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> wrote: > >>>seems <<< > > > ??? > > > When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation - > its usually not given. > > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "H L V" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>>
