Re: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well one of the things that has confused me when taught relativity is- 
if have length contraction of an object in one direction and not 
perpendicular to that direction; then surely its getting denser along 
the contracted length and then increase gravitational force in the 
perpendicular direction; so should cause contraction in that direction 
also (?) But gravitational effect seems to be ignored.


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 21:06
Subject: [Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

Can Buster Keaton explain the Michelson Morley experiment? ;-)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/14S0qNLyghHNzB4Sp7Rg-6s8yXypz7mBz/view?usp=sharing 




Instead of length contraction in the direction of the aether wind, 
suppose the perpendicular leg of the MM apparatus leans into the aether 
wind instead.


The right amount of lean could have the effect of lengthening the travel 
time on the nominally perpendicular leg so that no fringe shift is 
produced.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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" 
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 
mailto: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" mailto: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 
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 





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-v0 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" mailto: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 
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 pre

[Vo]:Buster Keaton and the Michelson Morley experiment

[H LV]

Can Buster Keaton explain the Michelson Morley experiment? ;-)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14S0qNLyghHNzB4Sp7Rg-6s8yXypz7mBz/view?usp=sharing

Instead of length contraction in the direction of the aether wind, suppose
the perpendicular leg of the MM apparatus leans into the aether wind
instead.

The right amount of lean could have the effect of lengthening the travel
time on the nominally perpendicular leg so that no fringe shift is produced.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[H LV]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
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" 
> 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 
> 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-v0 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" 
>> 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" 
>>> 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, 2

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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" 
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 
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 





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-v0 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" mailto: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 
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" mailto: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 
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 

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[H LV]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:27 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
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-v0 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" 
> 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 
> 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" 
>> 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" 
>>> 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
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Momentum and everything else messed up.


A lot of people have pointed out Einstein was bad at maths; so his maths 
messed up


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-v0 i.e. light travels with velocity c-v which is 
not equal to c.


-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
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 
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" mailto: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 
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" mailto: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