Re: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[CB Sites]

It's always interesting to question what is considered our standard point
of view even when it works so well.  Special Relativity is common sense in
my opinion and is why I would never give it up.   However, what always
bugged me was time and using it as a 4th dimension.  One of the concepts of
space-time that is the stuff of SCI-FI, is you could warp space-time in
such a way that the fabric of Space-Time could fold allowing for
fast-than-light travel (FLT).  The warping of space-time does require
extreme bending but in places like black holes, the event horizon provides
a great conceptual model of zero time.  It's what gives rise to concepts
like the Holographic Universe.

I recall on a thought experiment (exploring common sense) I was looking at
the concept of fractional dimensions. Like the Mandlebrot, but the question
I asked myself was, what would a fractional dimension look like if we
experienced one?   There has been a movie of the flat world (a 2D universe)
experiencing its interaction with a 3D world.  You know the circle forming
when viewing a 3d sphere interesting a plane.   So my thought experiment
was what if one and only one of the dimensions was fractional?   Normally
we think of dimensions as X,Y,Z and t, which act like a 4D index into space
(X,Y,Z) and time (t).  If you pick a space dimension like X, we can
envision it as a horizontal position in space.  What would it look like if
X was fractional?   Common sense would say that it would have a
boundary that is no longer an integer but could be limited to only a
direction forward (note forward is a reference to time).  However, from the
Flatworld POV, such a clipping of a dimension would be a dimension that can
only progress forward.

What if time was in reality a fraction dimension incapable of time
reversal?  Time as a fraction dimension could not move backward.  From our
perspective, time is an arrow, a ray, but what if that is what the 4th
dimension is?  A fractional dimension.   When you look at special
relativity from that perspective, things make a little more sense
conceptually.  It really makes the Holographic Universe concept seem even
more profound.

[Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jonathan Berry]

A few updates...

First because the Michelson Morley claim seemed plausible but not totally
conclusive, I wasn't doing the math myself and math isn't my thing so I
farmed that out to AI's that kept on having different ideas so to be sure I
had to really drill down and figure out the best most pure way to do so.

I realized the easiest way was not to deal with a moving medium at all!
But instead to change the velocity of the wave in the medium and
recalculate!
See, if a medium is in motion relative to us, then the motion of the wave
is either increased or decreased relative to our frame, so there is no need
to deal with the complicating effect of moving mediums as we get the same
number of waves in a given space is the waves have the same speed
regardless of how that is achieved.

So say you have a wave that moves at 1000 meters a second and you have a
10khz signal, in 10 meters distance you have 100 waves (it takes 0.01
second for a wave to traverse the distance and in that time there are 99
buddies behind him),
So what happens if we increase the wave velocity to 1.5 times?  Well then
it would take 15 meters to fit 100 waves and as such we have in just 10
meters 2/3rds of those 100 waves, or 66.666 waves.

And if the waves moved at half the speed, how many waves would fit in the
10 meter space?  Well, double!

So if we had the medium being stationary and in a 10 meter space we would
have 200 waves, consisting of 100 waves in each direction, yes superimposed.

But by having waves go 1.5 times faster in one direction but only half as
far in the other direction, this is meant to simulate the medium moving at
half the speed of the waves we get 66.66 + 200 = 266.66 waves.

So it turns out the Michelson Moley experiment DOES potentially tell us
something about Ether drift.

It doesn't tell us there isn't an Ether, and it doesn't confirm Lorentz
transformations though Lorentz transformation might explain why we might be
moving through and Ether and not detect it.

But another possibility is that there is an Ether and we aren't moving
through it but entraining it.

On the whole I am happy to accept that Lorentz transformations might, as an
absolute thing in line with Lorentz Ether Theory, exist.

And I have now heard LET be termed Lorentzian Relativity, and it is that,
but it is a form of Relativity with an Ether, with a prefered frame.  Of
course Einstein believed in an Ether in 1920 and compared it to matter.

What is most interesting however, that based on a reply from Roger Anderson
who saw my post, I ended up finding a few interesting notes and here they
are...

According to Sabine Hossenfelder  YouTube Physicist and fellow INTJ, Time
dilation DOESN'T OCCUR from steady state motion!  That is another change to
Special relativity   -  muons shouldn't survive longer either at speed if
she were correct.

This is interesting as relativistic time dilation seems to have been the
core component of SR in the 1905 paper, and AFAIK it was in the even
earlier Lorentz formulations even though time dilation isn't used to
explain null interferometer results.

Also if there is no time dilation, well sure you don't get twin Paradox
issues which is good, but there become some other serious issues, think of
a photon of light bouncing between parallel plates being used as a clock:
__

   o
__

If you move at a significant velocity (what this means in terms of SR is
debatable) to the right then the light is taking a zigzag course, and as
such if it isn't to be superluminal it must be ticking slower though not to
our perception moving with the light clock but to the fame that sees it as
a zig-zag. If all frames are to seem equal. So time dilation can't be
thrown out as Sabine tries.  With an Ether frame this light clock makes
perfect sense with SR you have time dilation that being relative to nothing
becomes paradoxical in ways described, and the rest frame can be learnt be
removed of temporal Doppler effects.

I guess what this means is that there are different types of time dilation
we need to distinguish.  There is gravitational time dilation, and
equivalent acceleration time dilation (G-force time dilation, one
experiment reportedly disproved), illusory Doppler shift time dilation
(which can be removed by calculation) and the TRUE time dilation, which has
been hidden by SR all this time because it is relative to motion through an
Ether!  This is absolute motion based time dilation and with it the light
clock stops being so impossible and paradoxical.

And according to various Youtubers and even the LLM's, Relativistic mass
was thrown out as a part of Relativity in 2008!?  This was a shock to me!
Also it wasn't in Einstein's original theory either.
It is interesting how I have heard it as the reason Photons can't have any
rest mass, because it would turn infinite at C, and same with the utter
impossibility of FTL travel.
Originally it wasn't e=mc2, it was e0=mc2.  This means that only rest mass
is considered!  The most 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jonathan


That video wasn't mine, but it explains quite a lot of the basics.

If going into more detail then things get more complicated. What I have 
been looking at is Einstein 1905 paper on special relativity - and the 
physicist Sommerfeld changed it into a different theory when translated 
into English, and seems to have persuaded Einstein to go along with the 
changes. It was not a straight translation from German into English -> 
amendments were made, so the translation is not the same as the original 
theory.


There was no mention of the Michelson Morley experiment in the 1905 
paper; so how the Michelson Morley experiment was to be understood in 
the context of special relativity was an add-on later. Similarly, other 
things like relativistic mass was an add-on after 1905 etc. So, most of 
what we know of relativity is add-ons (and other changes) to what was 
said in 1905.


When you refer to special relativity -> "It's a Fankenstein's monster, 
with parts constantly needing to be changed out."


Yes, that's it.

But when arguing with people who believe in Einstein's relativity - 
"they" think that making changes is the way science is done. Which means 
"they" don't believe in a definitively defined theory, but instead 
believe in a theory that is in constant flux/change.






-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 22:40
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

Oh, I didn't make the connection of the name until now, I am watching a 
presentation you made (only got half an hour in last night), this one:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY&t=8s 




But I should I guess watch the video you suggest, but I'd happily have a 
discussion on here with you and pick your brain, I also watched the 
video that you mentioned in that other video: 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY&t=8s 




It is amazing to learn that Relativistic mass has been dropped when that 
was the reason Photons were said to have zero mass and why nothing could 
go as fast as C let alone faster.



Also while I had watched the video I guess Sabine had sufficiently 
confused me in the casual viewing to of her video that I didn't catch 
her admitting that relativistic time dilation isn't real, it seems she 
is just admitting it is just Doppler shift which can of course be 
removed by mere calculation which means that we can effectively 
econstruct real time communication and therefore learn the frame with 
the fastest clocks to learn the aether's true frame.



In addition another thing occurred to me, not only is it impossible for 
the parallel path of the Michelson Morley experiment to experience a 
phase shift as the up and down wind effects seem to cancel (in contrast 
to the 2 way SPEED of light which would be affected by movement, the 2 
way wavelengths remain unaffected if I'm not mistaken) and let the 
perpendicular path owing to the tangential motion of the emitting 
mirrors (or, a laser if you like) IS affected because the light is being 
emitted with a tangential velocity though the Ether and therefore it 
doesn't trace it's path, it is a zig-zag which means more wavelengths 
should fit in both the outbound and return to the angled splitting 
mirror.



Therefore the Michelson Morley interferometer would work in the reverse 
way to how it is conceived and be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude lower 
in the strength of the Ether winds's effect!



The arguments to destroy SR are clearly complete and it is just a case 
of putting them out widely enough that they can no longer pretend 
otherwise.



It is like the Emperors new clothes, if said loudly and clearly enough 
hopefully others will admit it doesn't make sense to them either.



It's a Fankenstein's monster, with parts constantly needing to be 
changed out.



So while I will perhaps watch your videos, it seems a little slow, can 
you give me the basics of what you cover, what the mistranslations ae 
and what else has been changed that I haven't mentioned above?  A recap 
of sorts?



On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 04:18, ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated:


latest:
ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a 
different theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g 



older videos:

Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00 




More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs 



And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated paper 
of relativity and NOT the mistranslated paper



Experimental confirmation that Ei

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jonathan Berry]

Oh, I didn't make the connection of the name until now, I am watching a
presentation you made (only got half an hour in last night), this one:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY&t=8s

But I should I guess watch the video you suggest, but I'd happily have a
discussion on here with you and pick your brain, I also watched the video
that you mentioned in that other video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY&t=8s

It is amazing to learn that Relativistic mass has been dropped when that
was the reason Photons were said to have zero mass and why nothing could go
as fast as C let alone faster.

Also while I had watched the video I guess Sabine had sufficiently confused
me in the casual viewing to of her video that I didn't catch her admitting
that relativistic time dilation isn't real, it seems she is just admitting
it is just Doppler shift which can of course be removed by mere calculation
which means that we can effectively econstruct real time communication and
therefore learn the frame with the fastest clocks to learn the aether's
true frame.

In addition another thing occurred to me, not only is it impossible for the
parallel path of the Michelson Morley experiment to experience a phase
shift as the up and down wind effects seem to cancel (in contrast to the 2
way SPEED of light which would be affected by movement, the 2 way
wavelengths remain unaffected if I'm not mistaken) and let the
perpendicular path owing to the tangential motion of the emitting mirrors
(or, a laser if you like) IS affected because the light is being emitted
with a tangential velocity though the Ether and therefore it doesn't trace
it's path, it is a zig-zag which means more wavelengths should fit in both
the outbound and return to the angled splitting mirror.

Therefore the Michelson Morley interferometer would work in the reverse way
to how it is conceived and be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude lower in the
strength of the Ether winds's effect!

The arguments to destroy SR are clearly complete and it is just a case of
putting them out widely enough that they can no longer pretend otherwise.

It is like the Emperors new clothes, if said loudly and clearly enough
hopefully others will admit it doesn't make sense to them either.

It's a Fankenstein's monster, with parts constantly needing to be changed
out.

So while I will perhaps watch your videos, it seems a little slow, can you
give me the basics of what you cover, what the mistranslations ae and what
else has been changed that I haven't mentioned above?  A recap of sorts?

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 04:18, ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated:
>
>
> latest:
>
> ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a
> different theory
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g
>
>
> older videos:
>
>
> Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00
>
>
>
> More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs
>
>
> And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated paper
> of relativity and NOT the mistranslated paper
>
>
>
> Experimental confirmation that Einstein’s relativity has been misunderstood
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiJZA-trjU
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 13:28
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>
> One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation being
> imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905.
>
>
> i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern
> perspective.
>
> as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jonathan Berry" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>
> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> but it is
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Jonathan Berry" 
>> 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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 thos

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

my videos dealing with Einstein theory being mistranslated:


latest:
ANPA 2023 talk: Einstein's 1905 relativity theory was changed into a 
different theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2-cnot-6g

older videos:

Preview of Proposed talk 2019: EINSTEIN MISTRANSLATED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKD9kXrjQ00


More on the mistranslation of Einstein: lightspeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzBvYTLGZQs

And the proposal that experiments confirm the correctly translated paper 
of relativity and NOT the mistranslated paper



Experimental confirmation that Einstein’s relativity has been 
misunderstood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiJZA-trjU



-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 13:28
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation 
being imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905.



i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern 
perspective.




as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

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  > wrote:


but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry"  >

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  > wrote:


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  ; 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. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. 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 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

One-way and two-way speed of light would be a modern interpretation 
being imposed onto what Einstein was saying in 1905.



i.e. translating what Einstein was saying in 1905 from a modern 
perspective.




as opposed to translating what Einstein was saying from 1905 perspective

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 10:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

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  > wrote:


but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry"  >

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  > wrote:


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  ; 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. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. 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 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jonathan Berry]

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 
wrote:

> but it is
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jonathan Berry" 
> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> 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; 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. > The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
>> > 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.
>> A

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I am now doing AntiRelativity discussions


Number 2 - was some people translate/interpret Sagnac experiment as 
disproves relativity (while others don't)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnN_NX3m_Tw


Number 3 will be on Relativistic mass

Relativity is just being subjected to numerous different interpretations 
- so people have different beliefs as to what it "is"


Same as what happens to other religious texts (such as the Bible) - gets 
different translations



-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 23 At 09:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
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  > wrote:


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  ; 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. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. 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 soo

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

but it is

-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
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  > wrote:


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  ; 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. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. 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 tri