Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Stellar aberration calculation is now done with Lorentz transformations 
(based on SR with its can't measure oneway lightspeed) that would not 
have been how  calculated in 18th century (based on assuming absolute 
time)


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 14 Dec, 20 At 21:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

Perhaps what relativistists can say is that it is impossible to measure 
the one way speed of light _using_ clocks.
However, stellar aberration is a way of measuring the one way speed of 
light that does not use clocks.

It also is an old way that has been known since the 18th century.


Harry


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:03 PM H LV  > 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 
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 




-- 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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
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 
 
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 
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 





What is not pointed o

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[H LV]

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

>>>




 -- 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

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[H LV]

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.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/

RE: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

STELLER ABERATION IS THE NON-PARALLEL  BENDING TO THE OTHERWISE STRAIGHT PATH 
OF PHOTONHESIS  BY  TO THE ATMOSPHERE’S.

I DOUBT OT HAS ANY CONTROL BE THE AETHER, SINCE ITIT CAN BE ELIMITED BVY 
COMPUTYER CALCUL;ATIONS OF THE  SO,I;ATAMEPIS CPRRECTOPMN PF ;ASER BEA,S/

bOB cOOK

From: H LV
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:13 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

If matter spontaneously leaned into the aether wind then stellar aberration 
would not arise.

harry

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:09 PM H LV 
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I just realized that I am just making use of the well known phenomena of 
stellar aberration...so leaning into the aether wind
can`t explain the MM experiment.

Harry


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:20 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
Well one of the things that has confused me when taught relativity is- if have 
length contraction of an object in one direction and not perpendicular to that 
direction; then surely its getting denser along the contracted length and then 
increase gravitational force in the perpendicular direction; so should cause 
contraction in that direction also (?) But gravitational effect seems to be 
ignored.




-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 21:06
Subject: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment
Can Buster Keaton explain the Michelson Morley experiment? ;-)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14S0qNLyghHNzB4Sp7Rg-6s8yXypz7mBz/view?usp=sharing

Instead of length contraction in the direction of the aether wind, suppose the 
perpendicular leg of the MM apparatus leans into the aether wind instead.
The right amount of lean could have the effect of lengthening the travel time 
on the nominally perpendicular leg so that no fringe shift is produced.

Harry

RE: [Vo]:superluminal mind

[Chris Zell]

I think you provide a far better explanation for evolution than current 
Darwinist orthodoxy - which sounds too much like a Kipling "just so" story.

-Original Message-
From: russ.geo...@gmail.com  
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:superluminal mind

Where can I get some of what you smoke😉

 

[Vo]:Moving goalposts

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Latest video:


Moving goalposts: Einstein's 1905 clock mistake

Historical documents are treated as cannot be modified, and so 
Einstein's papers keep getting reprinted without correction to their 
mistakes, and without notes on them saying they are in error. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaUeakBIm-M&feature=youtu.be

RE: [Vo]:superluminal mind

[russ.george]

Where can I get some of what you smoke😉

-Original Message-
From: William Beaty  
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 7:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:superluminal mind

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, Don Mitchell wrote:
> If every neuron is synchopated with the aether, then every neuron is 
> simultaneously aware of the same signal of 0-D mind in the aether.

In a nonlocal world, there is only one object, since every place is the same 
place.  Should we suspect that the vast population of objects (and of minds) is 
illusory? Every mind is actually one mind?  (A very popular concept in 
nonwestern religion eh?)

While I was recovering from a kick-ass dream, and before opening my eyes, I was 
thinking very clearly, and couldn't escape a single question:  HOW DOES THE 
FREAKIN' ADDRESSING SYSTEM WORK?  No answer presented itself.  I think the 
question alone was the important thing.  If we can FIGURE OUT HOW the nonlocal 
world can support "space" or "extension" or "multiple apparent minds," then I 
suspect that we'll have lept forward in understanding everything, basically all 
of physics.  In the underlying nonlocal plenum, where everything experiences 
instantaneous communication, because everything occupies the same location, how 
can there ever be more than one electron, one photon in the universe?

I suspect that the nonlocal world is nonlinear.  If so, then any sort of 
oscillation will not occupy a spot on the frequency spectrum, because two 
oscillations will couple together, producing a complicated dynamic "shape" 
in the spectrum.  I think this would lead to a frequency spectrum with multiple 
dimensions?  Where every oscillation frequency adds a new axis to the graph?  
This is like a radio with many tuning knobs, and each "station" has a separate 
nunber-code in the knob-settings.  If so, I think that would provide sufficient 
"space" for a universe of apparent bosons and leptons (and minds.)

In that case, similar objects would be strongly coupled together, while vastly 
different objects would have weak coupling, and the same rule should apply 
across all scales.  "Telepathy" would be common among each particle class (and 
each animal species, but weaker between disparete species.  Among humans we 
might expect strong telepathy between identical twins?  And if instantaneous 
telepathy is common, we might predict that, while individual amoebae, mice, 
etc., aren't too intelligent, the entire species might exhibit an emergent 
"common mind" with godlike processing power, higher power when the population 
is larger.  Be kind to cockroaches, and the cockroach-goddess will become your 
friend.

In any case, this would be an "Everything Is Just Frequency" theory, beloved of 
Nikola Tesla.

Tesla was EXTREMELY involved in nonlinear arrays of coupled oscillators, 
calling it "method of individualization," and using the trick for secure 
military comms, for a sort of FM-radio he called "the static-eliminator," 
as well as being the secret addressing system for his power-broadcast customers.

How could we engineer such a physics?

It suggests that "sympathetic magic" is the fundamental physics behind known 
physics.  To produce physical forces, or to establish communication between two 
distant objects, make them be similar.

Suggestion: in silicon, construct two vast micro-patterns: make some 3D 
pseudo-crystals having precise random (or fractal) checkerboard-like patterns.  
Then, make sudden small changes to one, while looking for identical signals in 
the other.  Or, monitor the noise of each one, looking for a 
coincidence-signal.  Or perhaps do something similar by using these linked 
crystals to build "brains," i.e. noisy RAM storage having hysterisis, where 
writing a pattern to one, causes the same pattern to appear in the other. 
(Imagine a world where, the more Iphone-37s sold, the closer to consciousness 
becomes the "goddess of Iphone-37.)

> Thoughts, please?
> Might there be some hint of simultaneity that may be sensorized within 
> our gray matter?

How about a ring of dead brains kept artifically alive, where we you zap them 
all at the same time, it stuns nearby people?  Or feed them audio suggestions, 
to produce mind-control of any person?  I think there was a bad 1950s movie 
about that.  (Just don't accidentally trigger an aether- tornado in the center 
of your ring of corpses.)

The kick-ass dream, it was the third one listed below, the artificial 
Burning-Man tulpa-goddess:

   Hyper-realistic dreams
   http://amasci.com/dreamFeb2017.html



 ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) 
William J. Beaty https://electricatechnology.com
beat...@gmail.comCTO, Inventor, Research Engineer
bi...@amasci.com 
206-762-3818 vm5459 Wilkinson Rd, Langley, WA 98260-8700