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 >> >>>
