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


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. <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: 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

Reply via email to