lorentz transformations weren't designed to make the one way speed of light
C, and if it's needed it means it isn't already C and if it is already C
then Lorentz transformations aren't needed
In other words Lorentz transformations are only needed if things aren't
already C, but their effect is to push things further from C with respect
to the one way speed of light.
Lorentz contraction makes no sense when you drill down to it.

"Ok", you say, "so the one way speed of light isn't C in all frames", "so
what, Einstein / 

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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 or 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) 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, the foundation of it).
The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of the
emitter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27kWhy No One Has
Measured The Speed Of Light - Veritasium

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

Now as I tried to write the rest of this email 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 earth
presumed direction of motion.
However in trying to explain why the number of wavelengths that fit in the
two path should vary based on the axis of movement of the aetheric medium,
I have found a problem, it seems that the number of wavelengths would not
change even if light was speed wasn't constant!

It is worth noting that the Michelson Morley experiment didn't measure
light speed at all, nor would time dilation have any effect on interference
fringes, only wavelength matters.
It seems that the Doppler shift from super and sub-luminal light would lead
to the same number of wavelengths in the round trip back to the angled
plate that initially splits and then recombines the light.

So while the number of wavelengths that fit in the path change for each
direction it sums to the same number on the round trip!
I would note that I had some weird variable answers from LLM's sometimes
using the wrong Doppler shift equation so it works best if you have it
manually calculate the number of waves that would fit in based on the
distance and the speed of light (presuming of course a variable speed)
which gives you the travel time and the frequency of light gives you the
number of wavelengths.  The point is that you get a null result with an
interferometer even if we don't use Lorentz transformations and assume
light isn't C, not even the 2 way speed of light!

So while the SPEED of light of the round trip might or might or might not
be constant based on motion though the aether, the Michelson Morley
experiment tells us NOTHING about the movement of the Aether or the speed
of light!

Now, EVEN IF it did have potential to (and it DOESN'T) Lorentz contraction
could be used for the null result but the Lorentz's Ether Theory is
compatible with the speed of light not being constant in each direction,
indeed it requires it!  It only makes the 2 way speed of light constant.

And so how does Lorentz contraction and time dilation work and why doesn't
it make the one way speed of light C?

Because if you are moving through the Aether, light that is coming towards
you and hence presumed to have added velocity above that of C only becomes
faster when your watch ticks a few times while it passes, and if your ruler
is shorter it has less distance to go.

And if somehow the speed of light were magically C in the one way sense
(again, Einstein never made this claim apparently) , then the addition of
Lorentz transformations only make it all superluminal again!

In other words Lorentz transformations are only needed if things aren't
already C, but their effect is to push things further from C with respect
to the one way speed of light.
Lorentz contraction makes no sense when you drill down to it.

Ok, you say, so the one way speed of light isn't C in all frames, so what,
Einstein / Special Relativity didn't insist it was.

No, I suppose not, but if we admit that the speed of light, even just the
one way speed of light isn't C then it means there IS a prefered frame,
THERE IS AN AETER!
And if there is a prefered frame (and if Lorentz contractions even exists
which BTW the Michelson Morley experiment does NOTHING to indicate unless I
and several LLM's are very mistaken) then time Dilation and Length
contraction presuming they truly exist (they seem to but I'm doubting
everything now) they are obviously manifested relative to the Prefered
frame which MUST exist as shown,  and if the one way speed of light isn't
impossibly and automagically C which even Einstein and 

[Vo]:Michael Faraday noticed something peculiar...

[H L V]

Michael Faraday noticed something peculiar about the behaviour of a needle
near a wire that others did not because he was not constrained by the
dominant conception of forces in his time.
This presentation recreates some of the key experiments of Faraday and his
based on entries from Faraday's actual lab notebook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1uOsg2-LTA

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Hey Does This Look Familiar??

[H L V]

Yes I remember, but I was not familiar enough with magnetic levitation to
appreciate that his configuration defied conventional expectations.
Sometimes it can be a struggle to find an audience that is knowledgeable
enough to see the significance of a novel observation performed with
rudimentary tools.

Harry



On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:35 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Congratulations!
>
> Here is the rest of the article behind the paywall:
>
> There is a simple way to levitate magnets – and physicists are beginning
> to understand how it works. The technique could have applications in
> robotics in the future.
> In 2021, Hamdi Ucar
>  –
> then at Göksal Aeronautics in Turkey – posted a YouTube video showing two
> magnetic spheres levitating on either side of a rapidly spinning bar magnet
> that was positioned with its north-south poles vertically. Ucar also
> published a paper on the phenomenon, which attracted the attention of Rasmus
> Bjørk
> 
>  at
> the Technical University of Denmark.
> With a colleague, Bjørk decided to replicate Ucar’s levitation technique.
> “We sat down for …
> half an hour and tried. I was like, it’s completely out of the question,
> it simply shouldn’t work. And then it just worked. We were completely
> baffled by this,” he says.
> Read more
> Extremely cold drop of helium can be levitated forever
>
> 
> Now Bjørk and several other colleagues, all at the Technical University of
> Denmark, think they understand what’s going on.
> They started with Ucar’s set up where a “floater” magnet levitates
> 
>  when
> placed on top of another magnet that is spinning hundreds of times every
> second. Then they tested a range of spinning frequencies and floater sizes
> while filming the magnets and measuring their magnetic fields. The
> researchers also developed a computer simulation of the experiment.
> Frederik Durhuus
> 
>  who
> worked on the project says it is the rotation that is key to the process.
> He says many people are familiar with the way two magnets repel each other
> when held with both north poles (or both south poles) close together. But
> usually, one of the magnets will then simply flip over, meaning that a
> north and south pole are close together – at which point the two magnets
> stick to each other.
> Durhuus says rotation counters that magnetic “flipping” and keeps the
> floater levitating. He compares it to the way a spinning top
> 
>  counters
> the downward pull of gravity and spins for longer than we might expect.
> Ucar’s experiments show that the effect can persist even when the
> rotating magnet is oriented horizontally
> ,
> rather than vertically like a spinning top. He disagrees with some details
> of the team’s numerical and theoretical models, but he says that their
> independent validation of this surprising effect is important.
> “I don’t think we will be able to make any [magnetically levitating]
> trains with this anytime soon, but it will be interesting to see where it
> can be useful because it does not require very fancy equipment,” says Joachim
> Hermansen
> 
>  who
> was also part of the team.
> Marcel Shuck
>  at
> No-Touch Robotics in Switzerland says that magnets are already used for
> suspension and transport of objects in some industries. He says that using
> the rotation scheme could be a simpler alternative to systems that require
> constant readjustment of magnets.
> Journal reference
> *Physical Review Applied* DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.044036
> 
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:21 AM Hamdi Ucar  wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I knew such a thing will be published but not good as this. My name
>> and a link is shown in first sentences so everybody can check it without
>> pay-wall. Still dont know what is written at the remaining.
>> This event makes my article access stats as hockey stick. Fantastic!  It
>> it also shown at
>> https://news4republicans.com/science/mysterious-rotation-trick-makes-magnets-float-in-the-air/
>> so it is matter of time that Elon to 

[Vo]:AI

[Robin]

Hi,

President Biden's new executive order demonstrates a true lack of comprehension 
of the potential problem.

1) It only pertains to the US, while threats are more likely to come from 
overseas.
2) Those interested in harming the US are not going to tell the US government 
about it anyway.
3) It completely ignores the possibility of AI's generating new more advanced 
AI's themselves (in seconds, rather that
in more human time scales.)
4) It ignores AI's having access to all the knowledge of the Internet.
5) It ignores AI's eventually having a World view, "emotions" and a "will" of 
their own (even if these are initially
given to them via overexcited and shortsighted humans.)

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Slides from Robert Duncan

[Jed Rothwell]

U.S. DoE

Advanced Materials Characterization and Nuclear Product Detection for LENR
Robert V. Duncan, Ph.D. President’s Distinguished Chair in Physics and
Professor of Physics Texas Tech University Washington, DC
September 8, 2023

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/05_Duncan_Performer.pdf

[Vo]:Fwd: Hey Does This Look Familiar??

[Terry Blanton]

Congratulations!

Here is the rest of the article behind the paywall:

There is a simple way to levitate magnets – and physicists are beginning to
understand how it works. The technique could have applications in robotics
in the future.
In 2021, Hamdi Ucar
 –
then at Göksal Aeronautics in Turkey – posted a YouTube video showing two
magnetic spheres levitating on either side of a rapidly spinning bar magnet
that was positioned with its north-south poles vertically. Ucar also
published a paper on the phenomenon, which attracted the attention of Rasmus
Bjørk

at
the Technical University of Denmark.
With a colleague, Bjørk decided to replicate Ucar’s levitation technique.
“We sat down for …
half an hour and tried. I was like, it’s completely out of the question, it
simply shouldn’t work. And then it just worked. We were completely baffled
by this,” he says.
Read more
Extremely cold drop of helium can be levitated forever

Now Bjørk and several other colleagues, all at the Technical University of
Denmark, think they understand what’s going on.
They started with Ucar’s set up where a “floater” magnet levitates

when
placed on top of another magnet that is spinning hundreds of times every
second. Then they tested a range of spinning frequencies and floater sizes
while filming the magnets and measuring their magnetic fields. The
researchers also developed a computer simulation of the experiment.
Frederik Durhuus

who
worked on the project says it is the rotation that is key to the process.
He says many people are familiar with the way two magnets repel each other
when held with both north poles (or both south poles) close together. But
usually, one of the magnets will then simply flip over, meaning that a
north and south pole are close together – at which point the two magnets
stick to each other.
Durhuus says rotation counters that magnetic “flipping” and keeps the
floater levitating. He compares it to the way a spinning top

counters
the downward pull of gravity and spins for longer than we might expect.
Ucar’s experiments show that the effect can persist even when the rotating
magnet is oriented horizontally
,
rather than vertically like a spinning top. He disagrees with some details
of the team’s numerical and theoretical models, but he says that their
independent validation of this surprising effect is important.
“I don’t think we will be able to make any [magnetically levitating] trains
with this anytime soon, but it will be interesting to see where it can be
useful because it does not require very fancy equipment,” says Joachim
Hermansen

who
was also part of the team.
Marcel Shuck
 at
No-Touch Robotics in Switzerland says that magnets are already used for
suspension and transport of objects in some industries. He says that using
the rotation scheme could be a simpler alternative to systems that require
constant readjustment of magnets.
Journal reference
*Physical Review Applied* DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.044036


On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:21 AM Hamdi Ucar  wrote:

> Yeah, I knew such a thing will be published but not good as this. My name
> and a link is shown in first sentences so everybody can check it without
> pay-wall. Still dont know what is written at the remaining.
> This event makes my article access stats as hockey stick. Fantastic!  It
> it also shown at
> https://news4republicans.com/science/mysterious-rotation-trick-makes-magnets-float-in-the-air/
> so it is matter of time that Elon to become aware of it :)
>
> I am no longer subscribed to Vortex-l. I dont know...but nobody there
> interested on that and did not considered that this mechanism might be
> present in nuclei. If so we can learn too much about the strong nuclear
> force and play with nucleons like chemistry.
>
> This event comes as honeymoon!
>
> Hamdi
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 18:00 Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> https://youtu.be/BikS8BbSvlM
>>
>> Terry
>>
>

[Vo]:One advantage of Schauberger Doppledrall is that it turns Coriolis stress direction

[David Jonsson]

Hi

I found an advantage of Schauberger Doppeldrall - double whirl in English.

The idea is that Taylor-Dean vortex creation is prevented by letting the
Coriolis stress, that causes the buildup of Taylor-Dean vortices, act in
different directions instead of consistently the same direction as is the
case in unturned flow.

Taylor-Dean vortices are the same as Görtler vortices. They are described
in the plane perpendicular to the flow. A more general description is the
Coriolis stress caused in bent flows.

Dean vortices are mentioned as a lossy type of turbulence or drag in pipes
and are mentioned in incompressible flow like water in pipes. Görtler
vortices are usually mentioned in air with constraints like a plane wing.

Image and link to laboratory example:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/725368/are-dean-vortices-creation-prevented-in-certain-flows-with-helicity
Please also explain why the question was closed after one year.

David

[Vo]:Oppenheimer -the missing piece

[Jones Beene]

Most everyone on this forum has seen the movie by now...
There was no mention in the film of the "Oppenheimer-Phillips effect" nor of 
Melba Phillips. 

We did mention in a Vortex thread here years ago the possibility that one 
version of LANR  (lattice assisted) was in fact a hybrid of the 
Oppenheimer-Phillips effect combined with the Casimir effect
In light of the recent announcement of the Russian nuclear powered cruise 
missile, a new combined effect - may come up again as a usable power source. 
One of their scientists may have let it slip out.

At any rate, I would like to have seen Melba Phillips mentioned in the movie... 
Maybe we missed something in 1938 that she saw...

[Vo]:The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel

[H L V]

The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel
Sept 2, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/opinion/cosmology-crisis-webb-telescope.html
quote
<>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Colours with a twist

[H L V]

Good observation, but I don't think the angle of the light source is great
enough to account for the number of helical turns within the
given length of the tube.

harry

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:20 PM MSF  wrote:

> One other thing. If you aim a laser into the inside of a transparent tube,
> you get that barber pole effect spiraling around at a greater or lesser
> frequency depending on the angle of the beam into the interior of the tube.
> So that may explain the barber pole in the video.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Thursday, September 21st, 2023 at 9:05 PM, MSF <
> foster...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't even begin to express how conceptually and experimentally wrong
> this demonstration is. The first thing is the perpetuation of the mistaken
> idea that photons are wiggling in a sinusiodal fashion. When you see that
> sine wave, it's a graph of the varying field as the wave propagates. It's
> not the wave itself. This is such a common miscommunication that physics
> students often have a hard time getting over it.
>
> Just for the sake of context, this guy should have at least mentioned the
> practical application of this phenomenon, which is the polarizing
> saccharimeter. Wine makers, for example, use this device to measure the
> amount of dextrose (glucose) in grape juice so they can harvest the grapes
> at their peak. So next time you're enjoying that glass of wine, think,
> "Mmm...saccharimeter."
>
> The experimental setup in this demonstration has, in my opinion, a fatal
> flaw. The light source seems to be too broad to test the phenomenon.
> Furthermore it appears to be tilted at an angle at the entrance to the
> tube. Both of these factors will have the light glancing off the interior
> of the tube. At least some of the light will be at Brewster's angle for the
> interface between the sugar solution and the tube. So the interior of the
> tube becomes its own polarizer.
>
> Another thing that should have been mentioned is that the light, while
> circularly polarized  in the sugar solution, emerges linearly polarized.
> Maybe that's obvious, but it should have been stated.
>
> Having said all that, it's a hell of a beautiful demonstration. It should
> be repeated with a narrow beam of light just to see the results.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Sunday, September 10th, 2023 at 1:15 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> The well known mathematics youtuber 3Blue1Brown recently published two
> interesting videos on polarized light passing through a clear glass tube
> filled with dissolved sugar in water. (He is working on a third video.)
> Normally he explains mathematical concepts with nicely rendered visual
> explanations so the inclusion of a physical demo is something new for his
> channel. The mathematical explanation offered in part 2 seems to
> qualitatively account for what is observed in part 1 but there is a lively
> discussion in the comment section on part 2 where it is pointed out that
> his explanation makes a prediction that he acknowledges is not actually
> observed. I enjoy it when textbook science bumps up against reality! It
> will be interesting to see if he can account for this theoretical weakness
> in his third video.
>
> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 1
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCX62YJCmGk
> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 2
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXRTczANuIs=0s
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colours with a twist

[MSF]

One other thing. If you aim a laser into the inside of a transparent tube, you 
get that barber pole effect spiraling around at a greater or lesser frequency 
depending on the angle of the beam into the interior of the tube. So that may 
explain the barber pole in the video.

--- Original Message ---
On Thursday, September 21st, 2023 at 9:05 PM, MSF  
wrote:

> I can't even begin to express how conceptually and experimentally wrong this 
> demonstration is. The first thing is the perpetuation of the mistaken idea 
> that photons are wiggling in a sinusiodal fashion. When you see that sine 
> wave, it's a graph of the varying field as the wave propagates. It's not the 
> wave itself. This is such a common miscommunication that physics students 
> often have a hard time getting over it.
>
> Just for the sake of context, this guy should have at least mentioned the 
> practical application of this phenomenon, which is the polarizing 
> saccharimeter. Wine makers, for example, use this device to measure the 
> amount of dextrose (glucose) in grape juice so they can harvest the grapes at 
> their peak. So next time you're enjoying that glass of wine, think, 
> "Mmm...saccharimeter."
>
> The experimental setup in this demonstration has, in my opinion, a fatal 
> flaw. The light source seems to be too broad to test the phenomenon. 
> Furthermore it appears to be tilted at an angle at the entrance to the tube. 
> Both of these factors will have the light glancing off the interior of the 
> tube. At least some of the light will be at Brewster's angle for the 
> interface between the sugar solution and the tube. So the interior of the 
> tube becomes its own polarizer.
>
> Another thing that should have been mentioned is that the light, while 
> circularly polarized in the sugar solution, emerges linearly polarized. Maybe 
> that's obvious, but it should have been stated.
> Having said all that, it's a hell of a beautiful demonstration. It should be 
> repeated with a narrow beam of light just to see the results.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Sunday, September 10th, 2023 at 1:15 AM, H L V  
> wrote:
>
>> The well known mathematics youtuber 3Blue1Brown recently published two 
>> interesting videos on polarized light passing through a clear glass tube 
>> filled with dissolved sugar in water. (He is working on a third video.) 
>> Normally he explains mathematical concepts with nicely rendered visual 
>> explanations so the inclusion of a physical demo is something new for his 
>> channel. The mathematical explanation offered in part 2 seems to 
>> qualitatively account for what is observed in part 1 but there is a lively 
>> discussion in the comment section on part 2 where it is pointed out that his 
>> explanation makes a prediction that he acknowledges is not actually 
>> observed. I enjoy it when textbook science bumps up against reality! It will 
>> be interesting to see if he can account for this theoretical weakness in his 
>> third video.
>>
>> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 1
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCX62YJCmGk
>>
>> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 2
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXRTczANuIs=0s
>>
>> Harry

Re: [Vo]:Colours with a twist

[MSF]

I can't even begin to express how conceptually and experimentally wrong this 
demonstration is. The first thing is the perpetuation of the mistaken idea that 
photons are wiggling in a sinusiodal fashion. When you see that sine wave, it's 
a graph of the varying field as the wave propagates. It's not the wave itself. 
This is such a common miscommunication that physics students often have a hard 
time getting over it.

Just for the sake of context, this guy should have at least mentioned the 
practical application of this phenomenon, which is the polarizing 
saccharimeter. Wine makers, for example, use this device to measure the amount 
of dextrose (glucose) in grape juice so they can harvest the grapes at their 
peak. So next time you're enjoying that glass of wine, think, 
"Mmm...saccharimeter."

The experimental setup in this demonstration has, in my opinion, a fatal flaw. 
The light source seems to be too broad to test the phenomenon. Furthermore it 
appears to be tilted at an angle at the entrance to the tube. Both of these 
factors will have the light glancing off the interior of the tube. At least 
some of the light will be at Brewster's angle for the interface between the 
sugar solution and the tube. So the interior of the tube becomes its own 
polarizer.

Another thing that should have been mentioned is that the light, while 
circularly polarized in the sugar solution, emerges linearly polarized. Maybe 
that's obvious, but it should have been stated.
Having said all that, it's a hell of a beautiful demonstration. It should be 
repeated with a narrow beam of light just to see the results.

--- Original Message ---
On Sunday, September 10th, 2023 at 1:15 AM, H L V  wrote:

> The well known mathematics youtuber 3Blue1Brown recently published two 
> interesting videos on polarized light passing through a clear glass tube 
> filled with dissolved sugar in water. (He is working on a third video.) 
> Normally he explains mathematical concepts with nicely rendered visual 
> explanations so the inclusion of a physical demo is something new for his 
> channel. The mathematical explanation offered in part 2 seems to 
> qualitatively account for what is observed in part 1 but there is a lively 
> discussion in the comment section on part 2 where it is pointed out that his 
> explanation makes a prediction that he acknowledges is not actually observed. 
> I enjoy it when textbook science bumps up against reality! It will be 
> interesting to see if he can account for this theoretical weakness in his 
> third video.
>
> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 1
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCX62YJCmGk
>
> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 2
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXRTczANuIs=0s
>
> Harry

[Vo]:Conservation of energy

[Vibrator !]

The first law is specifically framed in terms of 'closed systems', yet what
constitutes full thermodynamic enclosure is always open to question.
Fundamentally, the system has to be open to a fundamental force constant,
and time.  That could be the EM force constant, alpha, or the gravitational
constant G etc., these reducing to effective time rates of exchange of
momenta or ±dp/dt, in turn opening the possibility of divergent inertial
reference frames and hence a breakdown of conservation of energy between
velocity frames.  OU systems more generally are 'inadvertently /
inexplicably open thermodynamic systems', where one might superficially
expect them to be closed and isolated, such that ie. calorimetry would be
defeated. Historically, Bessler's wheel was a legit claim, repeatedly
demonstrated and accredited to the highest standards; i suspect Rossi's
eCat is also legit, probably Ylidiz too, but as ever the challenge is
figuring out HOW and why the effect is being generated, taming what most
dismiss as an invisible pink elephant..

The whole field's still marred in conflicted thinking, on both sides..
'perpetual motion' simply Newton's first law, pending some external force
acting to change it..  OU - together with under-unity (AKA non-dissipative
loss mechanisms) - are a spectrum-condition of novel I/O force / space /
time asymmetries, as i say, pivoting on fundamental force constants and
time..  That is, to play the energy game you first have to play the
momentum game, challenging N2 (F=mA and its inversions) and N3
(instantaneous equality of momenta and counter-momenta).  OU / UU means a
divergent inertial frame; that is, one proceeding without inertial
interaction with its environment, and this applies equally to classical EM
theory as mechanics.  In other words caveat emptor - there's always a
corresponding entropy change, somewhere.. what matters is that the worst
effects of any resulting fallout are anticipated and mitigated.  No
free-energy panacea, no actions without consequences.  The vacuum is
obviously not 'nothing', and engineering it is not something you wanna be
doing inadvertently (see how big-rip scenarios are contingent on localised
variations in the strength of the Higgs interaction triggering runaway
equilibration of false-vacuum potentials and collapse into a lower or
true-vacuum state, for instance).  Bessler's five-week demonstration of his
largest, most-powerful wheel at castle Weissenstein through winter 1717 is
coincident with the Christmas storms of 1717 that devastated the NW
European coastline weeks later; resting momentum states are not disturbed
lightly or trivially..

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Vibrator !]

The ARV story is chaff; misdirection to fill the void with something
semi-plausible, at least to some degree of consistency, yet whilst only
providing bumsteer.  The UFO equivalent of red mercury.  Visitors' craft
are obviously surrounded by some kind of glowing orb phenomenon, commonly
assumed to be plasma; superficially, consistent with application of a high
electric field density, sufficient to exceed the breakdown density of the
surrounding air molecules.  Thus, so the logic goes, generating warp fields
must have something to do with powerful electric fields.

Of course we're being asked to walk the plank there however - so far as the
standard field equations are concerned, the electric field density required
to cause such significant yet highly-localised spacetime deformations as
we're seeing could only be contained by a miniature black hole; it's
circular logic.

But even the plasma ball hypothesis doesn't hold up to basic logic - we
predominantly see orange / white hues - the former might imply helium, but
that's only a trace element in air, and besides, we'd then need to invoke a
conserved supply of different gases to ionise for every other colour of the
spectrum these things can rapidly cycle through.  Air's 70% nitrogen, which
fluoresces violet from the combined preponderance of red and
blue-wavelength electron shell transitions - the familiar colour or
electrical arcing.

Even worse for the plasma theory are the results of diffraction
spectroscopy, revealing a continuous spectrum consistent with sun or
starlight, or the CMBR, as opposed to the discrete line spectra of specific
fluorescing elements.   See the Hessdalen example for instance.

Then of course there's the fact that these orbs persist underwater, or out
in space.  So for starters, UAP glow is not ionised gases!  Some ionisation
is occurring, but as an effect of the light, rather than its cause; this is
due to the +UV components of these broad-spectrum emissions, forming
ionising radiation that for instance breaks up O2 which then preferentially
de-excites by forming O3 rather than by releasing a photon, and thus
responsible for the 'pungent' or 'chlorine' odour of ozone often reported
in the vicinity of sightings.  This likewise accounts for the many
instances of skin, eye and hair damage, shorting of exposed electrical
equipments, plant and soil damage (O3 blocking leaf stromata, inhibiting
respiration and in turn causing lasting carbon-depletion of the underlying
soil microbiome).

The most consistent explanation for this light production that can be
formulated from what is currently known is that it is Casimir radiation
from the interface of curved and flat spacetimes - akin to Unruh radiation,
but in this case the thermal bath effect is produced by relative
compression of the Planck length, blue-shifting of the enclosed volume of
virtual photonsphere along with shrinking of its coordinate space, as
opposed to observer acceleration.   In essence it's the familiar heat-pump
principle, wherein the 'heat' is the EM four-potential and the 'gas',
spacetime.  Squeezing spacetime makes it glow, like.  It adds relativistic
momentum and energy to virtual photons, causing the vacuum to begin
expressing real photons of all wavelengths, per Casimir.

This is why UAP glow is continuous-spectrum, and persists in space and
underwater:  it is stimulated emission of radiation from vacuum caused by
the second law of thermodynamics trying to equilibrate between the enclosed
value of raised false-vacuum, and ambient;  the two disparate values of
vacuum potential in close proximity immediately around the craft.  It is
thus environmental energy flowing almost incidentally around the craft like
a kind of vacuum-wake, rather than energy being dissipated by or lost to
the craft themselves (which for their part likely operate at or above the
Carnot efficiency limit, as long implicated by Mr Robert Lazar esq).  It is
biased towards the longer-wavelength, redder end of the spectrum (thus
warm-white) by the conservation of energy, bluer photons requiring more
energy so being less common.  AKA a Planck distribution.  This is why UAP
can be captured using cheap IR monoculars from Amazon, since even when not
emitting at visible wavelengths, they're almost-inevitably still producing
an IR signature (i've filmed dozens myself this last year).

But just as electric field density alone cannot explain such extreme
spacetime manipulations - it's all very well attributing spontaneous EM
radiation to them, if we still can't explain how they're produced - more to
the point, we cannot explain UAP warpfields within the confines of the
standard field equations and mass-energy density alone.  We need some kind
of conceptual leap or bridgehead that can be reconciled with much stronger
spacetime deformations at much shorter ranges, and at much more modest (and
practical!) mass-energy densities..

This too has been provided by Lazar:  the strong nuclear force reduces to
an 

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Jonathan Berry]

As I was eating some soup (on day 5 of the fasting mimicking diet) I
wondered why I didn't try putting a pyramid in a box?!

I took a Pyramid I made from A4 Paper where I printed a Template for a
Pyramid of my own design, this design uses an effect I discovered and then
found another researcher independently discovered!

Both of us make the exact same claim, you take a Pyramid, cut it into 4
parts and the further apart you pull the sides (within reason) the stronger
the energy (dramatically so)

So this pyramid that one lady I sent the design to said "it fills the room
with energy".

I put in a cardboard box, not even square and guess what, I couldn't feel
the energy from it, hmmm.

Luckily because it is in 4 segments pulled apart (each being one wall of a
4 sided pyramid, not touching the other walls) there is a lot of space in
the middle.

So I put some rock salt within the Pyramid in the box and closed it up,
waited a few moments and took the Pyramid out, poured the rock salt on to
the bench.

Then I took more rock salt and repeated the process without putting it in
the box.

Then I compared the energy I could feel radiation off of each one, and the
difference is huge.

I also checked out the structure of Copper Titanium Oxide (CCTO)  which has
value of about 1.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138589472030317X

And it is has the same essential structure.

If anyone wants to spend some time making the paper pyramid, has a printer,
paper, sellotape and some scissors and 20-30 mins to do what amount to a
childs exercise I'll send you 2 templates for 2 designs, they are also
great stacked.



On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 14:18, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> BTW, just curious about things with a high dielectric constant as these
> have been correlated with both Free Energy (a researcher with a coil around
> a Barium Titanate coil inputting a special frequency got a blue glow and
> free energy out, yes, Barium again pops up).
>
> But also I recall reading about highly dielectric sands and powders being
> found to have some reduced rate of fall in a vacuum or did they demonstrate
> a degree of antigravity, I forget.  Perhaps both.
>
> Maybe it was even a connection to T.T Brown's work, but at any rate the
> interesting thing is that Barium Titanate which has a dielectric constant
> of 1200!  Just so happens to be microscopically form a double terminated
> pyramid trapped inside a cube.
>
> Now I have a REALLY REALLY high degree of surface level conviction/hunch
> that this high dielectric constant is actually in part an aetheric
> property!  That it has made denser aetheric energy within itself.
>
> That those structures if made macroscopically and nested would create some
> degree of increase in the dielectric constant of the whole even if made of
> materials that have a value nearer 1, Though perhaps the other features
> might be needed such as the atomic numbers, I have found that certain
> numbers manifest a lot of aetheric energy when surrounded by a number of
> "edged" that relate to that number in some way.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 12:45, Jonathan Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> I have presented this to some degree here years ago but time for another
>> crack at it.
>> When I was in bed this morning I thought of this list, actually in that
>> state I was able to think, I believe of a few extra cases that currently I
>> can't put my finger on, they would belong in the middle of the list.
>>
>> Anyway if we were to ask if there is the possibility of some type of
>> phenomena in space that might be induced to move, there is a LOT of "stuff"
>> in space that conventional science recognizes.
>> From frame dragging, Dirac space, Virtual particles/Quantum field theory,
>> relic neutrino flux, Dark matter/Energy and much more:
>> https://vimeo.com/22956103
>> Indeed the Lamb shift is a separation of virtual particles by an electric
>> field that causes the orbital of the Hydrogen atom to split into two very
>> close levels.
>>
>> The first is the ARV (Alien Reproduction Vehicle) known as the fluxliner
>> and a very compelling case is made for it in this humorous and effective
>> video:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFYnVXbLoY
>>
>> There you will see that MANY people claimed to see this same hovering
>> saucer at an Air-Show for top brass only.
>>
>> The startling thing about the design is that the craft had an array of 48
>> high voltage capacitors that looks like a maximized version of the next
>> one, this very own lists "Capwarp"!
>>  http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>>
>> There we see a number of people managed to successfully replicate this
>> thing, and I recall a number of additional people on this list claiming
>> some success that wasn't recorded there.
>>
>> So, given the Lamb shift and other information letting us know there is
>> something to be affected (including by an electric field) and the multiple
>> witnesses to the ARV and multiple claimants we could come to 

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Jonathan Berry]

BTW, just curious about things with a high dielectric constant as these
have been correlated with both Free Energy (a researcher with a coil around
a Barium Titanate coil inputting a special frequency got a blue glow and
free energy out, yes, Barium again pops up).

But also I recall reading about highly dielectric sands and powders being
found to have some reduced rate of fall in a vacuum or did they demonstrate
a degree of antigravity, I forget.  Perhaps both.

Maybe it was even a connection to T.T Brown's work, but at any rate the
interesting thing is that Barium Titanate which has a dielectric constant
of 1200!  Just so happens to be microscopically form a double terminated
pyramid trapped inside a cube.

Now I have a REALLY REALLY high degree of surface level conviction/hunch
that this high dielectric constant is actually in part an aetheric
property!  That it has made denser aetheric energy within itself.

That those structures if made macroscopically and nested would create some
degree of increase in the dielectric constant of the whole even if made of
materials that have a value nearer 1, Though perhaps the other features
might be needed such as the atomic numbers, I have found that certain
numbers manifest a lot of aetheric energy when surrounded by a number of
"edged" that relate to that number in some way.

Jonathan

On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 12:45, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> I have presented this to some degree here years ago but time for another
> crack at it.
> When I was in bed this morning I thought of this list, actually in that
> state I was able to think, I believe of a few extra cases that currently I
> can't put my finger on, they would belong in the middle of the list.
>
> Anyway if we were to ask if there is the possibility of some type of
> phenomena in space that might be induced to move, there is a LOT of "stuff"
> in space that conventional science recognizes.
> From frame dragging, Dirac space, Virtual particles/Quantum field theory,
> relic neutrino flux, Dark matter/Energy and much more:
> https://vimeo.com/22956103
> Indeed the Lamb shift is a separation of virtual particles by an electric
> field that causes the orbital of the Hydrogen atom to split into two very
> close levels.
>
> The first is the ARV (Alien Reproduction Vehicle) known as the fluxliner
> and a very compelling case is made for it in this humorous and effective
> video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFYnVXbLoY
>
> There you will see that MANY people claimed to see this same hovering
> saucer at an Air-Show for top brass only.
>
> The startling thing about the design is that the craft had an array of 48
> high voltage capacitors that looks like a maximized version of the next
> one, this very own lists "Capwarp"!
>  http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> There we see a number of people managed to successfully replicate this
> thing, and I recall a number of additional people on this list claiming
> some success that wasn't recorded there.
>
> So, given the Lamb shift and other information letting us know there is
> something to be affected (including by an electric field) and the multiple
> witnesses to the ARV and multiple claimants we could come to the conclusion
> that there is a VERY HIGH probability that a circular array of HV
> capacitors can create levitation.
>
> We also of course have the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, now some of his
> capacitor arrays were indeed very similar to this, though his thrusts were
> stronger he had large numbers of layers submerged in oil and both a weight
> loss and thrust was noticed, this is in addition to the more showy but
> arguably potentially more ion wind based examples he later worked on.
>
> But there is a book, I think it might be the Yellow cover of "Antigravity
> and the World Grid" where it mentions a rumor that T.T Brown was rumored to
> have got far higher levels of Antigravity from a circular array of
> capacitors.
>
> But we aren't done yet!
>
> In an "Infolio" I got from Rex Research it mentioned a high school kid who
> made a large circular capacitor with a Polystyrene dielectric, it lost
> weight no when charged no matter which polarity was up, this aligns with
> T-T Brown claiming that there was both an antigravity AND a propulsive
> component to his work.
>
> Then one day I found a comment on Youtube, it was about a University
> student (Doyle a few years on?) who got levitation from a glass dielectric
> based circular capacitor!
>
> When I relayed this to (RIP) Marc McCandlish he told me about another man
> who made a very very large circular capacitor and he used a black
> dielectric similar to what is used for shoes, and energized it with a Tesla
> coil, if his claims are genuine he made a craft he flew in!
>
> Ok so we have some other interesting evidence to consider.
> There is a claim of another science fair experiment at a school, whis one
> involved 2 circular plates of Aluminium with a time varying (IIRC) HV field
> applied, a ball 

[Vo]:Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Jonathan Berry]

I have presented this to some degree here years ago but time for another
crack at it.
When I was in bed this morning I thought of this list, actually in that
state I was able to think, I believe of a few extra cases that currently I
can't put my finger on, they would belong in the middle of the list.

Anyway if we were to ask if there is the possibility of some type of
phenomena in space that might be induced to move, there is a LOT of "stuff"
in space that conventional science recognizes.
>From frame dragging, Dirac space, Virtual particles/Quantum field theory,
relic neutrino flux, Dark matter/Energy and much more:
https://vimeo.com/22956103
Indeed the Lamb shift is a separation of virtual particles by an electric
field that causes the orbital of the Hydrogen atom to split into two very
close levels.

The first is the ARV (Alien Reproduction Vehicle) known as the fluxliner
and a very compelling case is made for it in this humorous and effective
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFYnVXbLoY

There you will see that MANY people claimed to see this same hovering
saucer at an Air-Show for top brass only.

The startling thing about the design is that the craft had an array of 48
high voltage capacitors that looks like a maximized version of the next
one, this very own lists "Capwarp"!
 http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html

There we see a number of people managed to successfully replicate this
thing, and I recall a number of additional people on this list claiming
some success that wasn't recorded there.

So, given the Lamb shift and other information letting us know there is
something to be affected (including by an electric field) and the multiple
witnesses to the ARV and multiple claimants we could come to the conclusion
that there is a VERY HIGH probability that a circular array of HV
capacitors can create levitation.

We also of course have the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, now some of his
capacitor arrays were indeed very similar to this, though his thrusts were
stronger he had large numbers of layers submerged in oil and both a weight
loss and thrust was noticed, this is in addition to the more showy but
arguably potentially more ion wind based examples he later worked on.

But there is a book, I think it might be the Yellow cover of "Antigravity
and the World Grid" where it mentions a rumor that T.T Brown was rumored to
have got far higher levels of Antigravity from a circular array of
capacitors.

But we aren't done yet!

In an "Infolio" I got from Rex Research it mentioned a high school kid who
made a large circular capacitor with a Polystyrene dielectric, it lost
weight no when charged no matter which polarity was up, this aligns with
T-T Brown claiming that there was both an antigravity AND a propulsive
component to his work.

Then one day I found a comment on Youtube, it was about a University
student (Doyle a few years on?) who got levitation from a glass dielectric
based circular capacitor!

When I relayed this to (RIP) Marc McCandlish he told me about another man
who made a very very large circular capacitor and he used a black
dielectric similar to what is used for shoes, and energized it with a Tesla
coil, if his claims are genuine he made a craft he flew in!

Ok so we have some other interesting evidence to consider.
There is a claim of another science fair experiment at a school, whis one
involved 2 circular plates of Aluminium with a time varying (IIRC) HV field
applied, a ball bearing placed on this began to moe in a circle, given that
there is no obvious electromagnetic mechanism for such a behavior and we
are looking for evidence of some type of "Aerther Vortex" involved with
large HV appropriately designed capacitors then this also supports the the
picture being painted here.

In addition, I also at one point (wish I had kept track of it) multiple
claims of circular (might have been spheres actually) charged with high
voltage DC in association with a second pole, and a torque being noticed on
the components, essentially another case supporting a circular force from
HV capacitors that seems not to be easily explained by electrodynamic
forces.

Then there is the Ducret house account mentioned in the Ether Technology
book by Rho Sigma, it was dielectric disk which under the influence of high
voltage rotated then becoming airborne, in this case I believe the rotation
was easily explained by electrostatic motor effects but the levitation
while not a perfect match seems to be potentially relevant.

There was also a man, who's name eludes me at present but the account is
not unknown, he had a device he demonstrated at the World's fair, he
described it as a "Rotary Condenser" and and weight loss was demonstrated,
though there is no image of the device, but the name certainly leads to
plausibility that it is perhaps related.

The next is Alexey Chekurkov, while his device has more going on than just
a circular HV capacitor, it DOES satisfy that requirement and produces
levitation!  It 

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Sorry, there was a missing character in the final link. Here is the correct
link.
_Goethe’s Theory of Colors from the Perspective of Modern Physics_
https://www.physikdidaktik.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/physik/didaktik/Forschung/Publikationen/Grebe-Ellis/Mack_und_Goethe_Seite_124-137_freigegeben-low.pdf

Harry

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 4:05 PM H L V  wrote:

> What is yellow? by PehrSall
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1WiWGndZw
>
> PehrSall is a physicist who is interested in the history and science of
> color theory. He has many video's in which he investigates Newton's and
> Geothe's color theories experimentally.
>
> He also has a video on Land's two color investigations.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG4bzGNc1E0
>
> In this beautiful investigation
> _Goethe's Purple Ray - alias Monochromatic Rays of Shadow, the
> Rehabilitation of Darkness_
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsU
> he argues that Newton did not demonstrate that white light consists of
> variously coloured lights  any more than he was able to demonstrate the
> 'absurd' thesis that darkness consists of variously coloured shadows.
> (Personally I am not sure that the absurdity of one thesis should be
> regarded as proof that both theses are unjustified. I am inclined to ask
> what if the absurd thesis were true?)
>
>
> This paper supports my opinion that there is still much to learn about the
> nature of radiation.
>
> Power  Area Density in Inverse Spectra
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.09063.pdf
>
> An informal discussion of the results of the same paper in german and
> english with more pictures:
>
> https://www.physikdidaktik.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/physik/didaktik/Forschung/Publikationen/Grebe-Ellis/Mack_und_Goethe_Seite_124-137_freigegeben-low.pd
>
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 2:59 AM MSF  wrote:
>
>> The delay? I don't think we're in a hurry. And clearly no one else on the
>> list has an interest in our discussion.
>>
>> Spectral colors and their perception are my business. I've made literally
>> billions of square meters of diffraction gratings, mostly decorative
>> patterns. Yellow and magenta have been particularly interesting to me for a
>> few reasons. I am of the controversial opinion that yellow doesn't exist
>> except in human perception.
>>
>> Years ago, before lasers became unbelievably inexpensive, I was
>> interested in creating a light source to view transmission holograms
>> without a laser or filtered mercury arc.  I had a lot of slide projectors
>> left over from my "psychedelic light show" so I thought I could use one to
>> make such a light source. I put a slit into the projector where the slide
>> would normally go and a high efficiency Bragg diffraction grating in front
>> of it.  This projected  a nice broad spectrum.  I then used another slit to
>> isolate whatever color I wanted and a cylinder lens to spread it out. This
>> worked quite well, but not very bright. I settled on what would normally be
>> called the yellow part of the spectrum.
>>
>> But people viewing the holograms this way would say that the color was
>> white, or perhaps gray. I thought the same thing.  You have to see this to
>> appreciate it. So maybe Roy G Biv  should change his name. Another example
>> of the phenomenon is a pressure tuned krypton laser.  At just the right gas
>> pressure it makes four more or less equally spaced colors if sent through a
>> prism: red, yellow, green, and two tightly spaced blues. The yellow looks
>> yellow when the other colors are present, but by itself it appears to be
>> colorless. A lot of people smarter than I have argued about these things
>> for a very long time.
>>
>> If you really want to see some strangeness as regards color perception,
>> look up Land color theory. I played around with this when I was a child,
>> and my family thought I was nuts.
>>
>> I just think it's a gift to us that we can perceive color the way we do.
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>> On Thursday, August 24th, 2023 at 9:10 AM, H L V 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry about the delay.
>>
>> I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along
>> with the topology of stress lines.
>> However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that the
>> perception of the colour magenta is situational like
>> the perception of yellow.
>>
>>
>> Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was
>> discovered in the 1990's?
>> Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown to be
>> definitively present in humans in 2007 in people who were born without rods
>> and cones.
>>
>> From wikipedia " ipRGCs were only definitively detected in humans during
>> landmark experiments in 2007 on rodless, coneless humans.[15]
>> [16]
>>  As
>> had been found in other mammals, the identity of the non-rod non-cone
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

What is yellow? by PehrSall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1WiWGndZw

PehrSall is a physicist who is interested in the history and science of
color theory. He has many video's in which he investigates Newton's and
Geothe's color theories experimentally.

He also has a video on Land's two color investigations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG4bzGNc1E0

In this beautiful investigation
_Goethe's Purple Ray - alias Monochromatic Rays of Shadow, the
Rehabilitation of Darkness_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsU
he argues that Newton did not demonstrate that white light consists of
variously coloured lights  any more than he was able to demonstrate the
'absurd' thesis that darkness consists of variously coloured shadows.
(Personally I am not sure that the absurdity of one thesis should be
regarded as proof that both theses are unjustified. I am inclined to ask
what if the absurd thesis were true?)


This paper supports my opinion that there is still much to learn about the
nature of radiation.

Power  Area Density in Inverse Spectra
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.09063.pdf

An informal discussion of the results of the same paper in german and
english with more pictures:
https://www.physikdidaktik.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/physik/didaktik/Forschung/Publikationen/Grebe-Ellis/Mack_und_Goethe_Seite_124-137_freigegeben-low.pd


Harry


On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 2:59 AM MSF  wrote:

> The delay? I don't think we're in a hurry. And clearly no one else on the
> list has an interest in our discussion.
>
> Spectral colors and their perception are my business. I've made literally
> billions of square meters of diffraction gratings, mostly decorative
> patterns. Yellow and magenta have been particularly interesting to me for a
> few reasons. I am of the controversial opinion that yellow doesn't exist
> except in human perception.
>
> Years ago, before lasers became unbelievably inexpensive, I was interested
> in creating a light source to view transmission holograms without a laser
> or filtered mercury arc.  I had a lot of slide projectors left over from my
> "psychedelic light show" so I thought I could use one to make such a light
> source. I put a slit into the projector where the slide would normally go
> and a high efficiency Bragg diffraction grating in front of it.  This
> projected  a nice broad spectrum.  I then used another slit to isolate
> whatever color I wanted and a cylinder lens to spread it out. This worked
> quite well, but not very bright. I settled on what would normally be called
> the yellow part of the spectrum.
>
> But people viewing the holograms this way would say that the color was
> white, or perhaps gray. I thought the same thing.  You have to see this to
> appreciate it. So maybe Roy G Biv  should change his name. Another example
> of the phenomenon is a pressure tuned krypton laser.  At just the right gas
> pressure it makes four more or less equally spaced colors if sent through a
> prism: red, yellow, green, and two tightly spaced blues. The yellow looks
> yellow when the other colors are present, but by itself it appears to be
> colorless. A lot of people smarter than I have argued about these things
> for a very long time.
>
> If you really want to see some strangeness as regards color perception,
> look up Land color theory. I played around with this when I was a child,
> and my family thought I was nuts.
>
> I just think it's a gift to us that we can perceive color the way we do.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Thursday, August 24th, 2023 at 9:10 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Sorry about the delay.
>
> I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along
> with the topology of stress lines.
> However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that the
> perception of the colour magenta is situational like
> the perception of yellow.
>
>
> Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was
> discovered in the 1990's?
> Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown to be
> definitively present in humans in 2007 in people who were born without rods
> and cones.
>
> From wikipedia " ipRGCs were only definitively detected in humans during
> landmark experiments in 2007 on rodless, coneless humans.[15]
> [16]
>  As
> had been found in other mammals, the identity of the non-rod non-cone
> photoreceptor in humans was found to be a ganglion cell in the inner
> retina. The researchers had tracked down patients with rare diseases wiping
> out classic rod and cone photoreceptor function but preserving ganglion
> cell function.[15]
> [16]
> 
> Despite having no rods or cones the patients continued to exhibit circadian
> photoentrainment, 

[Vo]:ICCF25 book of abstracts and Infinite Energy reports

[Jed Rothwell]

Book of Abstracts and program:

https://iccf25.com/conf-data/iccf-25/files/ICCF25-book-of-abstracts_final.pdf

Infinite Energy reports on conference:

https://infinite-energy.com/resources/iccf25.html

[Vo]:Conservation of energy

[Jonathan Berry]

This will be a short and easy one, essentially there are two ways to look
at the law of conservation of energy that seem identical but have important
differences.

Let's assume for the moment that energy cannot be (in a net sense) created
or destroyed.

So then energy can either be said to be converted, or created and
destroyed in equal amounts.

This might seem like the same thing but it seems that it is more true to
see it as being equal creation and destruction.

And by viewing it this way we can observe something about a great many
devices that claim Free Energy and also some that claim Antigravity as well.

And what is that?  Well a lot of designs differ from more
regular non-overunity designs by having sections where there is a greater
level of energy being both created and destroyed.

Let's propose we have two capacitors in series passing an AC current, then
we charge the floating middle section, as long as we don't overcharge the
capacitors this will lead to zero net change electrically to the energy
passing through, but if we look at each capacitor in each moment we see
that one capacitor will be opposing the current and one will be helping it.

That means that one capacitor will be discharging while the other is
charging, and the current passing through, the individual electrons have
energy pulled from them and later given back.

The same situation exists with devices that have either a noninductive coil
which passes a current that is placed in an inductive field, again the
current passing through it is assisted and then opposed, otherwises this is
done with two coils in series connected to achieve the same zero net
inductance.

This also occurs with motor/generator designs, and magnets variably
assisting with rotation and then opposing it.

All of this activity is very relevant to what I would term aether, and what
Bearden would term scalar phenomena.

Imbalancing creation and destruction of energy might or might not be
possible, and really neither can be proven ultimately.

But it seems far more accurate to view it as generally perfectly balanced
creation and destruction than conversion, treating energy as conversion
seems like a very much zoomed out overview and not true to the details, and
as such it is easy to overlook things that net to zero in the big picture.

William Alek posted a document I have only partially skimmed but it covers
elements of this:
https://intalek.com/Events/TomBeardenScalarWaveTheory2022_SEM23.pdf

This, along with the radiant release of energy (Tesla's phenomena) is the
basis of IMO essentially all Free Energy/Antigravity/Cold Fusion and other
instances where experiments produce effects that breach the regular laws of
physics.

Excuse the cross-posting.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Jonathan Berry]

i'd have to look at that very carefully in light of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbr0fQfJC-8

He cites some compelling reasons it might be busted, but, you never know.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 03:12, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> It's Back...LK-99 second chance?  Silicon?
>
>
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:25 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> And a new candidate with "dancing" Cooper pairs.
>>
>>
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-identify-a-strange-new-form-of-superconductivity
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:31 PM Jonathan Berry <
>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe, look at how both cases of levitation had one end up and one end
>>> down.
>>>
>>> This suggests one of 2 things, they either made a ferromagnetic material
>>> not a superconductor.
>>>
>>> OR, they made a superconductor that is only superconductive at one end.
>>>
>>> So a tiny bit of contamination only occurred at that point?
>>>
>>> Maybe the thin film technique works better because it increases chances
>>> for contamination?
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 08:58, Robin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 >Two down
 >
 >
 https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/

 ...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance
 they produced behaved remarkably like a
 superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine
 what the real superconductor is?
 Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

It's Back...LK-99 second chance?  Silicon?

 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work

On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:25 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> And a new candidate with "dancing" Cooper pairs.
>
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-identify-a-strange-new-form-of-superconductivity
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:31 PM Jonathan Berry <
> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, look at how both cases of levitation had one end up and one end
>> down.
>>
>> This suggests one of 2 things, they either made a ferromagnetic material
>> not a superconductor.
>>
>> OR, they made a superconductor that is only superconductive at one end.
>>
>> So a tiny bit of contamination only occurred at that point?
>>
>> Maybe the thin film technique works better because it increases chances
>> for contamination?
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 08:58, Robin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400:
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
>>> >Two down
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/
>>>
>>> ...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance
>>> they produced behaved remarkably like a
>>> superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine what
>>> the real superconductor is?
>>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[MSF]

The delay? I don't think we're in a hurry. And clearly no one else on the list 
has an interest in our discussion.

Spectral colors and their perception are my business. I've made literally 
billions of square meters of diffraction gratings, mostly decorative patterns. 
Yellow and magenta have been particularly interesting to me for a few reasons. 
I am of the controversial opinion that yellow doesn't exist except in human 
perception.

Years ago, before lasers became unbelievably inexpensive, I was interested in 
creating a light source to view transmission holograms without a laser or 
filtered mercury arc. I had a lot of slide projectors left over from my 
"psychedelic light show" so I thought I could use one to make such a light 
source. I put a slit into the projector where the slide would normally go and a 
high efficiency Bragg diffraction grating in front of it. This projected a nice 
broad spectrum. I then used another slit to isolate whatever color I wanted and 
a cylinder lens to spread it out. This worked quite well, but not very bright. 
I settled on what would normally be called the yellow part of the spectrum.

But people viewing the holograms this way would say that the color was white, 
or perhaps gray. I thought the same thing. You have to see this to appreciate 
it. So maybe Roy G Biv should change his name. Another example of the 
phenomenon is a pressure tuned krypton laser. At just the right gas pressure it 
makes four more or less equally spaced colors if sent through a prism: red, 
yellow, green, and two tightly spaced blues. The yellow looks yellow when the 
other colors are present, but by itself it appears to be colorless. A lot of 
people smarter than I have argued about these things for a very long time.

If you really want to see some strangeness as regards color perception, look up 
Land color theory. I played around with this when I was a child, and my family 
thought I was nuts.

I just think it's a gift to us that we can perceive color the way we do.

--- Original Message ---
On Thursday, August 24th, 2023 at 9:10 AM, H L V  wrote:

> Sorry about the delay.
>
> I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along with 
> the topology of stress lines.
> However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that the 
> perception of the colour magenta is situational like
> the perception of yellow.
>
> Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was discovered in 
> the 1990's?Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown 
> to be definitively present in humans in 2007 in people who were born without 
> rods and cones.
>
> From wikipedia " ipRGCs were only definitively detected in humans during 
> landmark experiments in 2007 on rodless, coneless 
> humans.[15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-ns1-15)[16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-mnt-16)
>  As had been found in other mammals, the identity of the non-rod non-cone 
> photoreceptor in humans was found to be a ganglion cell in the inner retina. 
> The researchers had tracked down patients with rare diseases wiping out 
> classic rod and cone photoreceptor function but preserving ganglion cell 
> function.[15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-ns1-15)[16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-mnt-16)
>  Despite having no rods or cones the patients continued to exhibit circadian 
> photoentrainment, circadian behavioural patterns, melanopsin suppression, and 
> pupil reactions, with peak spectral sensitivities to environmental and 
> experimental light matching that for the melanopsin photopigment. Their 
> brains could also associate vision with light of this frequency."
> Harry

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Sorry about the delay.

I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along
with the topology of stress lines.
However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that
the perception of the colour magenta is situational like
the perception of yellow.


Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was discovered
in the 1990's?
Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown to be
definitively present in humans in 2007 in people who were born without rods
and cones.

>From wikipedia " ipRGCs were only definitively detected in humans during
landmark experiments in 2007 on rodless, coneless humans.[15]
[16]
 As had
been found in other mammals, the identity of the non-rod non-cone
photoreceptor in humans was found to be a ganglion cell in the inner
retina. The researchers had tracked down patients with rare diseases wiping
out classic rod and cone photoreceptor function but preserving ganglion
cell function.[15]
[16]
 Despite
having no rods or cones the patients continued to exhibit circadian
photoentrainment, circadian behavioural patterns, melanopsin suppression,
and pupil reactions, with peak spectral sensitivities to environmental and
experimental light matching that for the melanopsin photopigment. Their
brains could also associate vision with light of this frequency."

Harry



https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09063

On Wed., Aug. 16, 2023, 5:31 p.m. MSF,  wrote:

> Would it change your mind if you saw the real thing instead of a digital
> representation? All of color photography, both on film and now with digital
> cameras and LCD or OLED screens depend upon acceptable approximations of
> the real colors.  This varies among different cultures.
>
> And now, I delve once more into my misty past. In the late 60s I made a
> meager living doing what was then called a "psychedelic light show" with
> rock bands.  One of the effects I used was a rotating polarizer combined
> with various crystals and injection molded styrene. I used to search
> grocery and hardware stores for suitable pieces. I would then use them as
> is or further stress them by heating and stretching. You can definitely see
> edges of red and blue around the magenta. Something even more definitive
> could be seen when making patterns from the original Scotch cellophane
> tape. After they switched to polypropylene, much to my disappointment at
> the time, the effect was no longer possible. As you rotate the polarizer
> slowly you could see a washed out red, fading into magenta and then blue.
>
> Again, probably more than you wanted to know.
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Wednesday, August 16th, 2023 at 2:16 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic
> using polarized light.
> Noticing how readily the colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in this
> video as the plastic is rotated.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ
>
> Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes
> got me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta does not
> appear in Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever red and
> blue light overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's spectrum
> a.k.a the dark spectrum).
>
> Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours
> which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the
> illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by
> the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then
> _every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and
> blue around its perimeter which is not the case.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> More polarized fun...
>>
>> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing
>> here is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have
>> some lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you
>> have to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it
>> at an angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of
>> color. The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the
>> tempered glass.
>>
>> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by
>> a friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the
>> glass". And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.
>>
>> You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of
>> mysterious color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very
>> young, I used to see these colors in the 

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

And a new candidate with "dancing" Cooper pairs.

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-identify-a-strange-new-form-of-superconductivity

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:31 PM Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> Maybe, look at how both cases of levitation had one end up and one end
> down.
>
> This suggests one of 2 things, they either made a ferromagnetic material
> not a superconductor.
>
> OR, they made a superconductor that is only superconductive at one end.
>
> So a tiny bit of contamination only occurred at that point?
>
> Maybe the thin film technique works better because it increases chances
> for contamination?
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 08:58, Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Two down
>> >
>> >https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/
>>
>> ...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance
>> they produced behaved remarkably like a
>> superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine what
>> the real superconductor is?
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
>>

[Vo]:GaPower Loading Unit 4

[Terry Blanton]

https://apnews.com/us-news/georgia-power-co-georgia-southern-co-utilities-general-news-5f0ad26f63b3db12707263b7730b30be

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Jonathan Berry]

Maybe, look at how both cases of levitation had one end up and one end down.

This suggests one of 2 things, they either made a ferromagnetic material
not a superconductor.

OR, they made a superconductor that is only superconductive at one end.

So a tiny bit of contamination only occurred at that point?

Maybe the thin film technique works better because it increases chances for
contamination?

On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 08:58, Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Two down
> >
> >https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/
>
> ...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance
> they produced behaved remarkably like a
> superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine what
> the real superconductor is?
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Robin]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Two down
>
>https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/

...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance they 
produced behaved remarkably like a
superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine what the 
real superconductor is?
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

Two down

https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 7:37 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> One down, one to go.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/science/retraction-ranga-dias-rochester.html
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 6:33 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> Sound is sound.  Energy changes with frequency.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 12:47 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Phonons are important to the CF process; but, the ultrasound might
>>> provide organized pressure waves to align defects into CF productive
>>> structures.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:34 AM Terry Blanton 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search
 Jed's web site.

 On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 10:57 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
 wrote:

> Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18
>> -0500:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> [snip]
>> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>>
>> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>>
>> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration
>> that resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
>> encourages vibration in the plain.
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jed Rothwell]

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:


> > Otherwise there is no point. If it cannot be replicated, it is not
> > science. If the researcher wants to cash in on the discovery, that is
> > fine. He or she needs to file for a patent before publishing the paper.
>
> May be you see the point. With 3 months reports you in average write 2
> weeks patents...
>

I do not understand what you mean here.

If a 3-month detailed report would interfere with writing a patent, the
researcher can submit an abbreviated report saying something like: "A
patent is now being written. When it is filed, in approximately two months,
a more detailed report will be sent." That should satisfy everyone. The
patent application should be written promptly.

If the researcher cannot do things this way, he should seek money from a
venture capitalist instead of a philanthropist.

Re: [Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 18.08.2023 17:27, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Otherwise there is no point. If it cannot be replicated, it is not 
science. If the researcher wants to cash in on the discovery, that is 
fine. He or she needs to file for a patent before publishing the paper.


May be you see the point. With 3 months reports you in average write 2 
weeks patents...


But so far we wrote reports/papers to avoid that others can patent 
useful stuff. I think basic research should be public like MFP:


J.W.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jed Rothwell]

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Jed, I do not object reporting, but these blood suckers like to have
> detailed reports...This would be OK for 10x more money...
>
Everything must be published in enough detail to replicate the experiment.
Otherwise there is no point. If it cannot be replicated, it is not science.
If the researcher wants to cash in on the discovery, that is fine. He or
she needs to file for a patent before publishing the paper.

To replicate, you usually need a very detailed report. Unless the
experiment is a "me too" replication of something already described in the
literature. There is not much point to that.

Re: [Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jed, I do not object reporting, but these blood suckers like to have 
detailed reports...This would be OK for 10x more money...



Further:: A little bit more advanced experiments need high level 
equipment. Like a multi target PVD coater, a good galvanostat and access 
to a decent XRF just to name 3 gadgets, where a good PVD starts at 50k$ 
without any addons like expensive targets.


I think that providing gadgets would be the better approach than 
spending money. That way you can switch it between groups or groups 
could provide some services (like PVD,XRF) to other groups.


E.g. we just evaluate access to a good PVD. With the proper machine and 
the correct targets you can do one process step in one day. Then for 
months 50k stay idle doing nothing...



J.W.

On 18.08.2023 16:50, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

Not a single experienced researcher will spend more than a few
seconds to read such outraging nonsense as writing progress
reports every 3 months for e.g. 25k $ funding is just a bad joke...

I have given several researchers funding, with no strings attached. I 
definitely want a progress report every 3 months. It is not reasonable 
to take someone's money and then not tell them what you are doing with 
it. A short but substantive report every three months is entirely 
reasonable.


==> Get maximal information for a minimum of money.

When I contribute money to an experiment with no strings attached (no 
intellectual property for me), then I stipulate the results be 
published in full, on a timely basis. The researcher would be free to 
file for a patent before publishing, but it must be published. No 
philanthropist wants to pay for research that remains secret. There is 
no point. So not only would I get "maximal information" but so would 
anyone else in the world. This is entirely reasonable.


Do you expect people to give money unconditionally? What would be the 
point of funding research with no progress reports that will remain 
secret? That is not science. You need to look at this from the point 
of view of the person giving the money.




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jed Rothwell]

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Not a single experienced researcher will spend more than a few seconds to
> read such outraging nonsense as writing progress reports every 3 months for
> e.g. 25k $ funding is just a bad joke...
>
I have given several researchers funding, with no strings attached. I
definitely want a progress report every 3 months. It is not reasonable to
take someone's money and then not tell them what you are doing with it. A
short but substantive report every three months is entirely reasonable.

==> Get maximal information for a minimum of money.
>
When I contribute money to an experiment with no strings attached (no
intellectual property for me), then I stipulate the results be published in
full, on a timely basis. The researcher would be free to file for a patent
before publishing, but it must be published. No philanthropist wants to pay
for research that remains secret. There is no point. So not only would I
get "maximal information" but so would anyone else in the world. This is
entirely reasonable.

Do you expect people to give money unconditionally? What would be the point
of funding research with no progress reports that will remain secret? That
is not science. You need to look at this from the point of view of the
person giving the money.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

One down, one to go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/science/retraction-ranga-dias-rochester.html

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 6:33 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Sound is sound.  Energy changes with frequency.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 12:47 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Phonons are important to the CF process; but, the ultrasound might
>> provide organized pressure waves to align defects into CF productive
>> structures.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:34 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>> I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search
>>> Jed's web site.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 10:57 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.

 On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
 wrote:

> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18
> -0500:
> Hi Andrew,
> [snip]
> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>
> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>
> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration
> that resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
> encourages vibration in the plain.
>
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

This is the same method IH (international heat did use)

==> Get maximal information for a minimum of money.


Not a single experienced researcher will spend more than a few seconds 
to read such outraging nonsense as writing progress reports every 3 
months for e.g. 25k $ funding is just a bad joke...



J.W.



On 17.08.2023 19:22, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:

Anthropocene Institute Advances Solid-State Fusion Energy at ICCF-25

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230817380396/en/Anthropocene-Institute-Advances-Solid-State-Fusion-Energy-at-ICCF-25 




Exploration Grants

The Anthropocene Institute is connecting funding sources with 
researchers and scientists exploring the area of Solid-State Fusion 
(SSF), which we define as a nuclear reaction in the solid phase of 
matter, releasing heat that is in excess of input energy. . . .


https://solidstatefusion.org/grants/ 




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Anthropocene Institute press release and cold fusion Exploration Grants

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

Anthropocene Institute Advances Solid-State Fusion Energy at ICCF-25

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230817380396/en/
Anthropocene-Institute-Advances-Solid-State-Fusion-Energy-at-ICCF-25


Exploration Grants

The Anthropocene Institute is connecting funding sources with researchers
and scientists exploring the area of Solid-State Fusion (SSF), which we
define as a nuclear reaction in the solid phase of matter, releasing heat
that is in excess of input energy. . . .

https://solidstatefusion.org/grants/

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[MSF]

Would it change your mind if you saw the real thing instead of a digital 
representation? All of color photography, both on film and now with digital 
cameras and LCD or OLED screens depend upon acceptable approximations of the 
real colors. This varies among different cultures.

And now, I delve once more into my misty past. In the late 60s I made a meager 
living doing what was then called a "psychedelic light show" with rock bands. 
One of the effects I used was a rotating polarizer combined with various 
crystals and injection molded styrene. I used to search grocery and hardware 
stores for suitable pieces. I would then use them as is or further stress them 
by heating and stretching. You can definitely see edges of red and blue around 
the magenta. Something even more definitive could be seen when making patterns 
from the original Scotch cellophane tape. After they switched to polypropylene, 
much to my disappointment at the time, the effect was no longer possible. As 
you rotate the polarizer slowly you could see a washed out red, fading into 
magenta and then blue.

Again, probably more than you wanted to know.

--- Original Message ---
On Wednesday, August 16th, 2023 at 2:16 AM, H L V  wrote:

> Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic 
> using polarized light.
> Noticing how readily the colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in this 
> video as the plastic is rotated.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ
>
> Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes got 
> me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta does not appear in 
> Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever red and blue light 
> overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's spectrum a.k.a the dark 
> spectrum).
>
> Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours 
> which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the 
> illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by 
> the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then 
> _every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and 
> blue around its perimeter which is not the case.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> More polarized fun...
>>
>> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing here 
>> is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have some 
>> lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you have 
>> to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it at an 
>> angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of color. 
>> The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the tempered 
>> glass.
>>
>> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by a 
>> friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the glass". 
>> And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.
>>
>> You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of mysterious 
>> color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very young, I used to 
>> see these colors in the pavement all the time, directly on, not peripherily. 
>> The reason is my brother and I were blessed, or cursed, with vision that was 
>> so sharp and light sensitive that we were accused all the time of "seeing 
>> things". We tested out at 20-05 on the eye charts. Our retinas must have 
>> been so stuffed withe rods and cones, I'm surprised they didn't explode. I 
>> could see close to 7th magnitude stars. That's all gone now that I'm old. 
>> Down to 20-20 with lens implants.
>>
>> Please pardon my self-indulgent nostalgia.
>>
>> MSF
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

The demonstrations given by this lecturer are more refined so it is easier
to observe how magenta arises in proximity to other colours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZ1THDGD34

The idea that real or objective colour is reducible to a single parameter
known as wavelength seems to me simplistic and wrong. Even with the domain
of the hard sciences, colour should be treated as
a multidimensional phenomena.

Harry

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:16 PM H L V  wrote:

> Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic
> using polarized light.
> Noticing how readily the  colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in
> this video as the plastic is rotated.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ
>
> Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes
> got me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta
> does not appear in Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever
> red and blue light overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's
> spectrum a.k.a the dark spectrum).
>
> Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours
> which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the
> illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by
> the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then
> _every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and
> blue around its perimeter which is not the case.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> More polarized fun...
>>
>> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing
>> here is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have
>> some lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you
>> have to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it
>> at an angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of
>> color. The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the
>> tempered glass.
>>
>> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by
>> a friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the
>> glass".  And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.
>>
>> You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of
>> mysterious color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very
>> young, I used to see these colors in the pavement all the time, directly
>> on, not peripherily. The reason is my brother and I were blessed, or
>> cursed, with vision that was so sharp and light sensitive that we were
>> accused all the time of "seeing things". We tested out at 20-05 on the eye
>> charts. Our retinas must have been so stuffed withe rods and cones, I'm
>> surprised they didn't explode. I could see close to 7th magnitude stars.
>> That's all gone now that I'm old. Down to 20-20 with lens implants.
>>
>> Please pardon my self-indulgent nostalgia.
>>
>> MSF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic
using polarized light.
Noticing how readily the  colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in this
video as the plastic is rotated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ

Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes
got me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta
does not appear in Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever
red and blue light overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's
spectrum a.k.a the dark spectrum).

Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours
which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the
illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by
the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then
_every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and
blue around its perimeter which is not the case.

Harry


On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:

> More polarized fun...
>
> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing
> here is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have
> some lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you
> have to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it
> at an angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of
> color. The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the
> tempered glass.
>
> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by
> a friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the
> glass".  And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.
>
> You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of
> mysterious color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very
> young, I used to see these colors in the pavement all the time, directly
> on, not peripherily. The reason is my brother and I were blessed, or
> cursed, with vision that was so sharp and light sensitive that we were
> accused all the time of "seeing things". We tested out at 20-05 on the eye
> charts. Our retinas must have been so stuffed withe rods and cones, I'm
> surprised they didn't explode. I could see close to 7th magnitude stars.
> That's all gone now that I'm old. Down to 20-20 with lens implants.
>
> Please pardon my self-indulgent nostalgia.
>
> MSF
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[MSF]

More polarized fun...

A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing here is 
looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have some lawn 
furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you have to do is 
stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it at an angle of 
approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of color. The colors 
outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the tempered glass.

Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by a 
friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the glass". 
And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.

You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of mysterious 
color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very young, I used to 
see these colors in the pavement all the time, directly on, not peripherily. 
The reason is my brother and I were blessed, or cursed, with vision that was so 
sharp and light sensitive that we were accused all the time of "seeing things". 
We tested out at 20-05 on the eye charts. Our retinas must have been so stuffed 
withe rods and cones, I'm surprised they didn't explode. I could see close to 
7th magnitude stars. That's all gone now that I'm old. Down to 20-20 with lens 
implants.

Please pardon my self-indulgent nostalgia.

MSF

>>>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Here a practical link for optical calculations like Brewster angle


https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main=Ni=Johnson



J.W.


Thanks for the feedback.
I had not heard of Brewster's angle.
I will need time to consider these suggestions.

Harry

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:11 PM MSF  wrote:

We call them "colors" down here south of the border, Harry. But to
your question, yes I have experienced the same phenomenon. Keep in
mind that peripheral vision is more light sensitive than foveal
vision.

I can think of two possibilities to explain the phenomenon. Light
from the clear sky is partially polarized along a north to south
axis. So if you are walking in a mostly north or south direction
you would see these colors to your left or right as the angle to
the area you are observing is around Brewster's angle. They would
be secondary colors.

Alternatively, it might just be a very thin oil slick formed from
the asphalt and you need the more sensitive peripheral vision to
perceive it.

More than you wanted to know, probably.

--- Original Message ---
On Wednesday, August 9th, 2023 at 7:36 PM, H L V
 wrote:


This summer I have been walking to work in the morning during
twilight just before the sun rises.
As I walk across asphalt paved streets which are old and
cracking, sometimes I see very faint bands of colour
in my peripheral vision when I am looking at the pavement. When
it happens I am walking roughly southward ( at 46 degrees north
latitude) and the bands seem to appear on the left side of my
peripheral vision. The colours remind more of those found in the
Goethe spectrum rather than the rainbow spectrum. I wondered if
it might be an effect of LED street lighting reflecting off the
pavement but sometimes it seems to arise far from any LED street
lights. Has anyone else experienced this?

Harry






--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Thanks for the feedback.
I had not heard of Brewster's angle.
I will need time to consider these suggestions.

Harry

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:11 PM MSF  wrote:

> We call them "colors" down here south of the border, Harry. But to your
> question, yes I have experienced the same phenomenon. Keep in mind that
> peripheral vision is more light sensitive than foveal vision.
>
> I can think of two possibilities to explain the phenomenon. Light from the
> clear sky is partially polarized along a north to south axis. So if you are
> walking in a mostly north or south direction you would see these colors to
> your left or right as the angle to the area you are observing is around
> Brewster's angle. They would be secondary colors.
>
> Alternatively, it might just be a very thin oil slick formed from the
> asphalt and you need the more sensitive peripheral vision to perceive it.
>
> More than you wanted to know, probably.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Wednesday, August 9th, 2023 at 7:36 PM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> This summer I have been walking to work in the morning during twilight
> just before the sun rises.
> As I walk across asphalt paved streets which are old and cracking,
> sometimes I see very faint bands of colour
> in my peripheral vision when I am looking at the pavement. When it happens
> I am walking roughly southward ( at 46 degrees north latitude) and the
> bands seem to appear on the left side of my peripheral vision. The colours
> remind more of those found in the Goethe spectrum rather than the rainbow
> spectrum. I wondered if it might be an effect of LED street lighting
> reflecting off the pavement but sometimes it seems to arise far from any
> LED street lights. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[MSF]

We call them "colors" down here south of the border, Harry. But to your 
question, yes I have experienced the same phenomenon. Keep in mind that 
peripheral vision is more light sensitive than foveal vision.

I can think of two possibilities to explain the phenomenon. Light from the 
clear sky is partially polarized along a north to south axis. So if you are 
walking in a mostly north or south direction you would see these colors to your 
left or right as the angle to the area you are observing is around Brewster's 
angle. They would be secondary colors.

Alternatively, it might just be a very thin oil slick formed from the asphalt 
and you need the more sensitive peripheral vision to perceive it.
More than you wanted to know, probably.

--- Original Message ---
On Wednesday, August 9th, 2023 at 7:36 PM, H L V  wrote:

> This summer I have been walking to work in the morning during twilight just 
> before the sun rises.
> As I walk across asphalt paved streets which are old and cracking, sometimes 
> I see very faint bands of colour
> in my peripheral vision when I am looking at the pavement. When it happens I 
> am walking roughly southward ( at 46 degrees north latitude) and the bands 
> seem to appear on the left side of my peripheral vision. The colours remind 
> more of those found in the Goethe spectrum rather than the rainbow spectrum. 
> I wondered if it might be an effect of LED street lighting reflecting off the 
> pavement but sometimes it seems to arise far from any LED street lights. Has 
> anyone else experienced this?
>
> Harry

[Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

This summer I have been walking to work in the morning during twilight just
before the sun rises.
As I walk across asphalt paved streets which are old and cracking,
sometimes I see very faint bands of colour
in my peripheral vision when I am looking at the pavement. When it happens
I am walking roughly southward ( at 46 degrees north  latitude) and the
bands seem to appear on the left side of my peripheral vision. The colours
remind more of those found in the Goethe spectrum rather than the rainbow
spectrum. I wondered if it might be an effect of LED street lighting
reflecting off the pavement but sometimes it seems to arise far from any
LED street lights. Has anyone else experienced this?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

Sound is sound.  Energy changes with frequency.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 12:47 PM Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:

> Phonons are important to the CF process; but, the ultrasound might provide
> organized pressure waves to align defects into CF productive structures.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:34 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search Jed's
>> web site.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 10:57 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18
 -0500:
 Hi Andrew,
 [snip]
 >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.

 Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.

 BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration
 that resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
 encourages vibration in the plain.

 Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Robin]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:06:38 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search Jed's
>web site.

Look at the work done by a.o. Russ George.
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Phonons are important to the CF process; but, the ultrasound might provide
organized pressure waves to align defects into CF productive structures.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:34 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search Jed's
> web site.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 10:57 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18
>>> -0500:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> [snip]
>>> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>>>
>>> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration
>>> that resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
>>> encourages vibration in the plain.
>>>
>>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search Jed's
web site.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 10:57 AM Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:

> Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18
>> -0500:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> [snip]
>> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>>
>> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>>
>> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration that
>> resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
>> encourages vibration in the plain.
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18 -0500:
> Hi Andrew,
> [snip]
> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>
> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>
> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration that
> resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
> encourages vibration in the plain.
>
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Robin]

In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18 -0500:
Hi Andrew,
[snip]
>Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.

Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.

BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration that 
resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
encourages vibration in the plain.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
_ _ _

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:38 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:32:07 +
> (UTC):
> Hi,
>
> You may recall that years ago, I suggested on this list that strained
> lattices might result in a preferential vibration
> direction for the atoms of the lattice (Bose condensate of phonons). That
> in turn leads to vibration primarily in a
> single plain. When that happens, ballistic conduction of electrons might
> be possible parallel to those vibration plains,
> since the passage of the electron would rarely be interrupted.
>
> [snip]
> >This story turns out to have been around the net for a long time
> >It appeared in the record as a compound named LK-99 = Lee-Kim (1999):
> >IOW - they discovered it nearly a quarter of a century ago.. makes one
> wonder if this post is not an odd troll
> >
> >Not to mention, an unreasonable time to isolate, confirm and cook up;
> patents filed in 2021, and granted in 2023—hence only now the public
> articles and trademark applications ... which likely means it is not robust
> or usable.and they are grasping at straws
> >
> >This according to Reddit
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Super conduction (SC) is a complex field. First the old cooper pair 
model is invalid for most cases as shown by Hirsch.


The physical reality more looks like evolving spin currents (=EM flux 
only) that seemlessly explains why field lines cannot penetrate an SC:



From this it is clear that a full (Meissner effect)  SC needs to have 
at least a 2D structure. The smallest possible 2D structure is a 
homogeneous crystal axes what most call a 1D SC.


1D SC's at room T have been identified a long time ago > 20 years. But 
the synthesis of long mono-crystals is not viable except e.g. carbon 
nano tubes that now reach 1 meter.



So the final question is whether LK99 is 1D or 2D. In case its full 2D 
(2 axes) then a better synthesis will finally show a full Meissner 
effect - what is not yet the case.


Nevertheless if resistance disappears in 1D it still is an SC just not a 
classical one.



So lets wait what will happen. As the result will be high impact, do not 
trust any statements by "high level" political instances. Only science 
should be accepted and this might take weeks..years...


J.W.


On 04.08.2023 01:52, Terry Blanton wrote:

Rendered Invalid

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/08/03/business/tech/Korea-Quantum-Energy-Research-Centre-superconductor/20230803184638075.html

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 9:49 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:


https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008?s=09



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Terry Blanton]

Two bit da Vinci...yeah worth about 25¢

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, 8:19 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> the arm-chair physicists out there seem to be positing "a new kind of
> superconductivity" rather than, you know
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLr95AFBRXI
>
>
>
>  Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
> Rendered Invalid
>
>
> https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/08/03/business/tech/Korea-Quantum-Energy-Research-Centre-superconductor/20230803184638075.html
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 9:49 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008?s=09
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Jones Beene]

the arm-chair physicists out there seem to be positing "a new kind of 
superconductivity" rather than, you know  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLr95AFBRXI


 Terry Blanton  wrote:  
 
 Rendered Invalid
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/08/03/business/tech/Korea-Quantum-Energy-Research-Centre-superconductor/20230803184638075.html

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 9:49 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:



https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008?s=09