Yes. This morning I am doing some calculations using the aether as the rest frame and it seems and the expected fringe shift is very much smaller than that predicted by Michelson and Morley. However, I am not whiz with algebra so my calculations could be garbage. I will post something soon.
Harry On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:13 AM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I suppose so. By "mind's eye" you mean thought-experiment, and by > "splinter of mind's eye" you mean something not needed in the thought > experiment. Thus the version of aether wind conceived of was not found, but > that has no bearing on whether the aether exists or not > > > Roger > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "H LV" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, 2 Dec, 20 At 15:45 > 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> > 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> >> 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 < >> 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> >>> 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" <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 < >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>
