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 >>> >>>
