According to relativisits it is only possible to measure the two way speed of light. However in order for special relativity to make a prediction about stellar aberration it has to use a definite one way speed of light because stellar aberration only involves light moving one way. This seems to be inconsistent.
Harry On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:45 PM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Based on what Einstein wrote in 1905, it is now interpreted as menaing- > cannot measure oneway lightspeed; what he would think today if alive- who > knows. > > > Roger > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "H LV" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, 9 Dec, 20 At 20:53 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory > > Ok I watched it. > Are you arguing that if Einstein were alive today he would say that it is > possible to measure the one way speed of light. > > Harry > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM ROGER ANDERTON < > r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> now published video on Youtube: "cannot measure one way lightspeed" >> >> >> deals with mistranslation of Einstein's paper, relativists moving >> goalposts etc >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9P644TXzY&feature=youtu.be >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 Dec, 20 At 22:15 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:animation of emission theory >> >> 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" <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> 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 < >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>
