SR is quite a solid model as it can adequately "predict" the electron mass/energy in a storage ring.

I use the word solid because all current models of physics, also called standard model, have a very low precision (usually < 4 digits without fudging) and thus never can be basic models.

The problem is obvious as since more than 80 years mathematicians dominate physics, mostly people with no clue of real physics = experiment.

For the SOP model of mass/force structure I get 8..10 digits precision, what is shocking for some folks as it could first time be close to a basic model. Thus since about 2 years I try to educate physicists about the silly errors we find in all historic models (QM,QED,QCD,GR,..).

The most silly in GR is the 3 rotation anti symmetric stress energy tensor that is impossible for real mass.... As as said most mathematicians missed basic physics - here rotor mechanics. Once you know the basics you no longer can take serious most peoples in the field.


On 12.11.2023 22:10, H L V wrote:
I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR.
The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't know but it makes him appear very thorough.


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON <> wrote:

    says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's
    elaboration of Maxwell's electrodynamics
    <>, the moving
    magnet and conductor problem
    the negative aether drift experiments
    as well as the Fizeau experiment
    <>, led 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"
        <> To: 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.
        On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON

            >>>seems <<<


            When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an
            Einsteinian calculation - its usually not given.

                ------ Original Message ------ From: "H L V"
                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.
                On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry

                    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

                        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.
                        On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry

                            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

                                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.
                                On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM
                                Jonathan Berry

                                    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
                                    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
                                    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
                                    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.
                                    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
                                    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
                                    I hope I have made this easy to
                                    understand and conclusive,
                                    feedback appreciated

Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Reply via email to