Discussing about physics needs years long reflection about what physical constants mean and how these interrelate and are measured.

Further we must understand that all current still hyped models have been developed with marginal experimental knowledge. If somebody believes that e.g. QM is a fundamental model that he is a member of sect not a physicist.

Same for GR that already Einstein in 1952 declared being a castle in the air. He then argued that the world is made of infinite many systems with their own speed of light (c) and thus any relation between such systems constructed by SRT/GR are fiction not science.

The problem is the photon of which we only can measure the local wave number = energy in relation to local "c". Theoretically we could find its velocity by taking into account the red/blue shift but which model should we use. SRT provably only works for local mass but what shall we do with a photon speed of c+v?

Consequence: We have to overcome the today's silly - kindergarten physics models and we should start to understand the structure of all forms of matter. I could teach 2 term course about all failures and errors in current physics - models and also what for the models still are good and can be used.

On researchgate.net there are 3 running discussion about gravity. Of course 80% of all posters just want to promote new ideas and sometimes one is OK. (myself included..)




Only one thing is clear, general relativity is a marginal, just mathematical model once the Nobel committee called unphysical. It is brilliant math and of no use for our real world, that urgently needs a new "infinite" and cheap energy source. May be even that is a bad idea as long as the (fascist finance) pigs have the power and we then would help them to further destroy the planet.


PS: Invest your thinking for the progress of mankind not for reasoning about the morgue of standard model "physics"

On 09.11.2023 11:52, Jonathan Berry wrote:
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

            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"
                To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>;
                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

                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

Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

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

Reply via email to