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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry


I was quoting wikipedia and I disagree with the quote.


-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

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 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration 
of Maxwell's electrodynamics 
 , the moving 
magnet and conductor problem 
 , 
the negative aether drift experiments 
 , as 
well as the Fizeau experiment 
 , led 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" mailto: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 
mailto: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" mailto: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 
mailto: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  > 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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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 

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

SR is quite a solid model as it can adequately "predict" the electron 
mass/energy in a storage ring.


I use the word solid because all current models of physics, also called 
standard model, have a very low precision (usually < 4 digits without 
fudging) and thus never can be basic models.


The problem is obvious as since more than 80 years mathematicians 
dominate physics, mostly people with no clue of real physics = experiment.


For the SOP model of mass/force structure I get 8..10 digits precision, 
what is shocking for some folks as it could first time be close to a 
basic model. Thus since about 2 years I try to educate physicists about 
the silly errors we find in all historic models (QM,QED,QCD,GR,..).


The most silly in GR is the 3 rotation anti symmetric stress energy 
tensor that is impossible for real mass As as said most 
mathematicians missed basic physics - here rotor mechanics. Once you 
know the basics you no longer can take serious most peoples in the field.



J.W.

On 12.11.2023 22:10, H L V wrote:

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 
 wrote:


says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's
elaboration of Maxwell's electrodynamics
, the moving
magnet and conductor problem
,
the negative aether drift experiments
,
as well as the Fizeau experiment
, led 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"
 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
mailto: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"
mailto: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

mailto: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
mailto: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
  

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

[H L V]

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 
wrote:

> says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of 
> Maxwell's
> electrodynamics ,
> the moving magnet and conductor problem
> , the 
> negative
> aether drift experiments
> , as
> well as the Fizeau experiment
> , led 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" 
> 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" 
>> 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  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

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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration 
of Maxwell's electrodynamics 
 , the moving 
magnet and conductor problem 
 , 
the negative aether drift experiments 
 , as 
well as the Fizeau experiment 
 , led 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" 
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 
mailto: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" mailto: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 
mailto: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  > 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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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. way speed of 

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

[H L V]

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 
wrote:

> >>>seems <<<
>
>
> ???
>
>
> When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation -
> its usually not given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H L V" 
> 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  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. > 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 

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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
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 
mailto: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  > 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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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. 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 

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

[H L V]

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 
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  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.  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 

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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

criticism of the Hafele Keating experiment is that it is cherry picking.





On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows: “Dear Dr. 
Zapffe, “I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate 
your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount 
of reading for its preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot 
of fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I enjoyed 
writing my own little book (112 references), although it was outside my 
field of work, and I was warned that would do my reputation a lot of 
harm. My experience was rather similar to yours in securing publication, 
and I decided that the only way was to avoid references. The booklet was 
invited, as was a lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings 
of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p. 141 ff.) My 
criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the 
demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a 
theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together 
with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a 
very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense 
written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and 
disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about 
the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless. 
In my view, these tend to confuse the issue. “One aspect of this subject 
which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the 
experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border 
line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result 
required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with 
Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of 
Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in 
Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I 
had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism 
was 
rejected.https://beyondmainstream.org/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/










-- Original Message --
From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 12:20
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
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.<<
QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption - 
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.
QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if 
you mix mass and wave solutions.
QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits 
rarely match the measured ones.


Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.


SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress 
systematic errors. See also:: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment 
 . It's 
all about understanding what/how you do measure!


Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!
For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
>>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.<<


QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption - 
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.


QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if 
you mix mass and wave solutions.


QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits 
rarely match the measured ones.




Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.



SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress 
systematic errors. See also:: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment. It's 
all about understanding what/how you do measure!




Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!

For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

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.<<



Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.


For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 00:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether






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 

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 12.11.2023 01:50, Jonathan Berry wrote:

Another idea I came across is that gravity is a result of time dilation!



Gravity, as shown exactly in SOP, is a very weak "nuclear" force. Time 
dilation as origin of a force is a nice fantasy - just good for a Disney 
movie.



J.W.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06