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 know about that two-way lightspeed video - it goes by a mistranslation
of Einstein's paper, and I'm doing a video about that.
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" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 15:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >
wrote:
Momentum and everything else messed up.
A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths
messed up
At university he was actually good at mathematics, but it appears he did
not like doing lab work. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwZsjlJ-G4
<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-v<c for v>0 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
<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
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4>
Harry
------ Original Message ------
From: "H LV" <hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >
wrote:
That's anyone way of putting it.
But memes like ->
"emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains"
give the false impression of applying to ALL types of emission theories
which is false claim.
There is difference between claims->
(i) ALL emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains
and
(ii) SOME emission theories make wrong predictions in other domains
The looseness in language used by many physics texts (especially popular
science texts) allow false memes to be easily created.
i.e. don't use rigorous Logic with quantifiers
------ Original Message ------
From: "H LV" <hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >
wrote:
Good animation.
emission theory DOES NOT makes wrong prediction in other domains.
What probably really talking about is misapplying emission theory in
other domains
the claim "emission theory makes wrong predictions in other domains" is
just a meme promoting a falsehood
It is an example of lie which - if a lie is repeated often enough then
people start believing it.
------ Original Message ------
From: "H LV" <hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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
<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
