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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> 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 <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" <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> Ok I watched it. >> Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is >> possible to measure the one way speed of light. >> >> Harry >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" >>> >>> >>> deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving >>> goalposts etc >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >>> 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" <hveeder...@gmail.com> >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 19:14 >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON < >>> 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" <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> 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-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 >>>> >>>> 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" <hveeder...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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> >>>>>> 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" <hveeder...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
