Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say

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 <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 <
> 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 <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 <
>>> 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

Reply via email to