The ether frame also expands . It also seems to exhibit electric and magnetic properties that are associated with the speed of light, c, in in empty aether.
As the aether expands, so may its specific energy density. There is no singularity, since the is a quantum of space at the Planck distance . Bob Cook ---------------- From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 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/ ------ 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 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
