Talk:Lorentz ether theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lorentz ether theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Physics: Relativity / History Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A one-way light speed test

A one-way light speed test is definitely possible. Torr, Doug G. & Kolen, Paul "An experiment to measure the one-way velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation.” Foundations of Physics 12:401–411 (1982) DavidBryanWallace (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does Stellar Aberration not provide a one-way measurement of c? Who are those who 'generally agree' that a one-way measurement cannot be done. (Citations Please) 174.109.113.253 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to the One-way speed of light article and check it out there, but let me prepare you first. It's a circular belief system that most people don't understand the first part of, no less are capable tracing the circle of belief hidden within the system.

A) First the problem is that so many people believe they understand (isotropic) constancy and they do not. They are unaware it's a behavior of no other thing in the universe because.

B) They believe they understand relative simultaneity but they do not because they very commonly conflate it with mere time dilation.

So if you try to address it you'll have 30 different people using the same labels for things that are different beliefs. All of them think they are agree and most of them actually do not. Keep this in mind.

The issue is this: Relative simultaneity, and therefore block universe, is an unambiguous consequence of the assumption of isotropic light speed constancy which is mathematically codified by the procedures of calculation in Minkowski spacetime and associated diagrams.

Therefore we have one system with various consequences that must not be separated: isotropic constancy necessitates conjoining space with time which, therefore, gives relative simultaneity. These are all one mathematical system that is like a machine. They are not separate but different aspects of the same functioning machine.

Now to engage in this battle you must understand how this system really does work, but works radically differently from LET. (IE requires 4 dimensions to ontologically exist for one single moment, whereas LET only requires 3 but the 4th is only notational and merely as possibly faulty perceptions) If you do not clearly understand these nuances between the systems, disengage until you do! I will tell you the appropriate point of engagement however: it is specifically in the legitimacy of Mansouri-Sexl test theory (aether) It is LET in a different form.

The circularity:

1) Minkowski spacetime conjoinment is not empirical science because there is no falsification test for the conjoining of space with time and the promotion of realty to 4D (the 15 years of aether theory before relativity can use the Michelson, and so can relativity, but NOT Minkowski spacetime conjoinment which is an affirmative assertion about isotropic constancy)

2) If one first ASSUMES isotropic constancy and therefore relative simultaneity which falls out from it THEN

3) One can never test the one-way speed of light BECAUSE of relative simultaneity

IE Minkowski spacetime conjoinment is century old metaphysics, not science. Their assertion is that is cannot be falsified via a one-way test because they assume it merely a consequence of all our experimentation. (IT IS NOT) Thus via their very assertions they claim the theory they defend (which they do not realize is specifically isotropic constancy and therefore Minkowski spacetime) is pseudoscience without realizing it.

They just aren't keeping their eye on the ball because they don't understand the two theories well enough to map mathematics to meaning. Like a child failing a word problem because they set up the wrong math but solve the wrong problem the right way, they fail at the nuance of theory that requires two different mathematical setups to properly compare and contrast the two theories. (Einstein Minkowski VS Lorentz Poincare)

Basically the entire circular argument spawns from assuming the factual nature of relative simultaneity separately from realizing it's just another aspect of specifically isotropic constancy instead of anisotropic constancy found in LET. They NEVER understand anisotropic constancy nor realize it can exist. (and has existed for over a century in LET) Finally, however Veritassium made a video that explains some of it so you can actually teach people about anisotropic constancy. [1]Why No one has measured the speed of light

I've been fighting this battle for historical education for 20 years but people are too religious-minded without knowing they are. Religiosity needs no deity or spirituality; it's a faulty manner of conducting belief in one's mind. Pedants are highly religious, ceremonial, and ultra defensive of orthodoxy to the detriment of the science which they hold as their religion. Faulty beliefs about history have become a new religion.

Here is a paper I've had to take a break from but should return to later this year: [2](Early First Draft) Must Minkowski Spacetime be Categorized as Pseudoscience? (Revisiting the legitimacy of Mansouri-Sexl test theory)

Best of luck and god speed Nemesis75 (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]