[Vo]:Nuclear clocks could outdo atomic clocks ...

2021-11-27 Thread H LV
Research like this requires a new perspective on nuclear activity that
may even be unfamiliar to some scientists in the LENR/CF field.
Harry

Nuclear clocks could outdo atomic clocks as the most precise timepieces
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nuclear-clock-atomic-most-precise-time-physics



[Vo]:From Atomic Clocks to Nulcear Clocks

2021-11-27 Thread H LV
Nature article from Feb. 2021:
The thorium-229 low-energy isomer and the nuclear clock.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-021-00286-6
abstract
The 229Th nucleus has an isomeric state at an energy of about 8 eV
above the ground state, several orders of magnitude lower than typical
nuclear excitation energies. This has inspired the development of a
field of low-energy nuclear physics in which nuclear transition rates
are influenced by the electron shell. The low energy makes the 229Th
isomer accessible to resonant laser excitation. Observed in
laser-cooled trapped thorium ions or with thorium dopant ions in a
transparent solid, the nuclear resonance may serve as the reference
for an optical clock of very high accuracy. Precision frequency
comparisons between such a nuclear clock and conventional atomic
clocks will provide sensitivity to the effects of hypothetical new
physics beyond the standard model. Although laser excitation of 229Th
remains an unsolved challenge, recent experiments have provided
essential information on the transition energy and relevant nuclear
properties, advancing the field.
--
<>
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCQUZW_sxJI


Harry



[Vo]:Tidally locked worlds and SF

2021-11-10 Thread H LV
Two worlds are tidally locked when a smaller (less massive) world orbits
another larger (more massive) world so the smaller world always shows the
same face to the larger world. The Earth-Moon is such a system.
Interestingly from the viewpoint of the smaller world the larger world is
always in the sky and appears to be motionless.

Suppose intelligent life evolved somewhere in the universe on the smaller
world of such a tidally locked system. What impact would a stationary body
in the sky have on the development of such a culture? Has any SF writer
written about this?

Harry


[Vo]:Exploratory Experimentation

2021-11-05 Thread H LV
Exploratory Experimentation: Goethe, Land, and Color Theory

The style of investigation exemplified by Goethe’s experiments with color
is often undervalued, but has repeatedly proved its worth.
July 2002

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1506750

quote
<>


[Vo]:A _New_ theory of Tired Light

2021-10-26 Thread H LV
Calculating the redshifts of distant galaxies from first principles by the
new tired light theory (NTL)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1251/1/012007/pdf


How has this been recieved by cosmologists? Is the theory consistent?

Harry


[Vo]:The Transformative Power of Failure

2021-10-14 Thread H LV
BEHIND ANY SCIENTIFIC SUCCESS STORY CAN BE FOUND A RESEARCHER WHO
PERSEVERED THROUGH FAILURE AND VIEWS IT AS NOT ONLY INEVITABLE, BUT
NECESSARY.

https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/the-transformative-power-of-failure

quote
<>

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

2021-09-20 Thread H LV
Platform, or Publisher?
If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they
need to get out of the censorship business.
Adam CandeubMark Epstein
May 7, 2018

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

quote <>

Harry

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:56 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> AM ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>> shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech
>>
> Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot
> pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, FOX
> News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech as much
> as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from a cold
> fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can delete any
> post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. It is entirely
> up to them. The government cannot interfere with their decision because
> freedom of speech includes the right to not publish something. They cannot
> be forced to publish a statement.
>
> If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their
> business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for Facebook
> and their users to decide. The government has no role and their decision to
> delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with constitutional free
> speech.
>
>
>> 2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html
>> 
>>
>>
> I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their
> constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they
> do, but I am not keeping track.
>
>


[Vo]:Question and answer sites

2021-09-18 Thread H LV
I recently joined the question forums Stack Exchange and Reddit where
people pose questions and receive answers. They allow members to rate the
quality of both questions and answers by voting them up or down. I noticed
this practice is different from Quora where only answers are voted up or
down. Consequently in Stack Exchange and Reddit you are expected to edit
your question if it does not meet with the approval of other members or
moderators. They have such a narrow notion of what constitutes a good
question. It is as if I am expected to pose a question that you might find
on an exam. As I have gradually come to realise questions at the frontiers
of knowledge are not welcome in these venues.

Harry


[Vo]:Results from new high frequency detector

2021-09-04 Thread H LV
World-first detector built by dark matter researchers reports rare events
https://www.centredarkmatter.org/all-posts/world-first-detector-6fjy3-tl3ek-4mn2-p9m7y

quotations
<>
<>

I added the underline.
Harry


[Vo]:10,000 cents bet on the Chain Fountain Effect

2021-08-07 Thread H LV
World Record Chain Fountain? The Mould Effect Explained
by Steve Mould
https://youtu.be/qTLR7FwXUU4

Dispute on “MOULD EFFECT” (Chain Fountain)
by ElectroBoom
https://youtu.be/hx2LEqTQT4E

Harry


[Vo]:OT: (Re)introducing the horseless carriage

2021-07-01 Thread H LV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEFzL0ieVEU

harry


Re: [Vo]:wind powered vehicles

2021-06-30 Thread H LV
Regarding the Dzhanibekov Effect, this video from standupmaths (Matt
Parker) shows why it happens through the use of graphical representations
of the relevant equations.
https://youtu.be/l51LcwHOW7s

There is also a follow up to the veritasium video on the wind
powered vehicle involving a $10,000 bet.
https://youtu.be/yCsgoLc_fzI

Harry


On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> FWIW - The same poster has put up a video or two concerning the Dzhanibekov
> Effect - which is fascinating in its own right - not well known, and
> possibly not fully characterized since it seems to demand more than one
> (and preferably three) interacting axes of rotation.
>
> Veritas  neglects to mention this oddball effect in the wind power
> situation, for the obvious reason that there is apparently only one axis of
> rotation which is the fan blades.
>
> ... but ...
>
> what if the a similar effect (to Dzhanibekov ) relates to having one
> major axis of rotation plus one or more truncated axes, which maybe
> manifest as vibration ?  This relates to the spinning satellite with the
> whip antennae which will flip-flop... (to the embarrassment of NASA)
>
> H LV wrote:
> Is it possible for a wind powered vehicle to move faster than the wind
> while it is moving in the same direction as the wind?
>
> https://youtu.be/jyQwgBAaBag
>


[Vo]:wind powered vehicles

2021-06-07 Thread H LV
Is it possible for a wind powered vehicle to move faster than the wind
while it is moving in the same direction as the wind?

https://youtu.be/jyQwgBAaBag

Harry


Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

2021-06-02 Thread H LV
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:41 AM Vibrator !  wrote:

>
> TL;DR  -  What's worse: crashing a car into an immovable static obstacle
> at some given speed, or else crashing into an identical oncoming car while
> both are at half that speed?  Hood-mounted radar would thus see identical
> closing speeds either way, ie. both cars at 10 mph = closing speed of 20
> mph, so which'll do more damage;  that, or else 20 mph into a concrete
> wall?
>
>
Cars are structurally complex. Just consider rubber balls of equal size and
use their deformation as a measure of "damage". If the two rubber balls
move towards each other they will deform an equal amount when they collide.
If one rubber ball is resting against a massive wall and the other rubber
ball runs into it will they experience the same deformation?

harry


Re: [Vo]:Weaponizing coronavirus

2021-05-30 Thread H LV
This blogger says certain scientists with a conflict of interest kept
the lab theory from being taken seriously.
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-scientists-sacrificed-scepticism/

My observation: Apparently it is ok for the US to fund some of the
research in Wuhan, but NASA is not allowed to collaborate with China
on a space mission

Harry.


On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:09 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html
>
> Now, Dalgleish and Sørensen have authored a new study, which concludes that 
> 'SARS-Coronavirus-2 has no credible natural ancestor' and that it is 'beyond 
> reasonable doubt' that the virus was created through 'laboratory 
> manipulation'.
>
> ...
>
> Dalgleish told DailyMail.com that he believed resistance to the theory that 
> COVID-19 is a man-made, escaped virus comes from scientists fearful that th]e 
> revelation would shut down their field.
>
> 'This looks like a weak defense to protect the discipline so that this type 
> of genetic engineering will not be interfered with,' he said. 'I make no 
> bones about it. The Gain of Function engineering should have been banned ages 
> ago.'
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:09 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> Another, today:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 4:56 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>>
>>> An article from the Bulletin of American Scientists
>>>
>>> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/
>>>
>>> With an interesting quote:
>>>
>>> “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its 
>>> arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of 
>>> the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former 
>>> president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea 
>>> of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said.
>>>
>>>



Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

2021-05-24 Thread H LV
"So what are they?" From Fran Blanche
 Part 1
https://youtu.be/a6tDHZj5q5Q
Part 2
https://youtu.be/FTermh1w_0A

Harry

On Mon., May 24, 2021, 10:06 a.m. H LV,  wrote:

> Perhaps Earth is used as the interstellar equivalent of the island of
> St Helena for undesirable aliens.
>
> Or maybe aliens are marooned here by accident because they ventured
> too close to some sort of cosmic vortex which hurls them to our solar
> system.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:47 AM Chris Zell  wrote:
> >
> > A few thoughts about UFO’s:
> >
> >
> >
> > If I was an Alien, I’d think twice about eating humans or anything else
> on this planet.  Pollution, toxic metals, plastic residue and God knows
> what else is in the meat.  Like eating seafood with potential mercury in
> it.   Don’t touch that human, you don’t know where he’s been.
> >
> >
> >
> > There have been claims after Roswell that an Alien said they use bodies
> as ‘dolls’ or remote units – so they can experience things but stay safe –
> wherever home is.
> >
> >
> >
> > There have been claims that Earth is unique in its wild abundance of
> life and different species. Steven Greer talked about some ET’s picking
> wild flowers.  The Tall Whites seem to use Earth as a way station or
> interesting place to visit –  with one female visiting here since Monroe
> was President.
> >
> >
> >
> > I also speculate that a telepathic or collective consciousness might be
> critical in these ET’s because otherwise, they might blow themselves up as
> that which humans are headed towards.  If they really can immobilize nukes,
> God speed.  Clinton once said, “I feel your pain” but that needs to be more
> than metaphorical.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is recent speculation that UFO disclosure is being done to give
> the Military Industrial Complex a new expensive enemy to fight – in
> building space weapons.  I hope it’s because of the Chinese putting
> pressure on the Pentagon in a disclosure competition.
> >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender.
>


Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

2021-05-24 Thread H LV
Perhaps Earth is used as the interstellar equivalent of the island of
St Helena for undesirable aliens.

Or maybe aliens are marooned here by accident because they ventured
too close to some sort of cosmic vortex which hurls them to our solar
system.

Harry

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:47 AM Chris Zell  wrote:
>
> A few thoughts about UFO’s:
>
>
>
> If I was an Alien, I’d think twice about eating humans or anything else on 
> this planet.  Pollution, toxic metals, plastic residue and God knows what 
> else is in the meat.  Like eating seafood with potential mercury in it.   
> Don’t touch that human, you don’t know where he’s been.
>
>
>
> There have been claims after Roswell that an Alien said they use bodies as 
> ‘dolls’ or remote units – so they can experience things but stay safe – 
> wherever home is.
>
>
>
> There have been claims that Earth is unique in its wild abundance of life and 
> different species. Steven Greer talked about some ET’s picking wild flowers.  
> The Tall Whites seem to use Earth as a way station or interesting place to 
> visit –  with one female visiting here since Monroe was President.
>
>
>
> I also speculate that a telepathic or collective consciousness might be 
> critical in these ET’s because otherwise, they might blow themselves up as 
> that which humans are headed towards.  If they really can immobilize nukes, 
> God speed.  Clinton once said, “I feel your pain” but that needs to be more 
> than metaphorical.
>
>
>
> There is recent speculation that UFO disclosure is being done to give the 
> Military Industrial Complex a new expensive enemy to fight – in building 
> space weapons.  I hope it’s because of the Chinese putting pressure on the 
> Pentagon in a disclosure competition.
>
>
>
> CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please 
> do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.



[Vo]:Lecture demonstration comparing Goethe's and Newton's spectrum

2021-05-22 Thread H LV
I assembled the image below in google drive using screen captures from
this lecture demonstration:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7rwYjdRFRA.

Goethe's and Newton's spectrum
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SOIw83ljBDMOR9Kd8J0CyP5kBmZ7eQBS/view?usp=sharing

The top row is a beam of white light reflected from a screen after it
has passed through different size apertures. The bottom row is the
spectrum that results when a prism is placed in front of the aperture.
In contrast to Newton, Goethe maintained that white light is not made
of coloured light, but rather coloured light arises at the boundary of
white and dark. Goethe would say the blues and cyans arise from the
white pushing into the dark and the reds and yellows arise from the
dark pushing into the white. Goethe's view is supported by the images
on the left. Of course, as the beam of light shrinks, the images on
the right lend credence to Newton's idea that white light is made of
coloured light.
The video is in German but youtube can provide a crude text
translation of the speech. The presenter Dr. Johannes Grebe Ellis says
of Newton that when he revealed the nature of white light he also
concealed something about it at the same time.

Harry



Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

2021-05-21 Thread H LV
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:54 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>>
> ARE WE FOOD OR ARE WE PETS?
>
>
Food for their pets.

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Radiative Cooling with new Ultra White paint

2021-05-05 Thread H LV
This part doesn't make sense to me.

"But here is the exciting thing..."
https://youtu.be/Ay6ckBojc_0?t=219

Harry

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:49 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> All bodies do radiate away heat. During day light time solar radiation
> more than compensates the heat loss.
>
> But a highly reflective layer almost (96-97%)stops this compensation.
>
> IR radiation is just a function of surface temperature and the air
> interface.
>
> Just a small riddle: What happens if you use this paste as sun-cream and
> go for a daylight tropical desert walk?
>
> J.W.
> On 05.05.2021 16:31, H LV wrote:
>
> This video talks about a new ultra white paint which the inventors claim
> could dramatically reduce air conditioning costs.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay6ckBojc_0
> see also press release:
>
> https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/the-whitest-paint-is-here-and-its-the-coolest.-literally..html
>
> However, the explanation doesn't make sense to me. If the new paint is so
> good at reflecting sunlight in the visible as well as the infrared and
> ultraviolet regions how can it facilitate indoor cooling? They are claiming
> that it can transmit infrared radiation but isn't a good reflector of
> radiation also a bad transmitter of radiation?
>
> Harry
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>


[Vo]:Radiative Cooling with new Ultra White paint

2021-05-05 Thread H LV
This video talks about a new ultra white paint which the inventors claim
could dramatically reduce air conditioning costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay6ckBojc_0
see also press release:
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/the-whitest-paint-is-here-and-its-the-coolest.-literally..html

However, the explanation doesn't make sense to me. If the new paint is so
good at reflecting sunlight in the visible as well as the infrared and
ultraviolet regions how can it facilitate indoor cooling? They are claiming
that it can transmit infrared radiation but isn't a good reflector of
radiation also a bad transmitter of radiation?

Harry


Re: [Vo]:nuclear salt water reactor for propulsion in space

2021-05-04 Thread H LV
...and only 2 months to Jupiter.
better than 2001.

harry

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 4:09 PM H LV  wrote:

> It was new to me.
> Upto 1.5% the speed of light with the latest design.
>
> harry
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 12:08 PM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I like it!
>>
>> Ed Storms worked on the conventional fission rockets shown in this video.
>> I asked him if he thinks this is plausible.
>>
>> The paper is linked from the video discussion, here:
>>
>> https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1990-2371
>>
>>


Re: [Vo]:nuclear salt water reactor for propulsion in space

2021-05-04 Thread H LV
It was new to me.
Upto 1.5% the speed of light with the latest design.

harry

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 12:08 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I like it!
>
> Ed Storms worked on the conventional fission rockets shown in this video.
> I asked him if he thinks this is plausible.
>
> The paper is linked from the video discussion, here:
>
> https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1990-2371
>
>


[Vo]:nuclear salt water reactor for propulsion in space

2021-05-04 Thread H LV
The Nuclear Salt Water Rocket - Possibly the Craziest Rocket Engine Ever
Imagined.

https://youtu.be/cvZjhWE-3zM

<>


[Vo]:"How we fool ourselves"

2021-04-26 Thread H LV
A three part series by Judith Curry. She is writing mostly about climate
science, but the problems can and do arise  in varying degrees in all the
sciences.  The second article on consensus building is the most important,
imo.

How we fool ourselves.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/10/04/how-we-fool-ourselves/

How we fool ourselves. Part II: Scientific consensus building
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/10/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-ii-scientific-consensus-building/

How we fool ourselves. Part III: Social biases
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/

Harry


[Vo]:OT: covid transmission

2021-04-19 Thread H LV
It is important to understand the difference between aerosols and droplets.
Harry
--
Evidence of COVID-19 airborne transmission “overwhelming” say experts
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/covid19-sars-cov-2-airborne-transmission-aerosol-evidence-study/
“People and organizations continue to prioritize costly disinfection
efforts, when they could be putting more resources into emphasizing
the importance of masks, and investigating measures to improve
ventilation. The latter will be more complex but could make more of a
difference.”



Re: [Vo]:Carbon transmutation video?

2021-04-14 Thread H LV
'Fire and brimstone' talk stifles curiousity.

Harry


On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:06 PM William Beaty  wrote:
>
>
> >   magnetic burned match heads (also a homopolar motor next)
> >   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOBmIyu7B30=262s
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Michael Foster wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why this subject continues to be controversial
>
> Irrational semi-religious belief-systems are the obvious issue.
>
>"LENR is for fools, transmutation outside of conventional MeV
>reactions just demonstrates incompetence or dishonesty."
>
> Once a researcher (or a whole academic department, or an entire research
> community) has spoken the above phrase, they cannot go back.  Their
> skepticism is no longer skepticism.  Their admitting error is no longer
> admitting error: if they turn out to be wrong, it requires confronting the
> fact that they've joined the "bad guys," and they've been actively halting
> progress in the sciences.  (When careers are on the line, truth doesn't
> matter, and such a thing must be resisted at any cost ...on pain of public
> embarrassment, or career- destruction, or even on pain of death, because
> "If P turned out to be correct, then I'd have to go out and slit my own
> throat." )
>
>
> > slightest. There are any number of carbon arc configurations that produce
> > elemental transmutation of carbon to iron. I have done this repeatedly
>
>"Your carbon was obviously contaminated by iron!  Which became concen-
>trated by orders, as all the carbon exits the arc as CO2!!!"
>
> Yeah right, so we don't even consider using ultra-pure spectrographic rods
> (which display no detectable Fe emission lines in the first place.)
> Instead we arc-transmute the far purer plasma-grown pyro graphite.  But
> that doesn't matter, since 1) we'd just be accused of intentional hoaxes
> and 2) no reputable researcher would ever replicate this simple test,
> because if they demonstrated LENR, it would convert them into Believer-
> crackpots.
>
> > myself. The last time, years ago, I used spectroscope grade carbon rods to
> > make sure of lack of contamination. And yes, you get magnetically separable
> > particles as a result. For those who are wont to believe this must be some
> > sort of magnetic pyrolytic graphite, it's easy to test chemically proving
> > that these particles are indeed iron. Just dissolve in dilute sulfuric acid,
> > and react with potassium ferricyanide. If you get that characteristic
> > Prussian blue color, it's iron. Case closed.
>
> I'm still tempted to try the other one: that Kervran science-fair
> experiment.  But I'm not sure that faculty here would dare allow it.
> That's the version with two quartz sample tubes containing identical water
> and seeds, one then sprouted, both converted to ash, then elemental-
> analyze the ash (which should be identical, but supposedly the
> sprouted-seed ash displays extra elements.)  A few ICP spectrometers here,
> and piles of mass-specs, so, not difficult to eliminate artifacts
> associated with any one test method.  But if it works, then UW chem
> department becomes the new P, who'd originally heard rumors of some
> obscure crackpot claim involving hydrogen and platinum, and discovered
> that it was real, to their everlasting chagrin.  And credit.
>
>
> > These are the same bunch who will discredit this simple experiment until
> > their dying breath, no matter how incontrovertible it is.
>
> The ones who refuse Galileo's Telescope, we simply wait for them to die.
>
> Then their students (or more probably, after generations) their students'
> students' students quietly accept the results, since after all, they've
> been hearing about Cold Fusion ever since they learned to read, and
> clearly no sane researcher ever objected to CMNS, so what's the big deal?
>
> It's not individuals who follow the dishonest face-saving procedure below,
> it's also the entire scientific community as a whole...
>
>   "Theories have four stages of acceptance:
>   1. this is worthless nonsense
>   2. this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view
>   3. this is true, but quite unimportant
>   4. I've always said so."
>  - J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
>
> PS
>
> Buy LENR comic books to contaminate young minds!   Donate copies to your
> local dentist office (or even library, if anyone still goes to libraries:)
>
>Discover Cold Fusion
>https://www.curtis-press.com/product-category/comics/
>
>
>  ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) 
> William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
> beaty, chem washington edu  Research Engineer
> billb, amasci com   UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
> x3-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700



Re: [Vo]:Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature

2021-04-14 Thread H LV
Here is a more thorough discussion of the g-2 Fermi lab result as well as
another unusual finding at  LHCb.
Muons appear in both experiments although each is measuring something
different.

NEWS: What's up with Muons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBzn4o4z5Bk


Harry

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 11:12 AM H LV  wrote:

> This article isn't giddy about the discrepancy.
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang
> /2021/04/08/why-you-should-doubt-new-physics-from-the-latest-muon
> -g-2-results/?sh=2317145b6c4b
>
> It seems there are two ways to calculate g-2. The older way is a more
> indirect method that uses other experimental results. The newer way is
> completely theory driven and gives results which are closer to the Fermi
> Lab results.
>
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:12 PM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> It is possible that whatever it is Cambridge may have found relative to
>> muons also relates to surprisingly efficient muon production in the
>> Holmlid/Norront reactor... apparently there is a mystery particle which
>> affects muons in a previously unknown way ?
>>
>> BTW from their site, Norront have 3 muon reactors working in Norway and
>> one in Sweden.
>>
>> Things are getting interesting...
>>
>> This whole UDD > muon thing may be near, or even gone past the proverbial
>> "tipping point"... when we look back on it in a couple of years.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>> H LV wrote:
>>
>> PBS Space Time
>> Why the Muon g-2 Results Are So Exciting!
>> https://youtu.be/O4Ko7NW2yQo
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of natur
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
>>
>> quotes:
>> 
>> There is currently a one in a 40,000 chance that the result could be a
>> statistical fluke - equating to a statistical level of confidence described
>> as 4.1 sigma.
>> A level of 5 sigma, or a one in 3.5 million chance of the observation
>> being a coincidence, is needed to claim a discovery.
>> 
>> Prof Ben Allanach, from Cambridge University, who was not involved with
>> the latest effort, said: "My Spidey sense is tingling and telling me that
>> this is going to be real.
>> 
>> The Muon g-2 experiment involves sending the particles around a 14-metre
>> ring and then applying a magnetic field. Under the current laws of physics,
>> encoded in the Standard Model, this should make the muons wobble at a
>> certain rate.
>>
>> Instead, the scientists found that muons wobbled at a faster rate than
>> expected. This might be caused by a force of nature that's completely new
>> to science.
>> 
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>


[Vo]:OT: Physics cartoon

2021-04-10 Thread H LV
Physics cartoon

"They must be demolishing the old physics lab"
https://ifunny.co/picture/they-must-be-demolishing-the-old-physics-lab-QqkaANgn7

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature

2021-04-09 Thread H LV
This article isn't giddy about the discrepancy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang
/2021/04/08/why-you-should-doubt-new-physics-from-the-latest-muon
-g-2-results/?sh=2317145b6c4b

It seems there are two ways to calculate g-2. The older way is a more
indirect method that uses other experimental results. The newer way is
completely theory driven and gives results which are closer to the Fermi
Lab results.


Harry

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:12 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> It is possible that whatever it is Cambridge may have found relative to
> muons also relates to surprisingly efficient muon production in the
> Holmlid/Norront reactor... apparently there is a mystery particle which
> affects muons in a previously unknown way ?
>
> BTW from their site, Norront have 3 muon reactors working in Norway and
> one in Sweden.
>
> Things are getting interesting...
>
> This whole UDD > muon thing may be near, or even gone past the proverbial
> "tipping point"... when we look back on it in a couple of years.
>
> Jones
>
>
> H LV wrote:
>
> PBS Space Time
> Why the Muon g-2 Results Are So Exciting!
> https://youtu.be/O4Ko7NW2yQo
>
> Harry
>
> Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of natur
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
>
> quotes:
> 
> There is currently a one in a 40,000 chance that the result could be a
> statistical fluke - equating to a statistical level of confidence described
> as 4.1 sigma.
> A level of 5 sigma, or a one in 3.5 million chance of the observation
> being a coincidence, is needed to claim a discovery.
> 
> Prof Ben Allanach, from Cambridge University, who was not involved with
> the latest effort, said: "My Spidey sense is tingling and telling me that
> this is going to be real.
> 
> The Muon g-2 experiment involves sending the particles around a 14-metre
> ring and then applying a magnetic field. Under the current laws of physics,
> encoded in the Standard Model, this should make the muons wobble at a
> certain rate.
>
> Instead, the scientists found that muons wobbled at a faster rate than
> expected. This might be caused by a force of nature that's completely new
> to science.
> 
> Harry
>
>
>
>


Re: [Vo]:Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature

2021-04-08 Thread H LV
PBS Space Time
Why the Muon g-2 Results Are So Exciting!
https://youtu.be/O4Ko7NW2yQo

Harry


On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:04 AM H LV  wrote:

> Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
>
> quotes:
> 
> There is currently a one in a 40,000 chance that the result could be a
> statistical fluke - equating to a statistical level of confidence described
> as 4.1 sigma.
> A level of 5 sigma, or a one in 3.5 million chance of the observation
> being a coincidence, is needed to claim a discovery.
> 
> Prof Ben Allanach, from Cambridge University, who was not involved with
> the latest effort, said: "My Spidey sense is tingling and telling me that
> this is going to be real.
> 
> The Muon g-2 experiment involves sending the particles around a 14-metre
> ring and then applying a magnetic field. Under the current laws of physics,
> encoded in the Standard Model, this should make the muons wobble at a
> certain rate.
>
> Instead, the scientists found that muons wobbled at a faster rate than
> expected. This might be caused by a force of nature that's completely new
> to science.
> 
> Harry
>
>
>
>


[Vo]:Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature

2021-04-08 Thread H LV
Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature

https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677

quotes:

There is currently a one in a 40,000 chance that the result could be a
statistical fluke - equating to a statistical level of confidence described
as 4.1 sigma.
A level of 5 sigma, or a one in 3.5 million chance of the observation being
a coincidence, is needed to claim a discovery.

Prof Ben Allanach, from Cambridge University, who was not involved with the
latest effort, said: "My Spidey sense is tingling and telling me that this
is going to be real.

The Muon g-2 experiment involves sending the particles around a 14-metre
ring and then applying a magnetic field. Under the current laws of physics,
encoded in the Standard Model, this should make the muons wobble at a
certain rate.

Instead, the scientists found that muons wobbled at a faster rate than
expected. This might be caused by a force of nature that's completely new
to science.

Harry


Re: [Vo]:OT: Nissan e-POWER technology explained

2021-04-05 Thread H LV
I don`t think with the Nissan Kick one can drive the car very far on the
battery alone.
The only way of keeping the battery charged is with the gasoline powered
generator.
People who buy this car need gas stations, but they don`t need charging
stations or access to
an electrical outlet.

Harry

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:03 PM CB Sites  wrote:

> I was surprised watching the video thinking, Oh wild, Nisian is making a
> Chevy Volt.   I own a 2nd Gen Chevy Volt and must say that I love it.   It
> fits my driving perfectly.  It's all electric with a gas engine backup.  It
> has about a 55 mile range on electric (35mi winter).  The engine is used
> for two things, running the generator and heating the car in very
> cold weather.  When home, I plug it in with the 115V charger device that
> plugs into a standard 3 prong outlet.  Nothing special.   It takes about
> 6-8 hrs for a full charge.   Most commutes for me are about 30miles so I
> never see the gas engine.  Last year my TOTAL gas consumption for this car
> was 1/2 of a tank regular.  Funny thing is that I really haven't noticed an
> impact on my electric bill.My only complaint is I wish I had spent a
> few thousand more for the premier package with all of the electronics beeps
> and buzzes.  Leather seats would have been nice too.   It's a shame it was
> discontinued. For a lot of people, it was a well engineered plugin hybrid
> design and a really nice car design for a poor-man's Tesla.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 2:48 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> AlanG  wrote:
>>
>> I think a better question is how the Nissan is better than the Chevy
>>> Volt, which was discontinued after 5 years for disappointing sales,
>>> possibly from failing to meet efficiency expectations.
>>>
>>
>> It has not been discontinued. It is still for sale:
>>
>> https://www.chevrolet.com/electric
>>
>> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>>
>> Recently I have seen ridiculous advertisements for an all electric GMC
>>> Hummer as the ultimate SUV.  I can just imagine people going overlanding in
>>> such a vehicle - running out of charge in the middle of nowhere.
>>>
>>
>> There are no gas stations in the middle of nowhere either. Granted, gas
>> stations are much more prevalent than chargers. Also, when a gasoline car
>> runs out of fuel, you can park it somewhere, get a ride to a gas station,
>> bring back a gallon of fuel in a plastic tank, and refuel it. So it is
>> easier to recover from running out of fuel. People who drive electric cars
>> soon learn to deal with the limited range and the possibility of running
>> out. I drove an electric car for several months. The pandemic reduced my
>> need for a car so I gave it to my daughter. But anyway, I have some
>> experience with this. The GPS map shows all of the local charging stations.
>> In Atlanta there are hundreds. You could easily find one, and then plot a
>> course to it.
>>
>> How often do you run out of fuel with a gasoline car? I only did once,
>> when I first learned to drive and I wasn't used to watching the fuel
>> gauge, back in the 1970s. Nowadays, cars have blinking lights and other
>> warnings when the fuel is low. Electric cars not only have blinking lights,
>> they have a synthetic woman's voice warning you how many miles you have
>> left, and (as a I said) a GPS map, and a button you press leading you to
>> the closest charger. I never came close to running out of charge, because I
>> plugged in at home.
>>
>> Granted it would be different in the wilderness, but I doubt many GMC
>> Hummer owners actually drive off road into the woods. If they do, they
>> better learn to plot the route on the GPS or with a Google map to estimate
>> how many miles they will drive before they need to recharge. That is the
>> kind of thing you can do easily with 21st century technology, even
>> off-road. It would have taken hours to plan that in 1990, and the answer
>> would be inaccurate.
>>
>>


Re: [Vo]:OT: Nissan e-POWER technology explained

2021-04-05 Thread H LV
In a plug-in hybrid either an electric motor or an ICE drive the wheels, or
not?

The e-Power system uses just an electric motor to drive the wheels which
makes it more quiet and fuel efficient than a plug-in hybrid.
The gasoline is used only for  an ICE generator to charge the battery.

harry

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:05 PM Bob Higgins  wrote:

> How is this any different than a plug-in hybrid?
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> <#m_-3757523695353549270_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 10:08 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> I agree that this approach makes a lot more sense than a massive battery
>> pack - Tesla notwithstanding.
>>
>> The approach is not new but has never been carried out sensibly ...
>> before now.
>>
>>
>> H LV wrote:
>>
>> Some people think the e-Power concept is silly.
>> But I think it is just right for the times we live in. It is currently
>> available in Japan,
>> but not in NA.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/T5wCppCiQE8
>>
>> Harry
>>
>


Re: [Vo]:OT: Nissan e-POWER technology explained

2021-04-05 Thread H LV
Unfortunately it won't work on Mars. ;-)

However, it will be carbon neutral if the electrical generator runs on
synthetic fuel instead of gasoline. In that regard Siemens, Porsche and
some other big companies have recently teamed up to build an industrial
scale plant in Chile for the production of synthetic fuel. The plant will
be powered by wind energy.

https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2020/company/porsche-siemens-energy-pilot-project-chile-research-development-synthetic-fuels-efuels-23021.html

Harry

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:08 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> I agree that this approach makes a lot more sense than a massive battery
> pack - Tesla notwithstanding.
>
> The approach is not new but has never been carried out sensibly ... before
> now.
>
>
> H LV wrote:
>
> Some people think the e-Power concept is silly.
> But I think it is just right for the times we live in. It is currently
> available in Japan,
> but not in NA.
>
> https://youtu.be/T5wCppCiQE8
>
> Harry
>


[Vo]:OT: Nissan e-POWER technology explained

2021-04-05 Thread H LV
Some people think the e-Power concept is silly.
But I think it is just right for the times we live in. It is currently
available in Japan,
but not in NA.

https://youtu.be/T5wCppCiQE8

Harry


[Vo]:Muon Catalyzed Aneutronic Fusion Drive

2021-03-13 Thread H LV
Muon Catalyzed Aneutronic Fusion Drive - 8% Lightspeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jAUXuL-6oc

Mentions Holmlid and ultra dense hydrogen.

Harry



Re: [Vo]:Imaginary Numbers May Be Essential for Describing Reality

2021-03-09 Thread H LV
The widespread adoption of double entry bookkeeping probably helped to
legitimize negative numbers.
Alice Adventures in Wonderland may well be a satire of the new
mathematics of Carroll's time.
Lewis Carroll wrote a book called Euclid and His Modern Rivals. It is
a defense of Euclid in the format of play.

Personally, I don't think non-euclidean geometries are logically self
contained structures, i.e. logically independent of Euclid --
although this is how they are portrayed. Euclid was the mould in which
they were cast, but then the necessity of themould is semantically
denied with an obfuscating term like "intrinsic" curvature. I have
looked closely at the notion of intrinsic curvature and it is based on
the covariant derivative which in turn presuppose the existence of a
tangent to a surface, which by definition touches the surface but is
not intrinsic to the surface.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:14 AM William Beaty  wrote:
>
>
> But this resembles the math community's much earlier hatred of Poincare'
> infinities, then their earlier hatred of irrationals, and even earlier
> hatred of negative numbers. (I remember being in third grade, and having
> to tolerate negative numbers while holding my nose; being sure that I'd
> grow up to invent a way to avoid ever using them.  Gradually I became
> accustomed to the stench.  Looks like Schrodinger was the same, regarding
> complex numbers.)
>
> Lewis Caroll Dodgson, lover of all things Euclidian, is rumored to have
> despised Imaginary numbers, and built criticism into Alice in Wonderland:
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/
>
> Never forget, we can't have Mandelbrot set without the imaginary axis.
> (Well we CAN, but then it becomes ...clunky and contrived!)
>
> And also, everyone knows that pi is actually made from ln(-1)/sqrt(-1)
>
> As for the simulated universe in which we are currently embedded, lots of
> computation could be avoided by its algorithms, if they hold their noses
> and lower themselves to employing Imaginary numbers.  But that layer seems
> accessible only indirectly by human perceptions?  We experience it as
> phase in waves.  (A square wave is the same thing as a delta function
> impulse, if phase between spectrum peaks is unimportant!)
>
>
> Also:
>
>The worlds' smartest crow observes two farmers walk into a shed, then
>three farmers walk back out again.  The crow won't fly down to eat any
>corn.
>
>Obviously it's waiting for one farmer to walk back in ...so the shed
>becomes empty!
>
> Also:
>
>Two FE-device inventors walk into a bar...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, H LV wrote:
>
> >
> > https://www.quantamagazine.org/imaginary-numbers-may-be-essential-for-describing-reality-20210303/
> >
>
> (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
> William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
> Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
>



[Vo]:Imaginary Numbers May Be Essential for Describing Reality

2021-03-08 Thread H LV
quote
<>

https://www.quantamagazine.org/imaginary-numbers-may-be-essential-for-describing-reality-20210303/



[Vo]:a better incandescent light bulb

2021-02-17 Thread H LV
This story is five years old.
Is anyone aware of further progress?
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds

Harry


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

2020-12-29 Thread H LV
Discussed in this forum:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75989.0
One can guy claims the LIGO team actually found evidence of this effect
because they had to modify the design
of the mirrors. If this is true, he must have been following the
construction of LIGO closely.

Harry

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Harry
>
>
>
> The 1927 paper seems valid
>
> to mer.  Did you find any peer review  comments at  the time or in later
> critical papers
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *H LV 
> *Sent: *Saturday, December 26, 2020 1:30 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment
>
>
>
> So it seems that in 1927 the french astronomer and mathematician Ernest
> Esclangon experimentally investigated what I have been pondering.
> He looked for evidence of a change in the angle of reflection with motion
> through the aether, and he found it with respect to the sidereal day, i.e.
> a day measured with respect to the "fixed stars". This is interesting since
> even in the 19th century many scientists considered it a stretch to suppose
> motion wrt to aether could be detected relative to the Sun as Michelson
> Morely sought to do with their experiment.
>
>
>
> Sur l'existence d'une dissymétrie optique de l'espace
>
> Translation:
>
> On the optical dissymmetry of space and the laws of the reflection.
>
> A note by M. Ernest Esclangon
>
>
> http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Ernest_Esclangon-On_the_optical_dissymmetry_of_space_and_the_laws_of_the_reflection_1927.pdf
>
> About Esclangon
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Esclangon
>
>
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:39 PM H LV  wrote:
>
> Now I am thinking it not necessary for matter to spontaneously lean into
> the aether wind. The angle that needs to change is the optical value of
> normality (perpendicularity) to a mirror. The optical normal sets the angle
> incidence equal to the angle of reflection, but if the optical normal is
> altered by motion through the aether this will alter the angle of incidence
> and angle of reflection.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:13 PM H LV  wrote:
>
> 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  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 
> 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" 
> 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]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

2020-12-26 Thread H LV
So it seems that in 1927 the french astronomer and mathematician Ernest
Esclangon experimentally investigated what I have been pondering.
He looked for evidence of a change in the angle of reflection with motion
through the aether, and he found it with respect to the sidereal day, i.e.
a day measured with respect to the "fixed stars". This is interesting since
even in the 19th century many scientists considered it a stretch to suppose
motion wrt to aether could be detected relative to the Sun as Michelson
Morely sought to do with their experiment.

Sur l'existence d'une dissymétrie optique de l'espace
Translation:
On the optical dissymmetry of space and the laws of the reflection.
A note by M. Ernest Esclangon
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Ernest_Esclangon-On_the_optical_dissymmetry_of_space_and_the_laws_of_the_reflection_1927.pdf
About Esclangon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Esclangon


Harry



On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:39 PM H LV  wrote:

> Now I am thinking it not necessary for matter to spontaneously lean into
> the aether wind. The angle that needs to change is the optical value of
> normality (perpendicularity) to a mirror. The optical normal sets the angle
> incidence equal to the angle of reflection, but if the optical normal is
> altered by motion through the aether this will alter the angle of incidence
> and angle of reflection.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:13 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>> 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  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 <
>>> 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" 
>>>> 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]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

2020-12-21 Thread H LV
Now I am thinking it not necessary for matter to spontaneously lean into
the aether wind. The angle that needs to change is the optical value of
normality (perpendicularity) to a mirror. The optical normal sets the angle
incidence equal to the angle of reflection, but if the optical normal is
altered by motion through the aether this will alter the angle of incidence
and angle of reflection.

Harry

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:13 PM H LV  wrote:

> 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  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 <
>> 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" 
>>> 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]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

2020-12-20 Thread H LV
If stellar aberration is just an atmospheric effect then the Hubble space
telescope would not be affected by it.

Harry

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:00 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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  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 
> 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" 
> 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]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-14 Thread 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=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
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Ori

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-14 Thread 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=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

Re: [Vo]:superluminal mind

2020-12-13 Thread H LV
Thanks for the talk about Boscovich.
Here the presenter quotes Heisenberg as saying that Boscovich's force is
repulsive at short distances but becomes attractive at larger distances.
https://youtu.be/w1vi0yk7BvU?t=1999
Such a force is sufficient to account for the formation of stable solids
(condensed matter) from atoms, but the formation of a stable nucleus would
seem to be precluded. Boscovich theory of force could be considered
comprehensive for its time when nothing was known about the nucleus.
However, the formation of a stable nucleus would need to be supplemented by
a complementary force which is attractive at small distances but repulsive
at larger distances.

Harry


On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> development of Boscovich theory led to quantum physics, Dragoslav from
> Serbia talk on Boscovich->
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vi0yk7BvU
>
>
>
>


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

2020-12-11 Thread H LV
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  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 
> 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" 
>> 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]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

2020-12-11 Thread H LV
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 
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" 
> 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]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-09 Thread H LV
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=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 j

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-09 Thread H LV
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=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 to find what I personally
>> regard as a satisf

[Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

2020-12-08 Thread H LV
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]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-08 Thread H LV
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 predictions in other domains
>>>
>&

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-08 Thread H LV
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
>>>
>>>


[Vo]:wave theory

2020-12-07 Thread H LV
As a follow up to my last animation on the emission theory here is a short
animation of the Michelson Morely experiment using the wave theory. Notice
that this theory predicts a fringe shift because the wave front on the
vertical leg comes back to corner before the wave front on the horizontal
leg.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iw9UDpZx133Hmb4oWzI9oO_C1-ebQAWn/view?usp=sharing

Harry


Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

2020-12-07 Thread H LV
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

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 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
>
>


[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


Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-12-02 Thread H LV
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:44 PM H LV  wrote:

> Yes.
>
> This morning I am doing some calculations using the aether as the rest
> frame and it seems and the expected fringe shift is very much smaller
> than that predicted by Michelson and Morley.
> However, I am not whiz with algebra so my calculations could be garbage. I
> will post something soon.
>
> Harry
>

Forgot to mulitpy by c. The fringe shift is not very much smaller. In fact
it is way too big to be detected optically. i.e an opitical interferometer
is too sensitive.
The shift should be detectable at longer wavelengths. No need for the
magnifying glass.


harry






>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:13 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose so. By "mind's eye" you mean thought-experiment, and by
>> "splinter of mind's eye" you mean something not needed in the thought
>> experiment. Thus the version of aether wind conceived of was not found, but
>> that has no bearing on whether the aether exists or not
>>
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H LV" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, 2 Dec, 20 At 15:45
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>
>> Michelson's calculated a fringe shift using the notion of an aether
>> _wind_, but it has gradually dawned on me that this concept is the root of
>> the problem. The aether _wind_ is the splinter in the mind's eye.
>>
>> The aether should be taken as the rest frame and the apparatus should be
>> imagined as moving with respect to it. The apparatus does not experience
>> any kind of wind as a result of its translatory motion. The only thing it
>> experiences is a continual change of location wrt to the aether frame.
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's wave-particle duality; so have a particle model and wave model for
>>> photons and other quantum particles.
>>>
>>>
>>> As per Einstein 1920 he did not give up on aether: "Recapitulating, we
>>> may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed
>>> with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."
>>> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "H LV" 
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 1 Dec, 20 At 19:10
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>>
>>> Hmm...
>>> the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of
>>> light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of
>>> light.
>>> It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find
>>> suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave
>>> model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could
>>> decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should
>>> ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.
>>> harry
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> a lot of that video is lies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether,
>>>> it still keeps aether.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course
>>>> because MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed theory,
>>>> no need for constant lightspeed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just usual misrepresentations!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Original Message --
>>>> From: "H LV" 
>>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>> Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely
>>>> experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his
>>>> contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the
>>>> experiment as a failure.
>>>>
>>>> Episode 41: The Michelson morle

[Vo]:Arecibo Observatory

2020-12-02 Thread H LV
<>
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/12/01/arecibo-observatory-collapses-as-scientists-lament-loss-of-deep-space-radar/


Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-12-02 Thread H LV
On Wed,Dec 2, 2020 at 12:12 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The ether frame also expands.  It also seems to exhibit electric and
magnetic properties that are associated  with the speed of light, c, in in
empty aether.


Yes, free space or the aether has an electric permittivity ε and a magnetic
permeability *μ*. Maxwell calculated that the speed of light is equal to
the squareroot of (1/εμ).


>
> As the aether expands, so may its specific energy density.  There is no
>   singularity, since the is a quantum of  space at the Planck distance .
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>


Harry


>
> *From: *H LV 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:46 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
>
>
> Michelson's calculated a fringe shift using the notion of an aether
> _wind_,  but it has gradually dawned on me that this concept is the root of
> the problem. The aether _wind_ is the splinter in the mind's eye.
>
>
>
> The aether should be taken as the rest frame and the apparatus should be
> imagined as moving with respect to it. The apparatus does not experience
> any kind of wind as a result of its translatory motion. The only thing it
> experiences is a continual change of location wrt to the aether frame.
>
>
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
> wrote:
>
> It's wave-particle duality; so have a particle model and wave model for
> photons and other quantum particles.
>
>
>
> As per Einstein 1920 he did not give up on aether: "Recapitulating, we may
> say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed
> with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."
> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 Dec, 20 At 19:10
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
> Hmm...
>
> the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of
> light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of
> light.
>
> It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find
> suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave
> model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could
> decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should
> ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.
>
> harry
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> a lot of that video is lies.
>
>
>
> Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether, it
> still keeps aether.
>
>
>
> As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course because
> MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed theory, no need
> for constant lightspeed.
>
>
>
> etc.
>
>
>
> Just usual misrepresentations!
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
>
>
> Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely
> experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his
> contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the
> experiment as a failure.
>
>
>
> Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw
>
>
>
> His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion through
> the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse component and
> a longitudinal component. However, I think this is a methodological error
> that results from conflating the motion of a flowing fluid with a wave
> propagating in a medium. In reality all parts of the apparatus moving with
> speed V through the aether will either send light forward with speed (C-V)
> or send light rearward with speed (C+V) in the frame of the apparatus. What
> was analysed as transverse motion was really just forward motion. (These
> additive and subtractive rules ensure that the speed of light wrt to the
> aether frame is always C.)
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of
> aether that can be proposed; so how is it to b

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-12-02 Thread H LV
Yes.

This morning I am doing some calculations using the aether as the rest
frame and it seems and the expected fringe shift is very much smaller
than that predicted by Michelson and Morley.
However, I am not whiz with algebra so my calculations could be garbage. I
will post something soon.

Harry

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:13 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> I suppose so. By "mind's eye" you mean thought-experiment, and by
> "splinter of mind's eye" you mean something not needed in the thought
> experiment. Thus the version of aether wind conceived of was not found, but
> that has no bearing on whether the aether exists or not
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 Dec, 20 At 15:45
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
> Michelson's calculated a fringe shift using the notion of an aether
> _wind_, but it has gradually dawned on me that this concept is the root of
> the problem. The aether _wind_ is the splinter in the mind's eye.
>
> The aether should be taken as the rest frame and the apparatus should be
> imagined as moving with respect to it. The apparatus does not experience
> any kind of wind as a result of its translatory motion. The only thing it
> experiences is a continual change of location wrt to the aether frame.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
> wrote:
>
>> It's wave-particle duality; so have a particle model and wave model for
>> photons and other quantum particles.
>>
>>
>> As per Einstein 1920 he did not give up on aether: "Recapitulating, we
>> may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed
>> with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."
>> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H LV" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 1 Dec, 20 At 19:10
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>
>> Hmm...
>> the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of
>> light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of
>> light.
>> It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find
>> suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave
>> model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could
>> decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should
>> ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.
>> harry
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> a lot of that video is lies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether,
>>> it still keeps aether.
>>>
>>>
>>> As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course
>>> because MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed theory,
>>> no need for constant lightspeed.
>>>
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just usual misrepresentations!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "H LV" 
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely
>>> experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his
>>> contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the
>>> experiment as a failure.
>>>
>>> Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw
>>>
>>> His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion
>>> through the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse
>>> component and a longitudinal component. However, I think this is a
>>> methodological error that results from conflating the motion of a flowing
>>> fluid with a wave propagating in a medium. In reality all parts of the
>>> apparatus moving with speed V through the aether will either send light
>>> forward with speed (C-V) or send light rearward with speed (C+V) in the
>>> frame of the apparatus. What was analysed as transverse motion was really
>>> just forward motion. (These additive and subtr

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-12-02 Thread H LV
Michelson's calculated a fringe shift using the notion of an aether
_wind_,  but it has gradually dawned on me that this concept is the root of
the problem. The aether _wind_ is the splinter in the mind's eye.

The aether should be taken as the rest frame and the apparatus should be
imagined as moving with respect to it. The apparatus does not experience
any kind of wind as a result of its translatory motion. The only thing it
experiences is a continual change of location wrt to the aether frame.


Harry


On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> It's wave-particle duality; so have a particle model and wave model for
> photons and other quantum particles.
>
>
> As per Einstein 1920 he did not give up on aether: "Recapitulating, we may
> say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed
> with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."
> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 Dec, 20 At 19:10
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
> Hmm...
> the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of
> light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of
> light.
> It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find
> suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave
> model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could
> decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should
> ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.
> harry
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> a lot of that video is lies.
>>
>>
>> Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether, it
>> still keeps aether.
>>
>>
>> As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course
>> because MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed theory,
>> no need for constant lightspeed.
>>
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Just usual misrepresentations!
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H LV" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>
>>
>> Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely
>> experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his
>> contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the
>> experiment as a failure.
>>
>> Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw
>>
>> His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion
>> through the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse
>> component and a longitudinal component. However, I think this is a
>> methodological error that results from conflating the motion of a flowing
>> fluid with a wave propagating in a medium. In reality all parts of the
>> apparatus moving with speed V through the aether will either send light
>> forward with speed (C-V) or send light rearward with speed (C+V) in the
>> frame of the apparatus. What was analysed as transverse motion was really
>> just forward motion. (These additive and subtractive rules ensure that the
>> speed of light wrt to the aether frame is always C.)
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of
>>> aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined; on the simplest
>>> level-> could take it as definition that-> a wave has a medium; and then ->
>>> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.
>>>
>>>
>>> I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are
>>> lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "H LV" 
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>>
>>> One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of
>>> relativity theory.
>>> He says all aether theor

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-12-01 Thread H LV
Hmm...
the Michelson Morely results can be explained using a ballistic model of
light, but we know that such a model is an inaccurate representation of
light.
It would just take a little imagination and some basic algebra to find
suitable rules for the addition and subtraction of velocities for a wave
model of light. However, while the measured velocity of light could
decrease or increase in the moving frame, I still think the rules should
ensure that the velocity of light of wrt to the aether does not change.
harry

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> a lot of that video is lies.
>
>
> Brings in Lorentz- but from Lorentz theory there is no discard aether, it
> still keeps aether.
>
>
> As for Michelson didn't accept Einstein relativity; well of course because
> MMX could still be understood through variable lightspeed theory, no need
> for constant lightspeed.
>
>
> etc.
>
>
> Just usual misrepresentations!
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Monday, 30 Nov, 20 At 17:16
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
>
> Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely
> experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his
> contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the
> experiment as a failure.
>
> Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw
>
> His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion through
> the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse component and
> a longitudinal component. However, I think this is a methodological error
> that results from conflating the motion of a flowing fluid with a wave
> propagating in a medium. In reality all parts of the apparatus moving with
> speed V through the aether will either send light forward with speed (C-V)
> or send light rearward with speed (C+V) in the frame of the apparatus. What
> was analysed as transverse motion was really just forward motion. (These
> additive and subtractive rules ensure that the speed of light wrt to the
> aether frame is always C.)
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of
>> aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined; on the simplest
>> level-> could take it as definition that-> a wave has a medium; and then ->
>> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.
>>
>>
>> I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are
>> lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H LV" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>>
>> One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of
>> relativity theory.
>> He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven
>> or disproven, so it is unfair
>> for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence
>> of an aether.
>>
>> However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift
>> that would have confirmed
>> the existence of aether. Michelson took the null result to mean there was
>> something wrong with his
>> understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as
>> irrelevant or obsolete.
>> Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other
>> apparent confirmations of relativity theory.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> fudging math is standard part of science/physics
>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English,
>>> and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on misunderstandings
>>> as per latest talk at ANPA->
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo
>>>
>>


Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-11-30 Thread H LV
Here is a 30 min video (made in the 1980s) about the Michelson Morely
experiment with some historical context. Whereas as most of his
contemporaries embraced the null result, Michelson always regarded the
experiment as a failure.

Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment (made in the 1980s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_jdcA8fcw

His experimental apparatus was based on the assumption that motion through
the aether can be instrumentally decomposed into a transverse component and
a longitudinal component.  However, I think this is a methodological error
that results from conflating the motion of a flowing fluid with a wave
propagating in a medium. In reality all parts of the apparatus moving with
speed V through the aether will either send light forward with speed (C-V)
or send light rearward with speed (C+V) in the frame of the apparatus. What
was analysed as transverse motion was really just forward motion. (These
additive and subtractive rules ensure that the speed of light wrt to the
aether frame is always C.)

Harry


On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of
> aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined; on the simplest
> level-> could take it as definition that-> a wave has a medium; and then ->
> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.
>
>
> I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are
> lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
> One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of
> relativity theory.
> He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven or
> disproven, so it is unfair
> for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence of
> an aether.
>
> However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift
> that would have confirmed
> the existence of aether. Michelson took the null result to mean there was
> something wrong with his
> understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as
> irrelevant or obsolete.
> Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other apparent
> confirmations of relativity theory.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> fudging math is standard part of science/physics
>>
>>
>> Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English,
>> and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on misunderstandings
>> as per latest talk at ANPA->
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo
>>
>


Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-11-28 Thread H LV
One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of
relativity theory.
He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven or
disproven, so it is unfair
for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence of
an aether.

However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift
that would have confirmed
the existence of aether. Michelson  took the null result to mean there was
something wrong with his
understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as
irrelevant or obsolete.
Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other apparent
confirmations of relativity theory.

Harry

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> fudging math is standard part of science/physics
>
>
> Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English, and
> was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on misunderstandings as
> per latest talk at ANPA->
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo
>


Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

2020-11-28 Thread H LV
Has anyone noticed that in the present day older folk are more likely than
younger folk to be the ones seriously questioning
the establishment? This is a reversal from how it was in Einstein's day and
for most of the 20th century.


Harry

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> fudging math is standard part of science/physics
>
>
> Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English, and
> was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on misunderstandings as
> per latest talk at ANPA->
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo
>
>
> How relativists lie explained at->
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVIceUFXCE
>
>
> all Jedi mind tricks; sins of omission, telephone game etc
>
>
> telephone game-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHCkzl8Nykc
>
>
> Latest video will be about Einstein and aliens; Pavlov dog tricks etc
>
>
> More time to do this now that on lockdown, normally wouldn't get further
> than dealing with videos on unified field theory talks from Vigier
> conference
>
>
> https://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 15:08
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
>
> Classically the neutrino was invented as a missing link for the standard
> model fudge factor math...
>
> But neutrinos exist somehow as some interactions can be measured. But all
> boils down to the question whether neutrinos have a rest mass or not. If
> not then all the SM fudging is plain nonsense.
>
> In real experiments the mass of the neutrino is going down each year.
> Currently scored at less than 0.1 eV! Still no problem with SR as mass can
> go to infinite if accelerated to light speed. But effects of 0.1eV are in
> the error range of background/measurement processes and could also be
> resonances.
>
> The Higgs particle(s) is in fact a simple proton resonance that occurs if
> the total flux does one more rotation. The original measured Higgs mass can
> exactly be calculated by the basic SO(4) physics metric applied to the
> proton!
>
> Result: CERN now tries to fudge away the higher easy to derive (4D-)proton
> mass by changing the measurement. So they get two goals in one: No more two
> Higgs particles and a lowers mass that needs a bit more work for the SO(4)
> derivation.
>
> In my view reading standard model (SM) papers dealing with mass is a waste
> of live time. But SM is no longer science its a religion!
>
> J.W.
>
> On 28.11.2020 15:16, Don86326 wrote:
> What do the vocal folk here think of David de Hilster?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA>
>
>
> And, do you think the neutrino is a fudge-factor? Being essentially
> non-detectable they make a great fudge. The neutrino detection I read about
> said that it was hardly proof --another reading in the noise floor --while
> the article portended it was proof. Has there been more recent 'hard' proof
> of neutrinos?
>
> OK, I'm a contrarian.
>
> But, the article I read on the Nobel prize winning Higgs boson detection
> also said it was a secondary inferred detection. But after spending
> billions, somebody has to get a a prize. And I'm very, very skeptical about
> super-duper big-science when career politics always trumps science. Which
> is nothing new.
>
> Michael Faraday was a commoner, a book binder, unable to possibly do good
> science, because he did not have noble blood, per his boss. A laughing gas
> habit killed Michael's boss, so I reckon Michael did get the last laugh
> --as his brilliance was celebrated when his noble control-freak was gone.
>
> I think the media has a damaging effect on science. Take the entangled
> photons from crystals that behave in parallel dynamics for a few
> milliseconds... and the media hails it as 'Star Trek Teleportation
> Discovered!' Gag me with a spoon, folks.
>
> My bwain comes with a built-in crystal ball --and the ball says we're all
> eventually screwed without more group-sense than our race has shown ability
> to ensconce. But our world profits from division, anger, and fear. Big huge
> profit.
>
> Then there's NDAs that shelter corporate science --with devastating law
> suites.
>
> And there's gag-orders delivered by the Department of Defense (American),
> who screen ALL patents for new science that us commoners cannot so much as
> know without being a treasoner for the knowing. Some classified science
> requires anyone aware of the knowledge to have three Ph.D-s. Can anyone
> verify that? One gag-order was put on a blacktopping machine that could
> pave through the desert with sand... dangerous technology! Enemies have
> lots of sand. This was told me by the personal friend of the guy that got
> gagged.
>
> I new an autistic man that was a far removed genius at electronic stuff,
> now pass away, that patented an energy storage device, and paid more than
> ten thousand 

Re: [Vo]:Do opposites always attract?

2020-11-27 Thread H LV
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:04 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> Is a  diamagnet the  “opposite” of a magnet? If so, then the anwer is no.
>
>
>
> There is no dipolar attraction force with diamagnetism at all - for
> reasons that are not well understood other than the obvious lack of poles..
>
>
>
> In one sense, you could ask “why do force fields such as diamagnetism
> always repel and never attract”?
>
>
>
> Here is a simple visual test showing that indeed there is a slight
> repelling effect even with water which is slightly diamagnetic
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyqOTJOJSoU
>
>
>
> I would like to see this done with a large chunk of bismuth instead of a
> PM. The repel would be less but the assumption is that it is there.
>
>
>
> The larger question is this  – since magnetism is dipolar, and
> diamagnetism is its opposite, why is symmetry lost and diamagnetism is
> never dipolar?
>
>
>

Interesting.

Also if a paramagnet and a ferromagnet attract iron, does a diamagnet
attract iron?

I may be wrong, but I expect it doesn't. Will it repel iron or have no
effect?

Harry






>
>
>
>
> *From: *H LV 
>
>
>
> Coulomb's law -- like the notion of absolute zero -- is based on an
> extrapolation.
>
>
>
> It is possible that the rule of repulsion between like charges and the
> rule of attraction between opposite charges does not hold for very small
> scales.
>
>
>
> Instead, suppose the relationship between certain charge combinations was
> the net effect of two underlying attractive and repulsive tendencies.
>
>
>
> Ordinarily for opposite charges this would manifest as a net attraction
> above a certain distance and for similar charges as a net repulsion above a
> certain distance. Below a certain distance opposite charges would become
> more repulsive and similar charges would become more attractive.
>
>
>
> This new rule would not alter the identity of the charge, i.e. it does not
> violate charge conservation.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


[Vo]:Mathematics is the sense you never knew you had

2020-11-25 Thread H LV
Mathematics is the sense you never knew you had | Eddie Woo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXwStduNw14

Harry


[Vo]:Do opposites always attract?

2020-11-25 Thread H LV
Coulomb's law -- like the notion of absolute zero -- is based on an
extrapolation.

It is possible that the rule of repulsion between like charges and the rule
of attraction between opposite charges does not hold for very small scales.

Instead, suppose the relationship between certain charge combinations was
the net effect of two underlying attractive and repulsive tendencies.

Ordinarily for opposite charges this would manifest as a net attraction
above a certain distance and for similar charges as a net repulsion above a
certain distance. Below a certain distance opposite charges would become
more repulsive and similar charges would become more attractive.

This new rule would not alter the identity of the charge, i.e. it does not
violate charge conservation.

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-24 Thread H LV
I don't necessarily agree with everything Dirac believes, but he was
primarily a physicist by nature who was also very
good at mathematics as well.

It is also true that mathematical prowess has become the most important
virtue of a physicist which I don't
think is good for the science.

Harry

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Do not try to search inside the old framework. Dirac was a mathematician
> with no clue of physics. He never understood EM theory and the later
> linking with GR made it even worse.
>
> There are no deep orbits as physics always requires forces that are base
> on a proper source (Maxwell! not QM/QED) term not on mathematical fantasy!
>
> Or simply: Potentials are 1st order approximations only! Same with flat
> orbits/free fall.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 24.11.2020 19:09, H LV wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:52 AM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone here seen the vials of supposed hydrinos that Mills used to
>> show at conferences? Were they ever tested independently? He seems to have
>> given up that gimmick (perhaps at the advice of his lawyer)…One wonders
>> what materials would bind to dense hydrogen or even if the material could
>> be contained at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> If H* is dense and chemically inert (except with other H*) then a natural
>> source on earth would be unlikely to have been found in the past.  Any
>> atoms of it which were created would essentially sink since no natural
>> elements should be capable to contain the H* for long, given its
>> compactness and density. Unless the species turns up in biology then it
>> seems that  there is essentially no normal place for it to accumulate. Its
>> density insures that it should preferentially move towards the center of
>> earth with no means of stopping it except for weak diamagnetism -- Assuming
>> that it is  diamagnetic like hydrogen
>>
>>
>>
>
> A. Meulenberg  is a proponent of H* as a pathway to producing excess heat
> through cold fusion . Therefore in addition to showing they can exist, he
> also has to ensure that they have the requisite properties which facilitate
> cold fusion . An interesting criticism arose in recent years is that if
> they do exist as a legitimate solution to the dirac equation then they will
> have a negative energy. If this is true it would undermine their usefulness
> as a pathway to CF.  In the paper_Research Article Advance on Electron Deep
> Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom _ (J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) he
> and Paillet argue with some algebra that the sign of the energy solution
> should be positive rather than negative. I don`t know if their argument is
> sound or not, but they do point out that the negative solution is normally
> regarded as physically meaningless. Since my appreciation of H* does not
> depend on their usefulness in explaining CF, I am willing to accept that a
> negative energy solution is the correct solution, so the next issue is to
> work out the implications. A similar situation arose 90 years ago when
> Dirac was faced with a negative kinetic energy solution to his equation. He
> could have dismissed it as unphysical, but instead he interpreted the
> solution in such a way that led him to propose the existence of a new
> particle...the positron.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>> According to Mills, the solar corona is a vast factory for making dense
>> hydrogen. In all of these Vortex posts, the various theories of dense
>> hydrogen have been intentionally conflated and the name ‘hydrino’ is seldom
>>  used - since most of the theorists now seem to agree that the single
>> densest state is the only one which fits into theory seamlessly and not the
>> stepwise progression of Mills with its 137 steps is counter-productive.
>>
>>
>>
>> At any rate, if millions of tons per day of the stuff are being made in
>> the solar corona and then finding it way to earth via the “solar wind” and
>> collecting in the oceans of earth then it might be possible to work
>> backwards to find a natural biological repository and then look there..
>>
>>
>>
>> The best candidate I can think of would involve  the lifeforms  around
>> the deep ocean vents. Maybe the mussel shells found there are high density
>> and self-heating  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> · If hydrinos are just more stable versions of isolated hydrogen
>> atoms they should have been discovered in hydrogen gas using old technology
>> many decades ago. But this is just a strawman argument against their
>> existence.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> What old technology, exactly, wo

[Vo]:Paul Dirac Interview

2020-11-24 Thread H LV
Paul Dirac Interview, Göttingen 1982
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et8-gg6XNDY

The sound and colour quality of this 20 minute video is excellent.
I think this was recorded about two years before he died.
Harry


Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-24 Thread H LV
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:52 AM JonesBeene  wrote:

> Has anyone here seen the vials of supposed hydrinos that Mills used to
> show at conferences? Were they ever tested independently? He seems to have
> given up that gimmick (perhaps at the advice of his lawyer)…One wonders
> what materials would bind to dense hydrogen or even if the material could
> be contained at all.
>
>
>
> If H* is dense and chemically inert (except with other H*) then a natural
> source on earth would be unlikely to have been found in the past.  Any
> atoms of it which were created would essentially sink since no natural
> elements should be capable to contain the H* for long, given its
> compactness and density. Unless the species turns up in biology then it
> seems that  there is essentially no normal place for it to accumulate. Its
> density insures that it should preferentially move towards the center of
> earth with no means of stopping it except for weak diamagnetism -- Assuming
> that it is  diamagnetic like hydrogen
>
>
>

A. Meulenberg  is a proponent of H* as a pathway to producing excess heat
through cold fusion . Therefore in addition to showing they can exist, he
also has to ensure that they have the requisite properties which facilitate
cold fusion . An interesting criticism arose in recent years is that if
they do exist as a legitimate solution to the dirac equation then they will
have a negative energy. If this is true it would undermine their usefulness
as a pathway to CF.  In the paper_Research Article Advance on Electron Deep
Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom _ (J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) he
and Paillet argue with some algebra that the sign of the energy solution
should be positive rather than negative. I don`t know if their argument is
sound or not, but they do point out that the negative solution is normally
regarded as physically meaningless. Since my appreciation of H* does not
depend on their usefulness in explaining CF, I am willing to accept that a
negative energy solution is the correct solution, so the next issue is to
work out the implications. A similar situation arose 90 years ago when
Dirac was faced with a negative kinetic energy solution to his equation. He
could have dismissed it as unphysical, but instead he interpreted the
solution in such a way that led him to propose the existence of a new
particle...the positron.

Harry




> According to Mills, the solar corona is a vast factory for making dense
> hydrogen. In all of these Vortex posts, the various theories of dense
> hydrogen have been intentionally conflated and the name ‘hydrino’ is seldom
>  used - since most of the theorists now seem to agree that the single
> densest state is the only one which fits into theory seamlessly and not the
> stepwise progression of Mills with its 137 steps is counter-productive.
>
>
>
> At any rate, if millions of tons per day of the stuff are being made in
> the solar corona and then finding it way to earth via the “solar wind” and
> collecting in the oceans of earth then it might be possible to work
> backwards to find a natural biological repository and then look there..
>
>
>
> The best candidate I can think of would involve  the lifeforms  around the
> deep ocean vents. Maybe the mussel shells found there are high density and
> self-heating  
>
>
>
>
>
> · If hydrinos are just more stable versions of isolated hydrogen
> atoms they should have been discovered in hydrogen gas using old technology
> many decades ago. But this is just a strawman argument against their
> existence.
>
> Harry
>
> What old technology, exactly, would have discovered them? That is an
> intriguing path to follow
>
> BTW it could be a “fundable” inquiry involving a deeper look at old data..
> should anyone here be looking for a new project.
>
> H* would have almost the same mass as hydrogen - but would be so  much
> denser that it  probably cannot react chemically in the same way, so they
> are relatively inert.
>
> For instance, there is unlikely to be found in nature a form of water
> where one of the protons is replaced with dense hydrogen as this could
> present a charge imbalance.
>
> It would be worth the effort to find the most likely place dense hydrogen
> should be found in nature (assuming it is real)
>
> My guess is that it would be in biological lifeforms which use it for
> survival, somehow.
>
> Jones
>
>
>
> Look for abnormally high energetic emissions from a hot hydrogen gas. That
> would be evidence of hydrogen relaxing below the ground state. The
> probability of the formation of hydrinos in an ideal gas would be very
> low.. However, I think the probability might increase as the gas got
> cooler. This would be in contrast with the probability of fusion
> increasing as the temperature of the gas increased.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> It might be better to look for unusual absorption lines in a cold gas of
> hydrogen. This would indicate the hydrino atom was there but changed back
> into an ordinary 

Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-22 Thread H LV
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 4:20 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>- If hydrinos are just more stable versions of isolated hydrogen
>>atoms they should have been discovered in hydrogen gas using old 
>> technology
>>many decades ago. But this is just a strawman argument against their
>>existence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> What old technology, exactly, would have discovered them? That is an
>> intriguing path to follow
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW it could be a “fundable” inquiry involving a deeper look at old
>> data.. should anyone here be looking for a new project.
>>
>>
>>
>> H* would have almost the same mass as hydrogen - but would be so  much
>> denser that it  probably cannot react chemically in the same way, so they
>> are relatively inert.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, there is unlikely to be found in nature a form of water
>> where one of the protons is replaced with dense hydrogen as this could
>> present a charge imbalance.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be worth the effort to find the most likely place dense hydrogen
>> should be found in nature (assuming it is real)
>>
>>
>>
>> My guess is that it would be in biological lifeforms which use it for
>> survival, somehow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>
> Look for abnormally high energetic emissions from a hot hydrogen gas. That
> would be evidence of hydrogen relaxing below the ground state. The
> probability of the formation of hydrinos in an ideal gas would be very
> low.. However, I think the probability might increase as the gas got
> cooler. This would be in contrast with the probability of fusion
> increasing as the temperature of the gas increased.
>
> Harry
>

It might be better to look for unusual absorption lines in a cold gas of
hydrogen. This would indicate the hydrino atom was there but changed back
into an ordinary hydrogen atom by absorbing energy.

Harry



>
>


Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-22 Thread H LV
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 4:20 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>- If hydrinos are just more stable versions of isolated hydrogen atoms
>they should have been discovered in hydrogen gas using old technology many
>decades ago. But this is just a strawman argument against their existence.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> What old technology, exactly, would have discovered them? That is an
> intriguing path to follow
>
>
>
> BTW it could be a “fundable” inquiry involving a deeper look at old data..
> should anyone here be looking for a new project.
>
>
>
> H* would have almost the same mass as hydrogen - but would be so  much
> denser that it  probably cannot react chemically in the same way, so they
> are relatively inert.
>
>
>
> For instance, there is unlikely to be found in nature a form of water
> where one of the protons is replaced with dense hydrogen as this could
> present a charge imbalance.
>
>
>
> It would be worth the effort to find the most likely place dense hydrogen
> should be found in nature (assuming it is real)
>
>
>
> My guess is that it would be in biological lifeforms which use it for
> survival, somehow.
>
>
>
> Jones
>


Look for abnormally high energetic emissions from a hot hydrogen gas. That
would be evidence of hydrogen relaxing below the ground state. The
probability of the formation of hydrinos in an ideal gas would be very
low.. However, I think the probability might increase as the gas got
cooler. This would be in contrast with the probability of fusion
increasing as the temperature of the gas increased.

Harry
Harry


Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-22 Thread H LV
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 4:24 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Hydrinos are based on speculative math and contradict the basic law of
> charge invariance --> nonsensical. But there are Hydrino like resonances
> based on magnetic resonance that is pretty close to the calculated values.
> So wrong model - pretty good results.
>
>
> Yes I recall reading that  a charge on the proton changes slightly when
one of Mill's hydrino forms.

Dark matter is based on pretty bad understanding of physics only... There
> are no flat orbits in nature and thus SM/GR is incomplete.
>
>
> Do you mean no closed orbits?

Harry



> J.W.
> On 22.11.2020 19:55, JonesBeene wrote:
>
> *From: *H LV 
>
>
>
>- Mills says his hydrino model of a below ground state hydrogen atom
>is stable. However, if hydrinos were stable they should be more common than
>ordinary hydrogen atoms which is not the case. Therefore, if below ground
>states of hydrogen atoms can exist I think it is more likely that such
>an atom is typically less stable than its above ground state counterpart
>and a special environment is needed to favour the formation of such a 'cold
>atom'.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the beauty of the further related hypothesis, also espoused by
> Holmlid, Mills and others…
>
>
>
> Which is basically this: dense hydrogen = dark matter
>
>
>
> This solves the precise problem you mention on the universal scale. Now
> there is far more dark matter (dense hydrogen)than primordial hydrogen and
> this is indicative of eons of densification of light hydrogen followed by
> accumulation as dark matter.
>
>
>
> IOW billions of years ago there was much more hydrogen and much less of
> what is now dark matter.
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>


Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-22 Thread H LV
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 1:55 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *H LV 
>
>
>
>- Mills says his hydrino model of a below ground state hydrogen atom
>is stable. However, if hydrinos were stable they should be more common than
>ordinary hydrogen atoms which is not the case. Therefore, if below ground
>states of hydrogen atoms can exist I think it is more likely that such
>an atom is typically less stable than its above ground state counterpart
>and a special environment is needed to favour the formation of such a 'cold
>atom'.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the beauty of the further related hypothesis, also espoused by
> Holmlid, Mills and others…
>
>
>
> Which is basically this: dense hydrogen = dark matter
>
>
>
> This solves the precise problem you mention on the universal scale. Now
> there is far more dark matter (dense hydrogen)than primordial hydrogen and
> this is indicative of eons of densification of light hydrogen followed by
> accumulation as dark matter.
>
>
>
> IOW billions of years ago there was much more hydrogen and much less of
> what is now dark matter.
>

I guess it depends on what one means by stable.  If hydrinos are just more
stable versions of isolated hydrogen atoms they should have been discovered
in hydrogen gas using old technology many decades ago. But this is just a
strawman argument against their existence.

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-22 Thread H LV
Mills says his hydrino model of a below ground state hydrogen atom is
stable. However, if hydrinos were stable they should be more common than
ordinary hydrogen atoms which is not the case. Therefore, if below ground
states of hydrogen atoms can exist I think it is more likely that such
an atom is typically less stable than its above ground state counterpart
and a special environment is needed to favour the formation of such a 'cold
atom'.

Harry

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 6:54 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> There is one deep state for Hydrogen/Deuterium that has been detected by
> R.Santilli more than 20 years ago.
>
> There are dozens of fantasts that believe in deep electron orbits and some
> finally end up in nuclear bonds that cannot be understood by classic
> physics. H* the "deep" Hydrogen state has been extensively measured by R.
> Mills and can be exactly calculated by new physics (SO(4) physics).
>
> In fact it is not a deep Hydrogen state, its a weak nuclear bond we call
> H*-H*.
>
> We today exactly understand how (cold) fusion works but you must learn new
> physics and forget the rotten/nonsensical standard model.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 22.11.2020 07:23, H LV wrote:
>
> In response to hot fusion detractors of the cold fusion explanation of
> excess heat, proponents of cold fusion say that the conventional theory of
> hot fusion does not apply to the conditions present in a lattice. The
> proponents argue that the lattice can somehow amplify the probability of
> fusion through some sort of enhanced quantum tunneling effect.
>
> What I would like to know is if anyone has proposed the possibility that
> the familiar ground state of a hydrogen atom can  be changed and lowered
> through some sort of quantum effect of the lattice on the wave function of
> a hydrogen atom. If special quantum circumstances are required for the
> formation of sub states of hydrogen it would explain why they are not
> typically observed.
>
> Harry
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>


[Vo]:Concerning sub states of hydrogen

2020-11-21 Thread H LV
In response to hot fusion detractors of the cold fusion explanation of
excess heat, proponents of cold fusion say that the conventional theory of
hot fusion does not apply to the conditions present in a lattice. The
proponents argue that the lattice can somehow amplify the probability of
fusion through some sort of enhanced quantum tunneling effect.

What I would like to know is if anyone has proposed the possibility that
the familiar ground state of a hydrogen atom can  be changed and lowered
through some sort of quantum effect of the lattice on the wave function of
a hydrogen atom. If special quantum circumstances are required for the
formation of sub states of hydrogen it would explain why they are not
typically observed.

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last

2020-11-21 Thread H LV
No, but this is getting hypothetical.
Are more people committing suicide?

My point is rightly or wrongly some people's worries and needs will be
elevated at the expense other people's worries and needs.

Harry


On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:24 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> so, people who commit suicide are unimportant and don't count (?)
>
>
>
> -- Original Message ------
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Saturday, 21 Nov, 20 At 17:42
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last
>
> The lives that matter the least become apparent whenever the group is
> threatened.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly, so if say the sucide rate goes up because of depression brought
>> on by lockdown, are they going to count that as death due to covid as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H LV" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Saturday, 21 Nov, 20 At 16:58
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last
>>
>> The way covid is being managed is causing other health problems.
>>
>> It is not as if we were all invincible superman until covid came along.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>>


Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last

2020-11-21 Thread H LV
The lives that matter the least become apparent whenever the group is
threatened.

Harry

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> Exactly, so if say the sucide rate goes up because of depression brought
> on by lockdown, are they going to count that as death due to covid as well?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H LV" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Saturday, 21 Nov, 20 At 16:58
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last
>
> The way covid is being managed is causing other health problems.
>
> It is not as if we were all invincible superman until covid came along.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>>


Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last

2020-11-21 Thread H LV
The way covid is being managed is causing other health problems.

It is not as if we were all invincible superman until covid came along.

Harry



>


Re: [Vo]:Willian Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and absolute zero

2020-11-18 Thread H LV
Here is a slightly more sophisticated lab demonstration of the reality of
absolute zero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psKupK6E-Sc

How much of modern physics depends on the presumed reality of absolute zero?

Harry


On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:43 AM H LV  wrote:

> Here is a classroom demonstration of how to estimate absolute zero.
>
> Charles Law and absolute zero.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkWo-8tY8cY
>
> Btw, if the temperatures and volumes of other gases are measured and
> plotted you will get lines with different slopes, but they will all
> converge on the same value of absolute zero. However, this is based on a
> _extrapolation_. Maybe the volume of a gas and its temperature don't
> maintain this linear relationship as the volume approaches zero. William
> Thomson (Lord Kelvin) first proposed  that this linear extrapolation was
> reliable. The demonstrator quotes him at about seven minutes into the
> video:
>
> << ...infinite cold must correspond to a finite number of degrees of the
> air-thermometer below zero;  if we push the strict principle of graduation,
> stated above, sufficiently far, we should arrive at a point corresponding
> to the volume of air being reduced to nothing, which would be marked as
> -273° of the scale (-100/.366, if .366 be the coefficient of expansion);
> and therefore -273° of the air-thermometer is a point which cannot be
> reached at any finite temperature, however low. >> footnote 6 from
> https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_an_absolute_thermometric_scale.html
>
> I think it is illogical to propose a linear relationship exists all the
> way down to absolute zero. Air with no volume is an oxymoron. Linearity
> may be an excellent approximation over most scales,  but I would say
> below some small but finite volume the linear assumption breaks down with
> or without appeals to quantum mechanics.
> Harry
>


[Vo]:A different role for 'absolute zero' -- was Re: Willian Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and absolute zero

2020-11-17 Thread H LV
This graph charts a different role for 'absolute zero'. It still
has mathematical significance but not as the lowest temperature.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OVi48gD3GKaEOxxVPC3IadBAJthKq7fa/view?usp=sharing

Note: The location of zero degrees Celsius on this graph is an
open question. Shifting zero degrees Celsius to the right or left won't
change the location of 'absolute zero' or the shape or relationship among
the curves.

Harry

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:42 AM H LV  wrote:

> Here is a classroom demonstration of how to estimate absolute zero.
>
> Charles Law and absolute zero.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkWo-8tY8cY
>
> Btw, if the temperatures and volumes of other gases are measured and
> plotted you will get lines with different slopes, but they will all
> converge on the same value of absolute zero. However, this is based on a
> _extrapolation_. Maybe the volume of a gas and its temperature don't
> maintain this linear relationship as the volume approaches zero. William
> Thomson (Lord Kelvin) first proposed  that this linear extrapolation was
> reliable. The demonstrator quotes him at about seven minutes into the
> video:
>
> << ...infinite cold must correspond to a finite number of degrees of the
> air-thermometer below zero;  if we push the strict principle of graduation,
> stated above, sufficiently far, we should arrive at a point corresponding
> to the volume of air being reduced to nothing, which would be marked as
> -273° of the scale (-100/.366, if .366 be the coefficient of expansion);
> and therefore -273° of the air-thermometer is a point which cannot be
> reached at any finite temperature, however low. >> footnote 6 from
> https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_an_absolute_thermometric_scale.html
>
> I think it is illogical to propose a linear relationship exists all the
> way down to absolute zero. Air with no volume is an oxymoron. Linearity
> may be an excellent approximation over most scales,  but I would say
> below some small but finite volume the linear assumption breaks down with
> or without appeals to quantum mechanics.
> Harry
>


Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last

2020-11-16 Thread H LV
awesome
harry

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:58 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I realize this is off topic. And I expect everyone here has heard about
> it. But I thought you would like to see some quantitative information.
>
> Here is a note on temperatures. The second article says the Moderna
> vaccine can be kept at -20°C. The Pfizer vaccine has to be kept at -75°C
> during shipping and storage. It can be stored in an ordinary refrigerator
> for up to 5 days before it is used. (
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54889084) I asked a nurse about this.
> She said there are several vaccines that require cold storage. She said
> this will probably come as a powder, which is mixed with room temperature
> fluid before inoculation. The older version of the shingles vaccine was
> like this.
>
>
>
> Good news! Moderna's vaccine is reportedly 95% effective. Here are the raw
> numbers as reported by CNN:
>
>
> 15,000 vaccines administered. 5 people in that group got COVID-19. They
> had mild cases.
>
> 15,000 placebos administered. 90 people in that group got COVID-19. 11 had
> severe cases.
>
>
> This is reported as 94.5% effective, which I think is too many digits of
> precision. I would say >90%. But I quibble. I think there is no question it
> is effective.
>
>
> It seems the vaccine reduces the severity of the disease when it does not
> prevent it completely
>
>
> There were no severe side effects. There were some side effects in some
> patients, such as headaches.
>
>
> Fauci said this is good news. If the Pfizer and or the Moderna vaccines
> are approved, the first ones may be administered in December to risk groups
> such as doctors and nurses. Fauci predicted the general population may be
> vaccinated from May to July 2021.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/health/Covid-moderna-vaccine.html
>
>
> "Early Data Show Moderna’s Coronavirus Vaccine Is 94.5% Effective
>
> Moderna is the second company to report preliminary results from a large
> trial testing a vaccine. But there are still months to go before it will be
> widely available to the public."
>
>
>
> More good news, from CNN. This may drive down the stock market value of
> Pfizer:
>
>
> While the two vaccines appear to have very similar safety and efficacy
> profiles, Moderna's vaccine has a significant practical advantage over
> Pfizer's.
>
>
> Pfizer's vaccine has to be kept at minus 75 degrees Celsius — or about
> minus 103 degrees Fahrenheit. No other vaccine in the US needs to be kept
> that cold, and doctors' offices and pharmacies do not have freezers that go
> that low.
>
>
> Moderna's vaccine can be kept at minus 20 degrees Celsius, which is about
> minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Other vaccines, such as the one against
> chickenpox, need to be kept at that temperature.
>
>
> That means Moderna's vaccine can be kept in "a readily available freezer
> that is available in most doctors' offices and pharmacies," said Dr. Tal
> Zacks, Moderna's chief medical officer. "We leverage infrastructure that
> already exists for other marketed vaccines."
>
>
> Another advantage of Moderna's vaccine is that it can be kept for 30 days
> in the refrigerator, the company announced Monday. Pfizer's vaccine can
> last only five days in the refrigerator.
>
>
>


Re: [Vo]:A cup of coffee and the history of heat

2020-11-16 Thread H LV
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *H LV 
>
>
>
>- The type of "negative temperature" discussed in the article is not
>actually colder than absolute zero. It corresponds to something that has
>alot of energy so it cannot be called a heat sink.
>
>
>
> Maybe not. Firstly, any and all mass contains “a lot of energy” in one
> appraisal,  so that characteristic alone does not make a new kind of heat
> sink impossible.
>
>
>

I don't have a problem with temperatures below absolute zero. I have a
problem with this particular construct. This  "negative temperatures" is
described as being hotter than all temperatures above absolute zero which
suggests the presence of a error somewhere in the chain of reasoning.



> This goes beyond semantics in a way when we get down to specifics -- since
> the actual energy content of dense hydrogen, for instance, must be less
> than the natural species – assuming that it gave up energy in order to
> reach a dense state. OTOH a cooling or heat sink effect could serve to
> slowly “reinflate” the gas, which makes it of limited usefulness but
> definitely a thermal anomaly
>
>  -
>

By definition a heat sink is capable of absorbing energy, so a hydrino is a
heat sink waiting to absorb energy and re-inflate.



> True – a dense state of hydrogen does not mean that the effective
> “coldness” is usable in a secondary (Boyle’s Law) way but all of this is
> wildly speculative.
>
>
>
Obviously, the best if not only resolution is to find a way to produce and
> store dense hydrogen for later use in experiments.
>
>
>
> Mills claims to have done this, and possibly Norront as well -  but most
> observers are not convinced.
>
>
>
> If Mills could really collect hydrinos, he would have demonstrated the
> hydrino-battery a lone time ago. In fact, the battery could be his best
> application of the effect (on paper).
>
>
>
>
>

If hydrino is a heat sink, i.e. a source of cold, it could be used to
perform work as part of an engine.
If it is possible  to make or harvest hydrinos with less energy than you
can get out of them when they are re-inflated then hydrinos could serve as
a primary source of energy. If not they can "only" serve a secondary source
of energy.

Harry


[Vo]:Willian Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and absolute zero

2020-11-16 Thread H LV
Here is a classroom demonstration of how to estimate absolute zero.

Charles Law and absolute zero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkWo-8tY8cY

Btw, if the temperatures and volumes of other gases are measured and
plotted you will get lines with different slopes, but they will all
converge on the same value of absolute zero. However, this is based on a
_extrapolation_. Maybe the volume of a gas and its temperature don't
maintain this linear relationship as the volume approaches zero. William
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) first proposed  that this linear extrapolation was
reliable. The demonstrator quotes him at about seven minutes into the video:

<< ...infinite cold must correspond to a finite number of degrees of the
air-thermometer below zero;  if we push the strict principle of graduation,
stated above, sufficiently far, we should arrive at a point corresponding
to the volume of air being reduced to nothing, which would be marked as
-273° of the scale (-100/.366, if .366 be the coefficient of expansion);
and therefore -273° of the air-thermometer is a point which cannot be
reached at any finite temperature, however low. >> footnote 6 from
https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_an_absolute_thermometric_scale.html

I think it is illogical to propose a linear relationship exists all the way
down to absolute zero. Air with no volume is an oxymoron. Linearity may be
an excellent approximation over most scales,  but I would say below some
small but finite volume the linear assumption breaks down with or without
appeals to quantum mechanics.
Harry


Re: [Vo]:A cup of coffee and the history of heat

2020-11-16 Thread H LV
The type of "negative temperature" discussed in the article is not actually
colder than absolute zero. It corresponds to something that has alot of
energy so it cannot be called a heat sink. This "Negative temperature" is a
statistical consequence of "population inversion",   whereby most of the
particles are confined to a higher energy state, which is unlike the usual
Bolztmann statistics where most particles have low kinetic energy and only
a few have high kinetic energy. The aim of Boltzmann statistics was to
explain temperature in terms of the kinetics of vast numbers of microscopic
particles. A temperature below absolute zero  that is hotter than absolute
zero is an oxymoron and is a sign there is something intellectually
bankrupt with physics.

Harry

On Sun., Nov. 15, 2020, 4:07 p.m. Jones Beene,  wrote:

> H LV wrote:
>
> Using a cup of coffee as a starting point this blogger provides a friendly
> introduction to the history of the science of heat. He also leaves the
> reader with an open question.
>
> https://www.beanthinking.org/?tag=caloric
>
> Harry
>
> Well-named article... even though it chooses to ignore implications of
> "negative temperature" (below zero K).
>
> And why not? It is a contentious subject. Here is an older Science News
> article which touches on negative temperature.
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143516.htm
>
> But ... for the sake of argument, imagine that a simple experiment
> determines two things about the special type of hydrogen which is formed
> via the Holmlid/Mills effect - which effect results in a dense hydrogen
> species that should be useful in its own right, even after giving up
> anomalous heat. This would be a second use of the Holmlid effect.
>
> Furthermore let's assume that one characteristic of this H* gas (besides
> higher density) is that the atoms do not repel each other as does normal
> hydrogen -- since electrons have been catalytically moved into stable lower
> orbitals  - which make the apparent nuclear charge more positive than
> before to its surroundings (due to the negative near-field of orbital
> electrons being compressed. Thus. thus dense H clusters can be easily
> formed. Even if the effect of negative temperature is weak, it points the
> way to a simple energy anomaly in thermal conversion efficiency .
>
> Proposed application of negative temperature effect: It could be possible
> such a dense hydrogen gas, mixed together with an inert gas like Argon
> (which atoms do repel one another) -- to construct a new type of Sterling
> piston engine which is extremely efficient, perhaps twice the Carnot
> efficiency using only solar heat, since there is an effective heat sink
> available from within the gas itself - which can be used to harness a bit
> of negative temperature.
>
> Of course, this is assuming that "negative temperature" and dense hydrogen
> are both real and interrelated.
>
> The bottom line is that atoms of dense hydrogen would tend to exert a
> negative instead of a positive pressure when heated. As a consequence, the
> atoms for a dense cloud which "wants to contract" when thermal input and
> this is balanced against the Argon component, which is more like a perfect
> gas. For this to work there would probably need to be a permeable membrane
> to separate the two gas, but there are a few good candidates for this.
>
> Maybe this is a product of too much coffee...
>
>


[Vo]:A cup of coffee and the history of heat

2020-11-15 Thread H LV
Using a cup of coffee as a starting point this blogger provides a friendly
introduction to the history of the science of heat. He also leaves the
reader with an open question.
https://www.beanthinking.org/?tag=caloric

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Fire From Ice: An engineering challenge

2020-11-04 Thread H LV
The purpose of sorting "hot bits" from "cold bits" is to create a
temperature difference. I am assuming a temperature difference is already
given, for example like the difference in temperature between the interior
and exterior sides of a window pane in winter.

Harry

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:55 PM Gibson Elliot 
wrote:

> So you want to build a demon. That proverbial creature that can sort hot
> and cold bits. New research has created a wonderful Graphene energy
> harvester you might be interested in. I guess you could attempt to use
> minor spatial perturbations an use that. but for any real energy, ya just
> can't get past mass and acceleration without some serious joules. Did you
> know when Nitinol is bent it creates molecular heat in super elastic mode,
> and it goes through a similar cooling when it relaxes? food for thought my
> friend about energy differentials and thermal effects on an atomic scale.
> Always seems to come back to compression/relaxation phases don't it?
>
> G
>
> On Tuesday, November 3, 2020, 01:04:59 PM PST, H LV 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> This challenge is inspired by the title of Gene Mallove`s book "Fire From
> Ice".
>
> A major engineering goal in the past was to make ice from fire. That is
> given a very hot reservoir and ambient temperature, build a machine which
> will cause water to freeze.
>
> Can a complementary machine be built which will cause water to boil given
> a very cold reservoir and the ambient temperature? Has this already been
> done?
>
> Harry
>


Re: [Vo]:Fire From Ice: An engineering challenge

2020-11-03 Thread H LV
The propane fridge would be consistent with a prequel book entitled: Ice
from Fire.
In your example the propane supplies the fire or high temperature reservoir.

An engine requires a temperature _difference_ between a reservoir and the
ambient environment. Typically we think of an engine as needing a reservoir
which is at higher temperature than the ambient environment. However, it is
possible for the ambient environment  to be at  a higher temperature than
the reservoir.

For example the ambient temperature could be at 5 degrees below the
freezing point of water and the reservoir temperature at 105 degrees below
the freezing point. One way to melt ice under this circumstance would be to
use a thermoelectric device. The temperature difference would create a
voltage potential and this could be used to generate electricity to produce
joule heating which would melt the ice.  This would qualify as Fire from
Ice.

The point of this exercise is to suggest that there may be useful
reservoirs of intense cold in places that we don't ordinarily consider to
be cold because they are behind an insulating barrier.



Harry



On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:56 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> Make that “propane fridge” … Einstein’s first patent IIRC
>
>
>
>
>
> This challenge is inspired by the title of Gene Mallove`s book "Fire From
> Ice"….Has this already been done?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes. At least in the sense of a propane fringe,
>
>
>


Re: [Vo]:Fire From Ice: An engineering challenge

2020-11-03 Thread H LV
The challenge should be more symmetrical then I just described. Rather than
boil water, the challenge should be to melt ice with a very cold reservoir
where the ambient  temperature is low enough such that the normal state of
water is ice.

Harry


On Tue., Nov. 3, 2020, 4:04 p.m. H LV,  wrote:

>
> This challenge is inspired by the title of Gene Mallove`s book "Fire From
> Ice".
>
> A major engineering goal in the past was to make ice from fire. That is
> given a very hot reservoir and ambient temperature, build a machine which
> will cause water to freeze.
>
> Can a complementary machine be built which will cause water to boil given
> a very cold reservoir and the ambient temperature? Has this already been
> done?
>
> Harry
>


Re: [Vo]:acoustic prism

2020-11-03 Thread H LV
Good point.
Harry


On Tue., Nov. 3, 2020, 3:52 p.m. Michael Foster,  wrote:

> Clever and interesting... But this device is not an acoustic analog of an
> optical prism. It's much closer to an acoustic diffraction device.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Sunday, November 1, 2020, 06:13:08 PM UTC, H LV 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>  Engineers Debut the Acoustic Prism
> The device splits sounds without digital help
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/engineers-debut-the-acoustic-prism/
> Acoustic Prism Invented at EPFL
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sSBPxAv2qk
> Exploiting the leaky-wave properties of transmission-line metamaterials
> for single-microphone direction findinghttps://
> asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.4949544
>
> Harry
>
>


[Vo]:Fire From Ice: An engineering challenge

2020-11-03 Thread H LV
This challenge is inspired by the title of Gene Mallove`s book "Fire From
Ice".

A major engineering goal in the past was to make ice from fire. That is
given a very hot reservoir and ambient temperature, build a machine which
will cause water to freeze.

Can a complementary machine be built which will cause water to boil given a
very cold reservoir and the ambient temperature? Has this already been done?

Harry


[Vo]:acoustic prism

2020-11-01 Thread H LV
Engineers Debut the Acoustic Prism
The device splits sounds without digital help
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/engineers-debut-the-acoustic-prism/

Acoustic Prism Invented at EPFL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sSBPxAv2qk

Exploiting the leaky-wave properties of transmission-line metamaterials for
single-microphone direction finding
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.4949544

Harry


Re: [Vo]:Modern Measurements of Geothe's dark spectrum

2020-10-31 Thread H LV
Look at the conclusions of the technical paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09063
Power Area Density in Inverse Spectra
---
Conclusions:
1. The existence of the investigated inverse spectral regions ultra-yellow
(UY) and infra-cyan (IC) demonstrates empirically that the inverse spectrum
is not merely a visual phenomenon but should be seen as the consequence of
radiation energy conservation in spectral experiments.

2. If the data of inverse spectra are evaluated in the same way, then a
spectrum with only positive spectral components (ordinary spectrum) as well
as an inverse spectrum with equal absolute but negative spectral components
are obtained, irrespective of the measured radiometric quantities, the
spectral range and the illumination used.

3. In the past, the IR range has been explored through temperature
measurements. This has recently led to the question of whether “negative
temperatures” can be measured in the inverted IR range (Müller 2015). Since
the temperature measurement, like the measurement presented here, is based
on power densities, this assumption can be confirmed. If temperature is
measured in mutually inverse spectra and the measured values are converted
into differences to the temperature of the respective backgrounds, a
spectrum with only positive values (ordinary spectrum) and a spectrum with
only negative values (inverse spectrum) always results.

4. In the field of classical spectroscopic methods, a spectrum cannot be
empirically prioritized in favour of its inverse counterpart: they are
spectroscopically equivalent and this equivalence is guaranteed by the
energy conservation of the radiation in the spectra pair.



Harry

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 1:30 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> This paper on the same spectral radiance measurements might be more
> appealing for some:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09063
>
> Power Area Density in Inverse Spectra
> Matthias Rang, Johannes Grebe-Ellis
> Abstract
> < and a quantitative description with radiometric units was suggested (Rang
> 2015). It could be shown that inverse spectra complement each other
> additively to a constant intensity level. Since optical intensity in
> radiometric units is a power area density, it can be expected that energy
> densities of inverse spectra also fulfill an inversion equation and
> complement each other. In this contribution we report findings on a
> measurement of the power area density of inverse spectra for the near
> ultraviolet, visible and the infrared spectral range. They show the
> existence of corresponding spectral regions ultra-yellow (UY) and
> infra-cyan (IC) in the inverted spectrum and thereby present additional
> experimental evidence for equivalence of inverse spectra beyond the visible
> range.>>
>


Re: [Vo]:Modern Measurements of Geothe's dark spectrum

2020-10-31 Thread H LV
sorry, the first link I gave may have an error in it.
This works
http://www.holisticsciencejournal.co.uk/id/In_dialogue%20Goethes%20Farbenlehre%20Grebe-Ellis%20and%20Passon.pdf

Harry

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 1:30 PM H LV  wrote:

> I was beginning to feel like a legend in my own mind, but it seems that in
> recent years other people have been making measurements of Goethe`s dark
> spectrum with modern instruments. This paper provides some context for
> Goethe`s work on colour theory and includes a graph of the spectral
> radiance curve of Goethe`s dark spectrum. Roughly speaking Newton`s light
> spectrum of blue-green-red emerges from a prism when it is stuck by light
> beam within a field of dark, whereas Goethe`s dark spectrum of
> yellow-magenta-cyan emerges from a prism when it is struck by a shadow beam
> within in a field of light.
>
> I imagined there must be an infra-cyan and ultra-yellow beyond the visible
> part of Geothe`s dark spectrum so I was pleased to see those same terms are
> used in this paper. For those people who who turned off by the name of the
> journal and think all metaphysical jargon is woo-woo gooble-de-gook, I
> suggest you focus on the figures and the data:
>
> Goethe’s Farbenlehre from the Perspective of Modern Physics
>
> http://www.holisticsciencejournal.co.uk/id/In_dialogue Goethes
> Farbenlehre Grebe-Ellis and Passon.pdf
>
> The key finding is in the last figure which shows the spectral radiance
> curves for both the Newton light spectrum and the Goethe dark spectrum.
> Where the Newton spectral radiance curve peaks sharply in the infrared,
> there is a correspondingly pronounced dip in the Goethe spectral radiance
> curve in the infracyan.
>
> This paper on the same spectral radiance measurements might be more
> appealing for some:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09063
>
> Power Area Density in Inverse Spectra
> Matthias Rang, Johannes Grebe-Ellis
> Abstract
> < and a quantitative description with radiometric units was suggested (Rang
> 2015). It could be shown that inverse spectra complement each other
> additively to a constant intensity level. Since optical intensity in
> radiometric units is a power area density, it can be expected that energy
> densities of inverse spectra also fulfill an inversion equation and
> complement each other. In this contribution we report findings on a
> measurement of the power area density of inverse spectra for the near
> ultraviolet, visible and the infrared spectral range. They show the
> existence of corresponding spectral regions ultra-yellow (UY) and
> infra-cyan (IC) in the inverted spectrum and thereby present additional
> experimental evidence for equivalence of inverse spectra beyond the visible
> range.>>
>
> Harry
>


[Vo]:Modern Measurements of Geothe's dark spectrum

2020-10-31 Thread H LV
I was beginning to feel like a legend in my own mind, but it seems that in
recent years other people have been making measurements of Goethe`s dark
spectrum with modern instruments. This paper provides some context for
Goethe`s work on colour theory and includes a graph of the spectral
radiance curve of Goethe`s dark spectrum. Roughly speaking Newton`s light
spectrum of blue-green-red emerges from a prism when it is stuck by light
beam within a field of dark, whereas Goethe`s dark spectrum of
yellow-magenta-cyan emerges from a prism when it is struck by a shadow beam
within in a field of light.

I imagined there must be an infra-cyan and ultra-yellow beyond the visible
part of Geothe`s dark spectrum so I was pleased to see those same terms are
used in this paper. For those people who who turned off by the name of the
journal and think all metaphysical jargon is woo-woo gooble-de-gook, I
suggest you focus on the figures and the data:

Goethe’s Farbenlehre from the Perspective of Modern Physics

http://www.holisticsciencejournal.co.uk/id/In_dialogue Goethes Farbenlehre
Grebe-Ellis and Passon.pdf

The key finding is in the last figure which shows the spectral radiance
curves for both the Newton light spectrum and the Goethe dark spectrum.
Where the Newton spectral radiance curve peaks sharply in the infrared,
there is a correspondingly pronounced dip in the Goethe spectral radiance
curve in the infracyan.

This paper on the same spectral radiance measurements might be more
appealing for some:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09063

Power Area Density in Inverse Spectra
Matthias Rang, Johannes Grebe-Ellis
Abstract
<>

Harry


[Vo]:A complementary understanding of light and dark

2020-10-29 Thread H LV
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WshvEfG8xa6uteVVh2uvEn9-iU6KBWh8/view?usp=sharing

In the above image I want to convey the idea of dark and light as
complimentary entities by overlaying a sine wave on black and white
stripes. Just as the wave trough compliments the wave peak so too does dark
compliment light.

Harry


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >