Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-06 Thread ROGER ANDERTON 


Also poor for learning physics



Roger


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 22:08
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Through my own research I have come to realize that modern physics 
textbooks are poor places to learn about the history of physics.



Harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL types of emission theories

which is false claim.

There is difference between claims->


(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

and

(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular 
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.


i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers






-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
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 
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

2020-12-06 Thread H LV 
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

2020-12-06 Thread Jonathan Berry 
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

2020-12-06 Thread ROGER ANDERTON 


That's anyone way of putting it.


But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"

give the false impression of applying to  ALL types of emission theories

which is false claim.

There is difference between claims->


(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

and

(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains

The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular 
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.


i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers






-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 19:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory


Ok, to clarify *this* emission theory is wrong in other domains. Perhaps 
a new emission theory will be formulated that will work in those other 
domains.



harry


On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is 
just a meme promoting a falsehood


It is an example of lie which - if  a lie is repeated often enough then 
people start believing it.





-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
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

2020-12-06 Thread H LV 
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

2020-12-06 Thread ROGER ANDERTON 


Good animation.


emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.

What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory  in 
other domains


the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is 
just a meme promoting a falsehood


It is an example of lie which - if  a lie is repeated often enough then 
people start believing it.





-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 6 Dec, 20 At 18:23
Subject: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

I made a little gif animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using 
the emission theory of light which says the velocity of the source can 
be added to the speed of light.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lC0zjWc1V6XtSa8_Tuwbtu-Gq62T1ukG/view?usp=sharing 




Using the theory of an aether wind in 1887, Michelson and Morely 
predicted the waves would arrive back at the corner of the 'L' at 
different times which would result in a fringe shift, but no fringe 
shift was detected. The emission theory successfully explains this "null 
result" because the waves arrive at the corner at the same time. 
However, the emission theory is now widely rejected because it makes 
wrong predictions in other domains.



Harry

[Vo]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-06 Thread H LV 
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