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 
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 
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 

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
>>>
>>