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

[Jonathan Berry]

Discussing about physics needs years long reflection about what physical
> constants mean and how these interrelate and are measured.
>
A constant is an obsession and  assumption that it will continue under all
conditions.
In the case of Light speed it is an illogical assumption if we apply what
might be true for the 2 way speed of light is also true for the one way
speed of light.

Also I have been thinking about this for 25 years, is that enough?

Further we must understand that all current still hyped models have been
> developed with marginal experimental knowledge.
>
Very true!

> If somebody believes that e.g. QM is a fundamental model that he is a
> member of sect not a physicist.
>
I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but much
less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.
There is even super-determinism which seems nuts to me that takes a lot of
the weirdness from QM.

Also the many worlds interpretation removes a lot of weirdness.

Same for GR that already Einstein in 1952 declared being a castle in the
> air. He then argued that the world is made of infinite many systems with
> their own speed of light (c) and thus any relation between such systems
> constructed by SRT/GR are fiction not science.
>
He was a lot more humble than those who continued his theories.
I wasn't aware he said that and will seek an exact quote.

>
> The problem is the photon of which we only can measure the local wave
> number = energy in relation to local "c". Theoretically we could find its
> velocity by taking into account the red/blue shift but which model should
> we use. SRT provably only works for local mass but what shall we do with a
> photon speed of c+v?
>
Using red or blue shift for speed, or at least adjustments of speed is
logical.

Though I guess it tells us nothing of the speed of the medium, that only
cares about relative velocity between emitter and reciever.

>
> Consequence: We have to overcome the today's silly - kindergarten physics
> models and we should start to understand the structure of all forms of
> matter. I could teach 2 term course about all failures and errors in
> current physics - models and also what for the models still are good and
> can be used.
>
No doubt.

>
> On researchgate.net there are 3 running discussion about gravity. Of
> course 80% of all posters just want to promote new ideas and sometimes one
> is OK. (myself included..)
>
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/680
>
>
> Another idea I came across is that gravity is a result of time dilation!
This idea as it was relayed (by a believer in SR who was teaching it as
fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg;

But, rather than the explanation he gives, it makes me think the
following.  What if every bit of space emits pressure, well space would
expand (hmmm, it seems to) and where time dilation is present there would
be less emission!
And as such there would be a push towards such space.


> Only one thing is clear, general relativity is a marginal, just
> mathematical model once the Nobel committee called unphysical. It is
> brilliant math and of no use for our real world, that urgently needs a new
> "infinite" and cheap energy source. May be even that is a bad idea as long
> as the (fascist finance) pigs have the power and we then would help them to
> further destroy the planet.
>
> J.W.
>
> PS: Invest your thinking for the progress of mankind not for reasoning
> about the morgue of standard model "physics"
>
Well, if people can realize it is false then mankind would make better
progress.

It is far from my main thrust.

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Discussing about physics needs years long reflection about what physical 
constants mean and how these interrelate and are measured.


Further we must understand that all current still hyped models have been 
developed with marginal experimental knowledge. If somebody believes 
that e.g. QM is a fundamental model that he is a member of sect not a 
physicist.


Same for GR that already Einstein in 1952 declared being a castle in the 
air. He then argued that the world is made of infinite many systems with 
their own speed of light (c) and thus any relation between such systems 
constructed by SRT/GR are fiction not science.



The problem is the photon of which we only can measure the local wave 
number = energy in relation to local "c". Theoretically we could find 
its velocity by taking into account the red/blue shift but which model 
should we use. SRT provably only works for local mass but what shall we 
do with a photon speed of c+v?



Consequence: We have to overcome the today's silly - kindergarten 
physics models and we should start to understand the structure of all 
forms of matter. I could teach 2 term course about all failures and 
errors in current physics - models and also what for the models still 
are good and can be used.



On researchgate.net there are 3 running discussion about gravity. Of 
course 80% of all posters just want to promote new ideas and sometimes 
one is OK. (myself included..)



https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force

https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/680


Only one thing is clear, general relativity is a marginal, just 
mathematical model once the Nobel committee called unphysical. It is 
brilliant math and of no use for our real world, that urgently needs a 
new "infinite" and cheap energy source. May be even that is a bad idea 
as long as the (fascist finance) pigs have the power and we then would 
help them to further destroy the planet.


J.W.

PS: Invest your thinking for the progress of mankind not for reasoning 
about the morgue of standard model "physics"




On 09.11.2023 11:52, Jonathan Berry wrote:
What I mean is that there might be translation issues, but I doubt it 
was a translation issue relating to Einstein not mentioning the one 
way speed of light, i would imagine if he went to the point of saying 
"one way speed of light" in german that would have been odd to drop 
the "one way" part.


But will check out what the translation issue is, thanks.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 23:13, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:


but it is



-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON
mailto: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"

mailto: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 

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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

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

[H L V]

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

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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  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 
> 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. > 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.
>> 

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

[H L V]

Also if the speed of light depended on direction would it even be possible
to establish a reliable communication link between a transmitter and a
receiver which are moving at different inclinations and at different
speeds?

Harry

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 1:19 PM H L V  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 
> 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. > 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 

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

[H L V]

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 
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.  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 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,