Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving magnet and conductor problem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> , the negative aether drift experiments <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as well as the Fizeau experiment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <mailto: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) <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 <mailto: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 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 <mailto: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 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 tha
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations>, the moving
magnet and conductor problem
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem>,
the negative aether drift experiments
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>,
as well as the Fizeau experiment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>, led Albert
Einstein <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<mailto: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
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 wrote: > says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of > Maxwell's > electrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations>, > the moving magnet and conductor problem > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem>, the > negative > aether drift experiments > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>, as > well as the Fizeau experiment > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>, led Albert Einstein > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 furt
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of Maxwell's electrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving magnet and conductor problem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> , the negative aether drift experiments <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as well as the Fizeau experiment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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) <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 <mailto: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 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 <mailto: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 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 fi
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 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 inerti
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>>>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 <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 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 <mailto: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 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
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 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
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 <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
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
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 <http://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/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/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 <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; <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
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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
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 then mankind would make better progress. It is far from my main thrust.
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.
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<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>;
evg...@groups.io<mailto:evg...@groups.io>;
aethericscien...@groups.io<mailto: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 n
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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
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
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
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
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,
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
Jonathan That video wasn't mine, but it explains quite a lot of the basics. If going into more detail then things get more complicated. What I have been looking at is Einstein 1905 paper on special relativity - and the physicist Sommerfeld changed it into a different theory when translated into English, and seems to have persuaded Einstein to go along with the changes. It was not a straight translation from German into English -> amendments were made, so the translation is not the same as the original theory. There was no mention of the Michelson Morley experiment in the 1905 paper; so how the Michelson Morley experiment was to be understood in the context of special relativity was an add-on later. Similarly, other things like relativistic mass was an add-on after 1905 etc. So, most of what we know of relativity is add-ons (and other changes) to what was said in 1905. When you refer to special relativity -> "It's a Fankenstein's monster, with parts constantly needing to be changed out." Yes, that's it. But when arguing with people who believe in Einstein's relativity - "they" think that making changes is the way science is done. Which means "they" don't believe in a definitively defined theory, but instead believe in a theory that is in constant flux/change. -- Original Message -- From: "Jonathan Berry" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 22:40 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether Oh, I didn't make the connection of the name until now, I am watching a presentation you made (only got half an hour in last night), this one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s> But I should I guess watch the video you suggest, but I'd happily have a discussion on here with you and pick your brain, I also watched the video that you mentioned in that other video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s> It is amazing to learn that Relativistic mass has been dropped when that was the reason Photons were said to have zero mass and why nothing could go as fast as C let alone faster. Also while I had watched the video I guess Sabine had sufficiently confused me in the casual viewing to of her video that I didn't catch her admitting that relativistic time dilation isn't real, it seems she is just admitting it is just Doppler shift which can of course be removed by mere calculation which means that we can effectively econstruct real time communication and therefore learn the frame with the fastest clocks to learn the aether's true frame. In addition another thing occurred to me, not only is it impossible for the parallel path of the Michelson Morley experiment to experience a phase shift as the up and down wind effects seem to cancel (in contrast to the 2 way SPEED of light which would be affected by movement, the 2 way wavelengths remain unaffected if I'm not mistaken) and let the perpendicular path owing to the tangential motion of the emitting mirrors (or, a laser if you like) IS affected because the light is being emitted with a tangential velocity though the Ether and therefore it doesn't trace it's path, it is a zig-zag which means more wavelengths should fit in both the outbound and return to the angled splitting mirror. Therefore the Michelson Morley interferometer would work in the reverse way to how it is conceived and be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude lower in the strength of the Ether winds's effect! The arguments to destroy SR are clearly complete and it is just a case of putting them out widely enough that they can no longer pretend otherwise. It is like the Emperors new clothes, if said loudly and clearly enough hopefully others will admit it doesn't make sense to them either. It's a Fankenstein's monster, with parts constantly needing to be changed out. So while I will perhaps watch your videos, it seems a little slow, can you give me the basics of what you cover, what the mistranslations ae and what else has been changed that I haven't mentioned above? A recap of sorts? On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 04:18, ROGER ANDERTON mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated: latest: ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a different theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g> older videos: Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00> More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs> And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
Oh, I didn't make the connection of the name until now, I am watching a presentation you made (only got half an hour in last night), this one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s But I should I guess watch the video you suggest, but I'd happily have a discussion on here with you and pick your brain, I also watched the video that you mentioned in that other video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY=8s It is amazing to learn that Relativistic mass has been dropped when that was the reason Photons were said to have zero mass and why nothing could go as fast as C let alone faster. Also while I had watched the video I guess Sabine had sufficiently confused me in the casual viewing to of her video that I didn't catch her admitting that relativistic time dilation isn't real, it seems she is just admitting it is just Doppler shift which can of course be removed by mere calculation which means that we can effectively econstruct real time communication and therefore learn the frame with the fastest clocks to learn the aether's true frame. In addition another thing occurred to me, not only is it impossible for the parallel path of the Michelson Morley experiment to experience a phase shift as the up and down wind effects seem to cancel (in contrast to the 2 way SPEED of light which would be affected by movement, the 2 way wavelengths remain unaffected if I'm not mistaken) and let the perpendicular path owing to the tangential motion of the emitting mirrors (or, a laser if you like) IS affected because the light is being emitted with a tangential velocity though the Ether and therefore it doesn't trace it's path, it is a zig-zag which means more wavelengths should fit in both the outbound and return to the angled splitting mirror. Therefore the Michelson Morley interferometer would work in the reverse way to how it is conceived and be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude lower in the strength of the Ether winds's effect! The arguments to destroy SR are clearly complete and it is just a case of putting them out widely enough that they can no longer pretend otherwise. It is like the Emperors new clothes, if said loudly and clearly enough hopefully others will admit it doesn't make sense to them either. It's a Fankenstein's monster, with parts constantly needing to be changed out. So while I will perhaps watch your videos, it seems a little slow, can you give me the basics of what you cover, what the mistranslations ae and what else has been changed that I haven't mentioned above? A recap of sorts? On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 04:18, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated: > > > latest: > > ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a > different theory > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g > > > older videos: > > > Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00 > > > > More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs > > > And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated paper > of relativity and NOT the mistranslated paper > > > > Experimental confirmation that Einstein’s relativity has been misunderstood > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiJZA-trjU > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "ROGER ANDERTON" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 13:28 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether > > One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation being > imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905. > > > i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern > perspective. > > as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective > > > > ------ Original Message -- > From: "Jonathan Berry" > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether > > 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 translati
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated: latest: ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a different theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g older videos: Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00 More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated paper of relativity and NOT the mistranslated paper Experimental confirmation that Einstein’s relativity has been misunderstood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiJZA-trjU -- Original Message -- From: "ROGER ANDERTON" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 13:28 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation being imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905. i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern perspective. as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective -- Original Message -- From: "Jonathan Berry" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether 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 <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: but it is -- Original Message -- From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io <mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io <mailto: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 th
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation being imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905. i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern perspective. as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective -- Original Message -- From: "Jonathan Berry" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether 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 <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote: but it is -- Original Message -- From: "Jonathan Berry" <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io <mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io <mailto: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
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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 > 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 polarizabi
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
I am now doing AntiRelativity discussions Number 2 - was some people translate/interpret Sagnac experiment as disproves relativity (while others don't) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnN_NX3m_Tw Number 3 will be on Relativistic mass Relativity is just being subjected to numerous different interpretations - so people have different beliefs as to what it "is" Same as what happens to other religious texts (such as the Bible) - gets different translations -- Original Message -- From: "ROGER ANDERTON" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 09:16 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether 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 <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io <mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io <mailto: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
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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 <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; evg...@groups.io <mailto:evg...@groups.io> ; aethericscien...@groups.io <mailto: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 <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 throu
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 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 Mic
Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
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 <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
[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. 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 /
