Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jonathan Berry]

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON 
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" 
> 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.  The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
>  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 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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" 
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. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. 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 

[Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jonathan Berry]

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. 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 /