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.
harry
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
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)
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
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
