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" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
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 <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" <hveeder...@gmail.com <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
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <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" <hveeder...@gmail.com <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
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <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" <hveeder...@gmail.com <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
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <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&feature=emb_logo
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0&feature=emb_logo>
