says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration
of Maxwell's electrodynamics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving
magnet and conductor problem
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> ,
the negative aether drift experiments
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as
well as the Fizeau experiment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> to develop the theory
of special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the
equation for aberration in terms of such theory<<<
no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.
Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so
was just something added later.
But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might
also be discarded anon.
------ Original Message ------
From: "H L V" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)>
harry
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >
wrote:
>>>seems <<<
???
When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation
- its usually not given.
------ Original Message ------
From: "H L V" <hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration.
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years.
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.
Harry
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry
<jonathanberry3...@gmail.com <mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> >
wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<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
