I doubt it's a translation issue. On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR paper in > different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't mention one-way and two-way > lightspeed. So, now in retrospect can try to impose on him what he should > have meant using those terms. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Jonathan Berry" <jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; evg...@groups.io; aethericscien...@groups.io > Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28 > Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether > > 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 > >>
