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. <Doesn't mention observers motion, > The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. > <Doesn't require the one way speed of light to be C, just the 2 way speed > of light to be C in all inertial frames for that. > > I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light (the > speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such thing in > any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2. > The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one > way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it. > And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of > light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether > Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is > compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they are > equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the one way > speed of light! > > If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying > mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without > needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a success! > But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by believing > the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense! > And we will see just how badly below. > > But let's see how we got here! > > Light, big shock, moves at a speed. > And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it > relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some > explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by which > this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his papers > therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute and > therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is absolute. > And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative to > your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of > either... > The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and > SR assets it can't be). > OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses > magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) AKA > The Ether or Aether. > Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way speed of > light is C and didn't try to explain how it could be either, as I will show > soon how impossible that is, we can't have a relativistic aether that > offers no preferred frame! > Yes, that is essentially what he tried to create, but failed. Even if you > can't know what the one way speed of light is, you can know as I will show > that it can't be equal. > Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k Why No One Has Measured > The Speed Of Light - Veritasium > > So if we go back to the Michelson Morley experiment we see that an > interferometer was used to try and find evidence of earth's motion through > the Aether, and this produced a generally negative result. > Now as I tried to write the rest of this message I have come to a problem, > I was going to explain why the Michelson Morley experiment which used an > interferometer with two paths, one perpendicular and one along the earths > presumed direction of motion through the Aether. > However in trying to explain why the number of wavelengths that fit in the > two paths should vary based on the axis of movement of the aetheric medium > relative to the laboratory frame, I 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 / Special Relativity didn't insist it was". > No, I suppose not, but if we admit that the speed of light, even just the > one way speed of light isn't C (isn't equal in all directions) then it > means there IS a preferred frame, THERE IS AN AETHER! > And if there is a preferred frame (and if Lorentz contractions even exists > which BTW the Michelson Morley experiment does NOTHING to indicate unless I > and several LLM's are very mistaken) then time Dilation and Length > contraction presuming they truly exist (they seem to but I'm doubting > everything now) they are obviously manifested relative to the Preferred > frame which MUST exist as shown, and if the one way speed of light isn't > impossibly and automagically, C which even Einstein and SR (originally) > didn't claim and can't explain and is incompatible with Lorentz contraction > and time dilation then these transformations must be based on your absolute > motion through that preferred frame! > And if that is the case then twin paradoxes are solved, there is no > paradox in the slightest, this is good news as it is easy to create > examples where the twin paradox can't be resolved with no preferred frame, > hint: Instantaneous communication is possible without any superluminal > communication or Doppler effect and the Twin paradox can be symmetrical > leading to an unsolvable paradox. > But if there is a preferred frame which is responsible for the speed of > light and time dilation being affected by your motion then it IS possible > even if not entirely easy to measure the one way speed of light or find the > frame where time dilation is zero and lengths are longest. > This finds SR in a failed state, it's failed at everything but being a > handy tool with close enough results for most things. > And again, there isn't an iota of experimental evidence that favors SR > over LET! > So there you have it, there is an Aether, there might be Lorentz > transformations but the Michelson Morley type interferometer experiments > only tell us how easily Scientists can be bamboozled going on close to 120 > years. > I hope I have made this easy to understand and conclusive, feedback > appreciated > >>
