You say: "So it really is amazing how big of a shambles it all is!"

Yes, its a shambles.

Part of the problem was pointed out by an early critic of relativity ->

G. BURNISTON BROWN Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.71—77

who says - quote - > "Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his theory"

which means --> what Einstein did - was present a series of papers where he kept changing his mind.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jonathan Berry" <>
Sent: Friday, 10 Nov, 23 At 02:20
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

A few updates...

First because the Michelson Morley claim seemed plausible but not totally conclusive, I wasn't doing the math myself and math isn't my thing so I farmed that out to AI's that kept on having different ideas so to be sure I had to really drill down and figure out the best most pure way to do so.

I realized the easiest way was not to deal with a moving medium at all! But instead to change the velocity of the wave in the medium and recalculate! See, if a medium is in motion relative to us, then the motion of the wave is either increased or decreased relative to our frame, so there is no need to deal with the complicating effect of moving mediums as we get the same number of waves in a given space is the waves have the same speed regardless of how that is achieved.

So say you have a wave that moves at 1000 meters a second and you have a 10khz signal, in 10 meters distance you have 100 waves (it takes 0.01 second for a wave to traverse the distance and in that time there are 99 buddies behind him), So what happens if we increase the wave velocity to 1.5 times? Well then it would take 15 meters to fit 100 waves and as such we have in just 10 meters 2/3rds of those 100 waves, or 66.666 waves.

And if the waves moved at half the speed, how many waves would fit in the 10 meter space? Well, double!

So if we had the medium being stationary and in a 10 meter space we would have 200 waves, consisting of 100 waves in each direction, yes superimposed.

But by having waves go 1.5 times faster in one direction but only half as far in the other direction, this is meant to simulate the medium moving at half the speed of the waves we get 66.66 + 200 = 266.66 waves.

So it turns out the Michelson Moley experiment DOES potentially tell us something about Ether drift.

It doesn't tell us there isn't an Ether, and it doesn't confirm Lorentz transformations though Lorentz transformation might explain why we might be moving through and Ether and not detect it.

But another possibility is that there is an Ether and we aren't moving through it but entraining it.

On the whole I am happy to accept that Lorentz transformations might, as an absolute thing in line with Lorentz Ether Theory, exist.

And I have now heard LET be termed Lorentzian Relativity, and it is that, but it is a form of Relativity with an Ether, with a prefered frame. Of course Einstein believed in an Ether in 1920 and compared it to matter.

What is most interesting however, that based on a reply from Roger Anderson who saw my post, I ended up finding a few interesting notes and here they are...

According to Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube Physicist and fellow INTJ, Time dilation DOESN'T OCCUR from steady state motion! That is another change to Special relativity - muons shouldn't survive longer either at speed if she were correct.

This is interesting as relativistic time dilation seems to have been the core component of SR in the 1905 paper, and AFAIK it was in the even earlier Lorentz formulations even though time dilation isn't used to explain null interferometer results.

Also if there is no time dilation, well sure you don't get twin Paradox issues which is good, but there become some other serious issues, think of a photon of light bouncing between parallel plates being used as a clock:


If you move at a significant velocity (what this means in terms of SR is debatable) to the right then the light is taking a zigzag course, and as such if it isn't to be superluminal it must be ticking slower though not to our perception moving with the light clock but to the fame that sees it as a zig-zag. If all frames are to seem equal. So time dilation can't be thrown out as Sabine tries. With an Ether frame this light clock makes perfect sense with SR you have time dilation that being relative to nothing becomes paradoxical in ways described, and the rest frame can be learnt be removed of temporal Doppler effects.

I guess what this means is that there are different types of time dilation we need to distinguish. There is gravitational time dilation, and equivalent acceleration time dilation (G-force time dilation, one experiment reportedly disproved), illusory Doppler shift time dilation (which can be removed by calculation) and the TRUE time dilation, which has been hidden by SR all this time because it is relative to motion through an Ether! This is absolute motion based time dilation and with it the light clock stops being so impossible and paradoxical.

And according to various Youtubers and even the LLM's, Relativistic mass was thrown out as a part of Relativity in 2008!? This was a shock to me!
Also it wasn't in Einstein's original theory either.
It is interesting how I have heard it as the reason Photons can't have any rest mass, because it would turn infinite at C, and same with the utter impossibility of FTL travel. Originally it wasn't e=mc2, it was e0=mc2. This means that only rest mass is considered! The most famous equation was changed and now essentilly changed back.

Isn't that funny, one minute it is "UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE" to do something because you need infinite energy, and then quietly with no announcements Relativity has been changed to make it possible.

So, it was never utterly impossible was it, a less arrogant take would have always been 'according to this theory we believe in which might be wrong it's just an idea we like right now." In much the same way I said "The Michelson Morley interferometer can't measure drift.. unless I'm mistaken". I admitted the possibility even though at that moment it seemed likely, I wasn't 100% sure and so I admitted that.

In 1905 the theory said no Ether but in 5th may 1920 he gave a lecture to the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the theory of Relativity. He lectured in German translated it says "How does it come about that alongside the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from every day life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? And he expresses that it is unthinkable that there not be an Ether! In the original paper Einstein talks about longitudinal and transverse mass but that has been discarded entirely!

So it really is amazing how big of a shambles it all is!

Reply via email to