On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 PM ROGER ANDERTON <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" <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 <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 >>>> >>>>
