Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Stellar aberration calculation is now done with Lorentz transformations (based on SR with its can't measure oneway lightspeed) that would not have been how calculated in 18th century (based on assuming absolute time) -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, 14 Dec, 20 At 21:26 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Perhaps what relativistists can say is that it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light _using_ clocks. However, stellar aberration is a way of measuring the one way speed of light that does not use clocks. It also is an old way that has been known since the 18th century. Harry On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:03 PM H LV <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote: According to relativisits it is only possible to measure the two way speed of light. However in order for special relativity to make a prediction about stellar aberration it has to use a definite one way speed of light because stellar aberration only involves light moving one way. This seems to be inconsistent. Harry On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:45 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who knows. Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Ok I watched it. Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is possible to measure the one way speed of light. Harry On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving goalposts etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be> -- Original Message -- From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Harry There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them.<< People disagree about math -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Harry Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in Discover science magazine: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes <https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them. I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. How many translations of the paper exist? As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update. Roger ------ Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Momentum and everything else messed up. A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths messe
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Perhaps what relativistists can say is that it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light _using_ clocks. However, stellar aberration is a way of measuring the one way speed of light that does not use clocks. It also is an old way that has been known since the 18th century. Harry On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:03 PM H LV wrote: > According to relativisits it is only possible to measure the two way speed > of light. > However in order for special relativity to make a prediction about stellar > aberration it has to use > a definite one way speed of light because stellar aberration only involves > light moving one way. > This seems to be inconsistent. > > Harry > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:45 PM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- >> cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who >> knows. >> >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> Ok I watched it. >> Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is >> possible to measure the one way speed of light. >> >> Harry >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" >>> >>> >>> deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving >>> goalposts etc >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> >>> >>> >>> >>I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you >>> refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >>> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >>> because they fear others will think less of them.<< >>> >>> >>> People disagree about math >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "H LV" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in >>>> Discover science magazine: >>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes >>>> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse >>> to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >>> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >>> because they fear others will think less of them. >>> >>> >>> I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation >>>> of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. >>>> >>> How many translations of the paper exist? >>> >>>> As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying >>>> in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was >>>> bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding >>>> 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on >>>> Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein >>>> wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was >>>> doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that >>>> spacetime curved to give GR was another update. >>>> >>>> Roger >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> &
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
According to relativisits it is only possible to measure the two way speed of light. However in order for special relativity to make a prediction about stellar aberration it has to use a definite one way speed of light because stellar aberration only involves light moving one way. This seems to be inconsistent. Harry On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:45 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- > cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who > knows. > > > Roger > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Ok I watched it. > Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is > possible to measure the one way speed of light. > > Harry > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON < > r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" >> >> >> deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving >> goalposts etc >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> Harry >> >> >> There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> >> >> >> >>I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse >> to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >> because they fear others will think less of them.<< >> >> >> People disagree about math >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in >>> Discover science magazine: >>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes >>> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. >>> >>> >>> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse >> to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >> because they fear others will think less of them. >> >> >> I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation >>> of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. >>> >> How many translations of the paper exist? >> >>> As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying >>> in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was >>> bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding >>> 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on >>> Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein >>> wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was >>> doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that >>> spacetime curved to give GR was another update. >>> >>> Roger >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "H LV" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON < >>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Momentum and everything else messed up. >>>> >>>> >>>> A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his >>>> maths messed up >>>> >>>> >>>> At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he >>> did not like doing lab work. See >>> https://www.youtube.
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
It is worth nothing that nothing in Special Relativity, not length contraction, not time dilation, no combo of these can possibly explain the speed of light being the same in both directions regardless of velocity! Because while these things can affect the speed of light to keep it towards C perhaps, in the other direction the difference just grows. So what it really means about the two way speed on light being presumed to be C means is that the one way speed of light and light always being in one direction is impossible. On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 11:57, H LV wrote: > Ok. But I suppose it is possible that a definite one way speed, which is > not observable, could have other observable consequences even if Einstein's > theory doesn't have any. > > Harry > > > On Wed., Dec. 9, 2020, 4:45 p.m. ROGER ANDERTON, < > r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- >> cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who >> knows. >> >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> -- Original Message ------ >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> Ok I watched it. >> Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is >> possible to measure the one way speed of light. >> >> Harry >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" >>> >>> >>> deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving >>> goalposts etc >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> >>> >>> >>> >>I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you >>> refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >>> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >>> because they fear others will think less of them.<< >>> >>> >>> People disagree about math >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "H LV" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in >>>> Discover science magazine: >>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes >>>> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse >>> to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >>> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >>> because they fear others will think less of them. >>> >>> >>> I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation >>>> of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. >>>> >>> How many translations of the paper exist? >>> >>>> As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying >>>> in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was >>>> bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding >>>> 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on >>>> Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein >>>> wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was >>>> doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that >>>> spacetime curved to give G
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Ok. But I suppose it is possible that a definite one way speed, which is not observable, could have other observable consequences even if Einstein's theory doesn't have any. Harry On Wed., Dec. 9, 2020, 4:45 p.m. ROGER ANDERTON, < r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- > cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who > knows. > > > Roger > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Ok I watched it. > Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is > possible to measure the one way speed of light. > > Harry > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON < > r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" >> >> >> deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving >> goalposts etc >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> Harry >> >> >> There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> >> >> >> >>I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse >> to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >> because they fear others will think less of them.<< >> >> >> People disagree about math >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in >>> Discover science magazine: >>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes >>> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. >>> >>> >>> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse >> to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to >> acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps >> because they fear others will think less of them. >> >> >> I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation >>> of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. >>> >> How many translations of the paper exist? >> >>> As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying >>> in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was >>> bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding >>> 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on >>> Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein >>> wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was >>> doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that >>> spacetime curved to give GR was another update. >>> >>> Roger >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "H LV" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON < >>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Momentum and everything else messed up. >>>> >>>> >>>> A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his >>>> maths messed up >>>> >>>> >>>> At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he >>> did not like doing lab work. See >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 >>> >>> What is not pointed out w
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who knows. Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Ok I watched it. Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is possible to measure the one way speed of light. Harry On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving goalposts etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be> -- Original Message -- From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Harry There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them.<< People disagree about math -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Harry Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in Discover science magazine: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes <https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them. I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. How many translations of the paper exist? As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update. Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Momentum and everything else messed up. A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths messed up At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did not like doing lab work. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4> What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English and German is just messed up. lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable quote-> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not equal to c. Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for understanding Einstein`s theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k> What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Ok I watched it. Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is possible to measure the one way speed of light. Harry On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" > > > deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving > goalposts etc > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "ROGER ANDERTON" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Harry > > > There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> > > > >>I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse > to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to > acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps > because they fear others will think less of them.<< > > > People disagree about math > > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> Harry >> >> >> Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in >> Discover science magazine: >> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes >> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. >> >> >> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse > to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to > acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps > because they fear others will think less of them. > > > I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation >> of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. >> > How many translations of the paper exist? > >> As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying >> in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was >> bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding >> 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on >> Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein >> wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was >> doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that >> spacetime curved to give GR was another update. >> >> Roger >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Momentum and everything else messed up. >>> >>> >>> A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths >>> messed up >>> >>> >>> At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did >> not like doing lab work. See >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 >> >> What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English >>> and German is just messed up. >>> >>> >>> lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer >>> >>> >>> in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable >>> >>> >>> quote-> >>> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of *k*, when >>> measured in the stationary system, with the velocity *c*-*v*, so that >>> x'/(c-v) = t >>> >>> >>> This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so >>> is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has >>> velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not >>> equal to c. >>> >>> >> Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and >> length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This >> video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for >> understanding Einstein`s theory. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k >> >> What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving goalposts etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be -- Original Message -- From: "ROGER ANDERTON" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Harry There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them.<< People disagree about math -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Harry Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in Discover science magazine: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes <https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them. I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. How many translations of the paper exist? As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update. Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Momentum and everything else messed up. A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths messed up At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did not like doing lab work. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4> What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English and German is just messed up. lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable quote-> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not equal to c. Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for understanding Einstein`s theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k> What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4> Harry -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with respect to the aether re
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Harry There are lots of translations; I'm going by three; anyway-> I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them.<< People disagree about math -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Harry Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in Discover science magazine: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes <https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes> so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them. I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. How many translations of the paper exist? As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update. Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Momentum and everything else messed up. A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths messed up At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did not like doing lab work. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4> What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English and German is just messed up. lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable quote-> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not equal to c. Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for understanding Einstein`s theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k> What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4> Harry -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of momentum which would need to be examined. Harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: That's anyone way of putting it. But memes like -> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > Harry > > > Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in > Discover science magazine: > https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes > so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. > > > I don't think making math mistakes is bad. It is only bad if you refuse to acknowledge a math mistake. People are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge making a mistake because they fear punishment or perhaps because they fear others will think less of them. > I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation > of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. > How many translations of the paper exist? > As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying in > 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was > bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding > 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on > Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein > wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was > doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that > spacetime curved to give GR was another update. > > Roger > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> Momentum and everything else messed up. >> >> >> A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths >> messed up >> >> >> At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did > not like doing lab work. See > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 > > What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English >> and German is just messed up. >> >> >> lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer >> >> >> in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable >> >> >> quote-> >> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of *k*, when >> measured in the stationary system, with the velocity *c*-*v*, so that >> x'/(c-v) = t >> >> >> This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is >> not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has >> velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not >> equal to c. >> >> > Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and > length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This > video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for > understanding Einstein`s theory. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k > > What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I personally > regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is a physicist > from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just makes it go away > at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed in only one frame > and the space travelling twin to have existed in two frames. However there > is nothing within special relativity that says this is how it is. Instead > we have a professional telling us how it is. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 > > Harry > > > > >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with >> respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the >> aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of >> momentum which would need to be examined. >> >> Harry >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> That's anyone way of putting it. >>> >>> >>> But memes like -> >>> >>> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" >>> >>> >>> give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories >>> >>> >>> which is false claim. >>> >>> >>> There is difference between claims-> >>> >>> >>> (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predict
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Harry Einstein made lots of mistakes (i.e. math mistakes) as pointed out in Discover science magazine: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes so not relevant if good at math at school, he was bad later. I know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that. As for twin paradox - it's about transition in what Einstein was saying in 1905, because he later adopted Minkowski's ideas (of 1908) which was bringing back the preferred/aether frame which he was supposedly discarding 1905. Einstein 1905 ideally has symmetric time dilation but after taking on Minkowski spacetime has switched to asymmetric time dilation. Einstein wasn't writing clearly enough about the updating to his theory that he was doing-> adding Minkowski spacetime to SR was an update, making that spacetime curved to give GR was another update. Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Momentum and everything else messed up. A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths messed up At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did not like doing lab work. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4> What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English and German is just messed up. lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable quote-> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not equal to c. Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for understanding Einstein`s theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k> What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4> Harry -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of momentum which would need to be examined. Harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: That's anyone way of putting it. But memes like -> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories which is false claim. There is difference between claims-> (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains and (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other domains. harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Good animation. emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in ot
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > Momentum and everything else messed up. > > > A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths > messed up > > > At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did not like doing lab work. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4 What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English > and German is just messed up. > > > lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer > > > in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable > > > quote-> > Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of *k*, when > measured in the stationary system, with the velocity *c*-*v*, so that > x'/(c-v) = t > > > This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is > not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has > velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not > equal to c. > > Yes but because the measuring apparatus is subject to time dilation and length contraction the two-way velocity of light will always be c. This video explains why the two way velocity of light is important for understanding Einstein`s theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k What bothers me is the twin paradox. I have yet to find what I personally regard as a satisfactory resolution of this paradox. Here is a physicist from Fermilab explaining how the paradox arises. He just makes it go away at the end by declaring the earth twin to have existed in only one frame and the space travelling twin to have existed in two frames. However there is nothing within special relativity that says this is how it is. Instead we have a professional telling us how it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 Harry > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with respect > to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the aether. > However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of momentum > which would need to be examined. > > Harry > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> That's anyone way of putting it. >> >> >> But memes like -> >> >> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" >> >> >> give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories >> >> >> which is false claim. >> >> >> There is difference between claims-> >> >> >> (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains >> >> >> and >> >> >> (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains >> >> >> The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular >> science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. >> >> >> i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps >> a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other >> domains. >> >> harry >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Good animation. >>> >>> >>> emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. >>> >>> >>> What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in >>> other domains >>> >>> >>> >>> the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is >>> just a meme promoting a falsehood >>> >>> >>> It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then >>> people start believing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "H LV" >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 >>> Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using >>> the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be >>> added to the speed of light. >>> >>> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing >>> >>> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely >>> predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different >>> times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was >>> detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" >>> because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the >>> emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions >>> in other domains. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>>
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Momentum and everything else messed up. A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths messed up What is not pointed out was that he was bad at communicating; his English and German is just messed up. lightspeed constancy is just a misnomer in his 1905 paper he has lightsped as variable quote-> Says: But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t This is before section 5 where does relativistic velocity addition, so is not treating c added to -v as relativistic velocity addition, thus has velocity c-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is not equal to c. -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, 7 Dec, 20 At 20:59 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of momentum which would need to be examined. Harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: That's anyone way of putting it. But memes like -> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories which is false claim. There is difference between claims-> (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains and (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other domains. harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Good animation. emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in other domains the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is just a meme promoting a falsehood It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then people start believing it. -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be added to the speed of light. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions in other domains. Harry
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
One could say the speed of emission from a source is always c with respect to the aether regardless of the motion of the source through the aether. However that would have consequences in terms of conservation of momentum which would need to be examined. Harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > That's anyone way of putting it. > > > But memes like -> > > "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" > > > give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories > > > which is false claim. > > > There is difference between claims-> > > > (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains > > > and > > > (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains > > > The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular > science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. > > > i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers > > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a > new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other > domains. > > harry > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> Good animation. >> >> >> emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. >> >> >> What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in >> other domains >> >> >> >> the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is >> just a meme promoting a falsehood >> >> >> It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then >> people start believing it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 >> Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using >> the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be >> added to the speed of light. >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing >> >> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely >> predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different >> times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was >> detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" >> because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the >> emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions >> in other domains. >> >> Harry >> >>
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Also poor for learning physics Roger -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 22:08 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Through my own research I have come to realize that modern physics textbooks are poor places to learn about the history of physics. Harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: That's anyone way of putting it. But memes like -> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories which is false claim. There is difference between claims-> (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains and (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other domains. harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Good animation. emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in other domains the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is just a meme promoting a falsehood It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then people start believing it. -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be added to the speed of light. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions in other domains. Harry
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Through my own research I have come to realize that modern physics textbooks are poor places to learn about the history of physics. Harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > That's anyone way of putting it. > > > But memes like -> > > "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" > > > give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories > > > which is false claim. > > > There is difference between claims-> > > > (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains > > > and > > > (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains > > > The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular > science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. > > > i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers > > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a > new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other > domains. > > harry > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> Good animation. >> >> >> emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. >> >> >> What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in >> other domains >> >> >> >> the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is >> just a meme promoting a falsehood >> >> >> It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then >> people start believing it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 >> Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using >> the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be >> added to the speed of light. >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing >> >> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely >> predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different >> times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was >> detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" >> because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the >> emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions >> in other domains. >> >> Harry >> >>
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Okay, let's propose there is an Aether. It is worth noting that Lorentz Ether Theory was an Ether Theory before Einstein stole the idea. Einstein still believed there was an aether, and frame dragging shows there is a medium to space. And Michelson Morley did also. Also if the aether is entrained with the motion of the earth, then the Michelson Morley experiment wouldn't show drift either. Okay, so let's say the aether is able to be affected by matter (which is the basis of both a dragged aether or a compressed aether as per Lorentz). then we must ask, can things other than matter affect it? It is worth noting that magnetism can move matter around, electric fields can pull matter apart, light can push matter around and it can burn circuits into the aether. So, in "light" of all that, is it not possible that sufficient electromagnetic fields could put a strong enough influence on space which is magnetized by, and electrically polarized by electromagnetism? (the quantum vacuum, virtual particles popping into existence and being polarized as with the lamb shift? the permeability and permittivity of free space). Sure, Tesla claimed that when he had a suitable field between two plates the space in between became like jelly. Okay, so it should then not seem impossible, only unlikely that regular light from your monitor could put enough of a stress of the aether/space/quantum vacuum to manifest a tangible sensation, right? I have improved this tech, check out this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Aetheric_Engineering/comments/k1x0ki/poll_v2_can_you_feel_these/ And this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Aetheric_Engineering/comments/k1x0ki/poll_v2_can_you_feel_these/ See how many felt the energy, and a number felt extremely intense levels of energy. The last I looked 186 people were impressed enough with the results to subscribe. Well over 50% report feeling something. You might too, others on this list have felt energy, and some haven't. But it isn't outside of possibility for conventional physics for this to work, it is merely 'surprising'. Dan Davidson in his book "Shape power" found that drawn designs could manifest scientifically measurable EM fields. The discoveries I have made line right up with many claimed Free Energy and Antigravity claims. On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 09:55, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > That's anyone way of putting it. > > > But memes like -> > > "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" > > > give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories > > > which is false claim. > > > There is difference between claims-> > > > (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains > > > and > > > (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains > > > The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular > science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. > > > i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers > > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a > new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other > domains. > > harry > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON > wrote: > >> Good animation. >> >> >> emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. >> >> >> What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in >> other domains >> >> >> >> the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is >> just a meme promoting a falsehood >> >> >> It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then >> people start believing it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "H LV" >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 >> Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using >> the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be >> added to the speed of light. >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing >> >> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely >> predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different >> times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was >> detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" >> because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the >> emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions >> in other domains. >> >> Harry >> >>
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
That's anyone way of putting it. But memes like -> "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories which is false claim. There is difference between claims-> (i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains and (ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular science texts) allow false memes to be easily created. i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49 Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other domains. harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Good animation. emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in other domains the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is just a meme promoting a falsehood It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then people start believing it. -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be added to the speed of light. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions in other domains. Harry
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other domains. harry On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > Good animation. > > > emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. > > > What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in > other domains > > > > the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is > just a meme promoting a falsehood > > > It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then > people start believing it. > > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "H LV" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 > Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the > emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be added > to the speed of light. > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing > > Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely predicted > the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different times > which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was detected. The > emission theory successfully explains this "null result" because the waves > arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the emission theory is now > widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions in other domains. > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
Good animation. emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains. What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in other domains the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is just a meme promoting a falsehood It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then people start believing it. -- Original Message -- From: "H LV" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23 Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be added to the speed of light. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing> Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions in other domains. Harry
[Vo]:animation of emission theory
I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can be added to the speed of light. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes wrong predictions in other domains. Harry
