I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR. The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't know but it makes him appear very thorough.
harry On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of > Maxwell's > electrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations>, > the moving magnet and conductor problem > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem>, the > negative > aether drift experiments > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>, as > well as the Fizeau experiment > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>, led Albert Einstein > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> to develop the theory of > special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the equation > for aberration in terms of such theory<<< > > > no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper. > > > Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so > was just something added later. > > > But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might > also be discarded anon. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "H L V" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether > > I should not have said "seems". > It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy) > > harry > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON < > r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >>>seems <<< >> >> >> ??? >> >> >> When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation >> - its usually not given. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "H L V" <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether >> >> Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according >> to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of >> light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's >> have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of >> observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR >> than by classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of >> light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry >> about the bigger picture. >> >> Harry >> >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry < >> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say >>> that. >>> >>> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect >>> infinitely fast through the Aether. >>> >>> What astronomers teach is an assumption. >>> >>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in >>>> principle be infinite and that >>>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars >>>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago. >>>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what >>>> astronomers teach. >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry < >>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has >>>>> to average to C. >>>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, >>>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round >>>>> trip C. >>>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no >>>>>> rational basis for claiming >>>>>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking >>>>>> further and further back in time. >>>>>> Harry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry < >>>>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large >>>>>>> Language Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will >>>>>>> say it is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR). >>>>>>> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction >>>>>>> of space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special >>>>>>> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> not typically explained within. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The >>>>>>> constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of >>>>>>> light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 1905 paper! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both >>>>>>> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the >>>>>>> theory being presented, but the foundation of it).... >>>>>>> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity >>>>>>> of the emitter. <Doesn't mention observers motion, >>>>>>> The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial >>>>>>> frames. <Doesn't require the one way speed of light to be C, just the 2 >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of >>>>>>> light (the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no >>>>>>> such thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2. >>>>>>> The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the >>>>>>> one way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it. >>>>>>> And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed >>>>>>> of light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz >>>>>>> Ether >>>>>>> Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is >>>>>>> compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the one >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> speed of light! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying >>>>>>> mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without >>>>>>> needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a >>>>>>> success! >>>>>>> But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by >>>>>>> believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense! >>>>>>> And we will see just how badly below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But let's see how we got here! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Light, big shock, moves at a speed. >>>>>>> And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame >>>>>>> making it relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> be some explanation how this might not be but again there is no >>>>>>> mechanism >>>>>>> by which this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his >>>>>>> papers therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute >>>>>>> and therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is >>>>>>> absolute. >>>>>>> And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is >>>>>>> relative to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the >>>>>>> medium of either... >>>>>>> The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, >>>>>>> and SR assets it can't be). >>>>>>> OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses >>>>>>> magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) >>>>>>> AKA >>>>>>> The Ether or Aether. >>>>>>> Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way >>>>>>> speed of light is C and didn't try to explain how it could be either, >>>>>>> as I >>>>>>> will show soon how impossible that is, we can't have a relativistic >>>>>>> aether >>>>>>> that offers no preferred frame! >>>>>>> Yes, that is essentially what he tried to create, but failed. Even >>>>>>> if you can't know what the one way speed of light is, you can know as I >>>>>>> will show that it can't be equal. >>>>>>> Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k Why No One Has >>>>>>> Measured The Speed Of Light - Veritasium >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if we go back to the Michelson Morley experiment we see that an >>>>>>> interferometer was used to try and find evidence of earth's motion >>>>>>> through >>>>>>> the Aether, and this produced a generally negative result. >>>>>>> Now as I tried to write the rest of this message I have come to a >>>>>>> problem, I was going to explain why the Michelson Morley experiment >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> used an interferometer with two paths, one perpendicular and one along >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> earths presumed direction of motion through the Aether. >>>>>>> However in trying to explain why the number of wavelengths that fit >>>>>>> in the two paths should vary based on the axis of movement of the >>>>>>> aetheric >>>>>>> medium relative to the laboratory frame, I have found a problem, it >>>>>>> seems >>>>>>> that the number of wavelengths would not change even if the 2 way speed >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> light was speed wasn't constant! >>>>>>> It is worth noting that the Michelson Morley experiment didn't >>>>>>> measure light speed at all, nor would time dilation have any effect on >>>>>>> interference fringes, only wavelength matter, or more to the point the >>>>>>> number of them that fit along the path. >>>>>>> It seems that the Doppler shift from super and sub-luminal light >>>>>>> would lead to the same number of wavelengths in the round trip back to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> angled plate that initially splits the beams and then recombines the >>>>>>> light >>>>>>> for the detector. >>>>>>> So while the number of wavelengths that fit in the path change for >>>>>>> each direction it sums to the same number on the round trip! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would note that I had some weird variable answers from LLM's >>>>>>> sometimes using the wrong Doppler shift equation is used so it works >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> if you have it manually calculate the number of waves that would fit in >>>>>>> based on the distance and the speed of light (presuming of course a >>>>>>> variable speed) which gives you the travel time and the frequency of >>>>>>> light >>>>>>> gives you the number of wavelengths. >>>>>>> The point is that you get a null result from calculating the round >>>>>>> trip on an interferometer path even if we don't use Lorentz >>>>>>> transformations >>>>>>> and assume light isn't C, not even the 2 way speed of light! >>>>>>> So while the SPEED of light of the round trip might or might or >>>>>>> might not be constant based on motion though the Aether, the Michelson >>>>>>> Morley experiment tells us NOTHING about the movement of the Aether or >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> speed of light! >>>>>>> Now, EVEN IF the Michelson Morley experiment had the potential to >>>>>>> detect motion through the Aether signifying a need for a solution >>>>>>> (though >>>>>>> it DOESN'T) Lorentz contraction could be used for the null result but >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Lorentz's Ether Theory is compatible with the speed of light not being >>>>>>> constant in each direction, indeed it requires it! >>>>>>> It only makes the 2 way speed of light constant. >>>>>>> And so how does Lorentz contraction and time dilation work and why >>>>>>> doesn't it make the one way speed of light C? >>>>>>> Because if you are moving through the Aether, light that is coming >>>>>>> towards you and hence presumed to have added velocity above that of C >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> becomes even faster when your watch ticks fewer times while it passes, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> if your ruler is shorter it has less distance to go further speeding up >>>>>>> light from your perspective (if you could measure said one way speed). >>>>>>> And if somehow the speed of light were magically C in the one way >>>>>>> sense (again, Einstein never made this claim apparently and certainly no >>>>>>> math support how this impossible thing could occur) , then the addition >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> Lorentz transformations only make it all superluminal again! >>>>>>> Lorentz transformations weren't designed to make the one way speed >>>>>>> of light C, and if it's needed it means it isn't already C and if it is >>>>>>> already C then Lorentz transformations aren't needed >>>>>>> In other words Lorentz transformations are only needed if things >>>>>>> aren't already C, but their effect is to push things further from C with >>>>>>> respect to the one way speed of light. >>>>>>> Lorentz contraction makes no sense when you drill down to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Ok", you say, "so the one way speed of light isn't C in all >>>>>>> frames", "so what, Einstein / Special Relativity didn't insist it was". >>>>>>> No, I suppose not, but if we admit that the speed of light, even >>>>>>> just the one way speed of light isn't C (isn't equal in all directions) >>>>>>> then it means there IS a preferred frame, THERE IS AN AETHER! >>>>>>> And if there is a preferred frame (and if Lorentz contractions even >>>>>>> exists which BTW the Michelson Morley experiment does NOTHING to >>>>>>> indicate >>>>>>> unless I and several LLM's are very mistaken) then time Dilation and >>>>>>> Length >>>>>>> contraction presuming they truly exist (they seem to but I'm doubting >>>>>>> everything now) they are obviously manifested relative to the Preferred >>>>>>> frame which MUST exist as shown, and if the one way speed of light isn't >>>>>>> impossibly and automagically, C which even Einstein and SR (originally) >>>>>>> didn't claim and can't explain and is incompatible with Lorentz >>>>>>> contraction >>>>>>> and time dilation then these transformations must be based on your >>>>>>> absolute >>>>>>> motion through that preferred frame! >>>>>>> And if that is the case then twin paradoxes are solved, there is no >>>>>>> paradox in the slightest, this is good news as it is easy to create >>>>>>> examples where the twin paradox can't be resolved with no preferred >>>>>>> frame, >>>>>>> hint: Instantaneous communication is possible without any superluminal >>>>>>> communication or Doppler effect and the Twin paradox can be symmetrical >>>>>>> leading to an unsolvable paradox. >>>>>>> But if there is a preferred frame which is responsible for the speed >>>>>>> of light and time dilation being affected by your motion then it IS >>>>>>> possible even if not entirely easy to measure the one way speed of >>>>>>> light or >>>>>>> find the frame where time dilation is zero and lengths are longest. >>>>>>> This finds SR in a failed state, it's failed at everything but being >>>>>>> a handy tool with close enough results for most things. >>>>>>> And again, there isn't an iota of experimental evidence that favors >>>>>>> SR over LET! >>>>>>> So there you have it, there is an Aether, there might be Lorentz >>>>>>> transformations but the Michelson Morley type interferometer experiments >>>>>>> only tell us how easily Scientists can be bamboozled going on close to >>>>>>> 120 >>>>>>> years. >>>>>>> I hope I have made this easy to understand and conclusive, feedback >>>>>>> appreciated >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
