What I mean is that there might be translation issues, but I doubt it
was a translation issue relating to Einstein not mentioning the one
way speed of light, i would imagine if he went to the point of saying
"one way speed of light" in german that would have been odd to drop
the "one way" part.
But will check out what the translation issue is, thanks.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 23:13, ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
but it is
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jonathan Berry" <jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 06:34
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
I doubt it's a translation issue.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>>
wrote:
Part of the problem is - can translate Einstein's 1905 SR
paper in different ways into English. In 1905 he doesn't
mention one-way and two-way lightspeed. So, now in
retrospect can try to impose on him what he should have
meant using those terms.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jonathan Berry"
<jonathanberry3...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>;
evg...@groups.io<mailto:evg...@groups.io>;
aethericscien...@groups.io<mailto:aethericscien...@groups.io>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 Nov, 23 At 08:28
Subject: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR)
.vs Aether
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
