Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[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

RE: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Additional ideas.

Jrg’s idea of small toroidal volumes of space aether  made f quanta of volume, 
may allow the  identification of spin quanta and association  with angular 
momentum.

All so called primary particle’s nay b rotating toroidal volumes of differing 
populations   od volume quanta.

Dark energy and pair production may be explained by the specific energy pf the 
aetther .

I consider that a direction indicated by magnetic  materials and space quabta

Real energy is conserved in and around rotating volume quanta.  ‘


Bob Coojk

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 9:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

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.

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

From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of differ

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[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

[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

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

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.

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

From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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 
mailto: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/ 
<https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/>


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

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 
<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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 
mailto: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 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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 
<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 
mailto: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" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 
mailto: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 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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 
mailto: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 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

In the case of relativity; I think it has always been mostly the older 
people that question it. When young, the tendency is to trust what is 
being taught, and it takes a lot of research by which time you are old 
to find out that what you were taught when young was all lies.



One of my videos is "How relativists lie" - and the techniques that 
relativists use to lie is not something most young people are aware of 
as being used on them; when young the tendency is to be naive and not be 
looking for  deliberate misdirections and deceptions from teachers.



-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 16:33
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

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 
mailto: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 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo>


How relativists lie explained at-> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVIceUFXCE 
<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 
<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/ 
<https://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/>







-- Original Message --
From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" mailto:ju...@datamart.ch> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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> 
<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 medi

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[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

[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 wa

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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> 
<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 dollars for market representation.  He paid a military 
'flag man' to market on military IP auctions in cycles of three months. 
The DoD showed up, in a classic black van, and delivered a gag order, 
stating "never speak of this. Tell anyone you ever told about it that it 
is now a treasonous offense to discuss this kno

Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

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 




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 dollars for market representation.  He paid a 
military 'flag man' to market on military IP auctions in cycles of 
three months.  The DoD showed up, in a classic black van, and 
delivered a gag order, stating "never speak of this. Tell anyone you 
ever told about it that it is now a treasonous offense to discuss this 
knowledge."


Share classified military science after retirement and loose your 
entire pension.


Oh God!  Don't get me started on religious suppression of science as a 
popular hate-sport by mis-informed people by a network profiting from 
negative sensation --a modern media trend trend that has us all 
programmed for instant negative thoughts to arrive before deeper 
positive inner-ponderings.  Hate generates low-stupid of gross naivete.


Make me really nauseous and talk to me about pseudo-science that 
attempts to prove the Bible is the ultimate blueprint of quantum 
physics.  And those poor flat-earthers.



Are we a natural scientist if we...

Find joy of connecting the dots about mysteries of the universe.

Find a thrill of another comprehending ones personal inspiration, and 
in reverse, especially.


Find hope in discovering knowledge as a hope to help humanity.

Thoughts for the holidays?  Lamentations of a long career? Instant 
negative reactions?  Carefully pondered retrospection of changes a 
'modern' 

[Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy

[Don86326]

What do the vocal folk here think of David de Hilster?

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 dollars for market representation.  He paid a military 
'flag man' to market on military IP auctions in cycles of three months.  
The DoD showed up, in a classic black van, and delivered a gag order, 
stating "never speak of this. Tell anyone you ever told about it that it 
is now a treasonous offense to discuss this knowledge."


Share classified military science after retirement and loose your entire 
pension.


Oh God!  Don't get me started on religious suppression of science as a 
popular hate-sport by mis-informed people by a network profiting from 
negative sensation --a modern media trend trend that has us all 
programmed for instant negative thoughts to arrive before deeper 
positive inner-ponderings.  Hate generates low-stupid of gross naivete.


Make me really nauseous and talk to me about pseudo-science that 
attempts to prove the Bible is the ultimate blueprint of quantum 
physics.  And those poor flat-earthers.



Are we a natural scientist if we...

Find joy of connecting the dots about mysteries of the universe.

Find a thrill of another comprehending ones personal inspiration, and in 
reverse, especially.


Find hope in discovering knowledge as a hope to help humanity.

Thoughts for the holidays?  Lamentations of a long career? Instant 
negative reactions?  Carefully pondered retrospection of changes a 
'modern' media has done to a world once mediated by integrity? Etc?



--
Stay hydrated!