I doubt it's a translation issue.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 22:24, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>

> 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>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; evg...@groups.io; 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

Reply via email to