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 <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 >>>> >>>>>
