Loophole: “an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules”. The choice of epsilon sure seems like an ambiguity to me, so I’m not sure what issue you have with the word. And it’s an ambiguity that is mostly ignored by science communicators and something I certainly had never considered until Veritasium brought it up and now Dialect. It’s an especially interesting ambiguity because if epsilon of 1/2 turns out not to be true and given the fact that constant c for all inertial observers is one of SR’s 2 axioms, one wonders if any part of relativity crumbles if one of its axioms is wrong.

I think an important distinction of restoring a notion of absolute space & time as the basis of reality is that you can resolve time paradoxes arising from faster than light travel. If you are allowed to have a master frame, which can be derived by calculating everyone's epsilon, then you will find a frame in which faster than light travel occurred without violating causality. Since you are deriving this frame rather than arbitrarily declaring it, it doesn't beg the question of why that frame is preferred.

My belief is that the absolute space and time you get by having observer dependent epsilon, is precisely the idea of choosing one coordinate system as being absolute truth and having all observers measure things with those coordinates. In general relativity you also can choose a specific coordinate system as being the absolute truth, and ask everyone to measure using the coordinate system's basis vectors and metric tensor, while ignoring the vectors and metric tensor that have better local symmetries.

A very good comment! I am also afraid that if we were to build a rigorous formulation of a theory of physics based on this way of looking at things we might get the same results but different ways how to get to them (and the reason why the mainstream interpretation is the mainstream one is probably because it is the shortest). So maybe there is some value but Dialect makes things sound much more "groundbraking" that they actually are. (I have reservations towards his confrontative tone in general, but I understand that is the rhetorical position he chooses to occupy) I would add that there are other interesting questions connected to it, philosophical ones. Should we even consider things that are unmeasurable in our image of the universe? Is the isotropy of space more important to us or its absolutness? If we can always have only one and not the other, is there a deeper symmetry that describes this trade-off?

Dialect seems to be talking about how one can parameterize spacetime however they want and then do whatever coordinate transform they want. You can say this new coordinate system is "correct" and have everyone everywhere use it to do calculations. In GR, you can't prove this coordinate system is correct per say, but it can still be used everywhere with no issue. In GR, the one-way speed of light is coordinate-dependent and changes with coordinate transforms. This idea of Dialect's isn't considered wrong nor particularly groundbreaking, so the presentation of it as so seems odd. It's possible that it's meant to inform lay people of these aspects of GR though, as they may be surprised by this.

Excellent comment! I was just thinking about gravity waves. If space is not a physical thing, what are gravity waves propagating in? That's like suggesting you can create sound in a vacuum.

@@antonystringfellow5152 How electromagnetic waves propagate? Is electromagnetic field a physical thing?

@@piranhaofserengheti4878 Electromagnetic waves propagate through the electromagnetic field. Einstein's General Relativity tells us that gravity isn't a force but an effect, the effect of curved spacetime. Therefore, there is no gravitational field. If this is the case, how do gravity waves propagate though space?

@@antonystringfellow5152 What is electromagnetic field though? How that field propagates through space in absence of matter? And don't get me started about how you bend something that does not have any properties that can be bent.

@@piranhaofserengheti4878 an electromagnetic field is a "physical" thing in the sense that it is a state of space. A gravitational field is just the same, a state of space, albeit different from an electromagnetic field. Empty space is a very real, physical thing with properties, like a permittivity and permeability constant. In GR it's not space that is bent, it's spacetime, but we need to be very clear about what we mean by that. Spacetime is a geometrical entity, a map of measurements that involves rulers and clocks (which in turn require the definition of a METRIC). What is bent is our definitions of measurements, which appear to change from place to place in gravitational fields.

More like, indistinguishable from special relativity with an arbitrary reference frame chosen as the absolute correct one. I.e. a model with a redundant entity. He even goes to literally make false statements: "In special relativity choosing such a special frame of reference is disallowed". Rather than disallowed, it is just redundant.

Where is the Michelson-Morley experiment in this video?

wow. you should meet my little toddler nephew. i have also convinced him that i have a secret superpower that i am going to reveal to him soon. I have been stringing him along for months, and he still thinks it is all true. his naivete is adorable. But, i dont think even i can fool him for several years, unlike what is happening here.

@@riverchess-so7pr what an insightful comment :/

In Einstein’s version, the equivalence principle asserts that in free-fall gravity ceases to exist and is totally abolished in all possible experiments. And in free fall, general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial non-accelerating weightless state. NIST WTC Towers FAQ 31: As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: "The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass." "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance the building section above came down essentially in free fall." "As the stories below sequentially failed the demand increased on the floors below."

@@riverchess-so7prShould probably save the cynicism for the next video. Nice play at humor though. 😂

Right. The video content creator abuses (misunderstands) the word "arbitrary."

. meaning what, exactly?

That's one of the problems with Dialect's entire argument the fact is that observers are free to choose epsilon. Now in practice, things work easier when observers who are communicating are using the same value of epsilon but that is convenience, not physical necessity.

I would assume that the value of epsilon isn't "picked" by the observer so much as it is demanded by their speed relative to the absolute frame of reference.

@@christopherdixon4472 First of all there is no absolute frame of reference Dialect's entire argument is based on completely misunderstanding the synchrony convention within relativity. The value Epsilon is not about differences in the speed of light relative to the speed of the Observer relative to some hypothetical absolute frame of reference. It is entirely about whether or not the light is heading towards or away from the observer. With the real asynchronous nature of the speed of light when epsilon (e) does not equal 1/2 is still centered around the observer regardless of the frame of reference. In the case of e = 1, the speed of light is always infinite going towards the observer and 0.5c when going away from the observer. In the case of e = 0, the speed of light is always 0.5c going towards the observer and infinite when going away from the observer. The point is that the speed of light is still centered around the observer. In other words, the conventions are based on the light cone. The incoming light cone is always the same speed and so is the outgoing light cone. The convention is entirely the relationship between the speeds of the incoming and outgoing light cones. Here are a couple of Videos that I've done on this topic. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/paViiKWCraiH2Z8.html ukposts.info/have/v-deo/kYh6ha2rrYaSqYk.html

So balance then, Daniel-san. Wax on, wax off... I like it. A lot. And the whole one way of light speed measurement problem hehehe, yeah, there's balance there too that makes it all work out. And both make this place so much weirder than I once thought in my high school physics classes 20 years ago., and even in my college physics classes some ten years ago.

Judging by the number of likes, the average person is expressing his “feelings” - empathy. Logic goes by the wayside

Physics mostly goes over my head. However, that said, spacetime has to be a field of some kind if it was created with the universe, no? If so would be too much to say spacetime is a field of energy at rest? Has no charge either positive or negative. I’m basically asking is could spacetime be the result of energy at its lowest form?

@@Fstop5.6 I think spacetime is a field of actions and quantum fields are fields of energy. For example, if a quantum field has a behavior in a locally flat spacetime, for extreme situations like high energy collisions and compact objects, wave functions have to act differently, because their path's length through space and time has changed. At the moment, though, we are just too used to think only by means of perturbative effects on fields, where changes in actions are neglegible, δS=0. That works fine in QFT, but maybe not on anisotropic spacetime, as at the edge of a event horizon (or the borders of the universe [?]). Things like Hawking/Unruh Radiation are a hint of that change of behavior.

​@@Fstop5.6 pretty sure space/time is more a measuring stick for us to grasp the concept by rather than supposed to be actual matter. On the other hand if you can rip a hole in space/time then it must be a thing... dunno. Pretty sure vacuum of space only has some dust and tons of EM radiation, nothing to warp.

Actually that's incorrect. Both Galileo and Newton gave at least some passing thought to the idea of relativity of all motion (which in fact, would work perfectly well in Newtonian physics - without producing contradictions and paradoxes, as it does in modern physics) - but believed in an absolute space. The two *would* be compatible with each other in a Newtonian framework - but aren't in a modern-physics framework.

It really seems fundamentally impossible to measure. I would think of it more like, you can think of it in a way where space and time are absolute but other laws are relative, or other laws are absolute but space and time are relative. It's just a matter of perspective and usefulness, not of literal truth. Like I don't think different meanings of epsilon connect to different physical predictions about the universe- it's just translating units in different ways

@@mymyscellany but as Dialect has explained in other videos, the twin paradox remains unresolved in a relative universe, suggesting that it's incoherent in some fundamental way for space time to be Actually relative. So we can side with absolute space time on account of logical necessity.

Sean Carroll has said some version of the following numerous times on his podcast. The universe is nonlocal in so many ways, the big question to ask is: why does the Universe appear local? I bring it up just to say that with all the nonlocality in the Universe, it wouldn’t surprise me if we are some day able to confirm or statistically set bounds on the 1-way speed of light.

My revolution in physics has been valid for 28 years because I discovered aliens and realized that we live in the parallel universe, light years are just fairy tale lies because they don't exist. Johann Zdebor January 17, 1995

Thanks for watching! The Michelson-Morley is ultimately a two-way light speed experiment, however its result do imply that some sort of physical length contraction must occur. (This leads us to Lorentz's ether postulate.) In the late 1800s length contraction was a very hard pill to swallow, but we'll explore in upcoming videos why today this is not the case.

@@dialectphilosophy, don't forget LIGO, and thank goodness for contractions and dilations flowing in a wave.

If you wish to understand relativity, do yourself a favor and go somewhere else.

@@dialectphilosophy I used to believe that time dilation and length contraction were supposedly developed as ideas to explain the invariance of the speed of light - but I no longer find this at all convincing. For one thing, they would work against each other. For another - they are described by a non-linear equation - whereas they would only work as an explanation of the invariance of the speed of light, if they perfectly matched velocity - in other words, related to v/c rather than to v-squared over c-squared. At .866c - you only have a Lorentz factor of 2. This would not account for light, still intersecting such an object at c - let alone, it doing so both from the back and from the front. As I have read more recently - what came to be called the Lorentz factor formula was actually deduced directly from Maxwell's equations. My suspicion is now - although it is not what I have read in popular science presentations on the matter - that in fact this may have had almost nothing to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment - but only happened at the same time. Finally - the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a direct measurement of the speed of light - but was only a comparison of the speed of a beam of light, to the speed of another beam of light moving in a transverse direction. Apparently - it was relying on an expected phenomenon similar to "stellar aberration" to register a difference attributable to an "aether wind" (which it did not find - of course). But you can't really call it a two-way light experiment - without pointing out that it was actually a four-way light experiment. I'm still not sure if I fully understand this - I have only just recently looked into it in detail. Your hypothesis is that light may, to a moving observer, seem to arrive at different velocities in different directions, that cancel each other out in a two-way experiment. So in order to know whether that hypothesis passes the Michelson-Morley test or not - we have to know whether that was actually only comparing the velocities of two two-way beams of light to each other - or whether it was actually looking for a "sideways drifting" of one of the beams of light. My impression that is that the latter is the case - but I'm still not sure if I fully understand this. ------------------ This is very very crucial - because I find your presentation convincing - _if_ Michelson-Morley was _only_ looking for a difference between the two speeds. According to your hypothesis - the light moving both ways along one direction should have canceled out any differences in velocity - and the light moving in the perpendicular direction should have done so as well. But if what it was actually designed to detect is a "sideways drifting" of one of the beams of light - then that argument does not work. It seems to me that Michelson and Morely were not so dim that they wouldn't have thought of that factor - so I think that what they were looking for was the latter - in which case your argument that there may be an aether, after all - does not hold water. _However_ - I like your argument, or explanation - as a way of accounting for the fact that reality, itself, certainly cannot allow for twins-paradoxes to happen all the time - or ever. And yet - I do not find any of the attempts to explain it away, at all convincing. The moment that one looks at them closely - they seem to be "sneaking in" the assumption of a background of motion of some kind or another, the denial of the existence of which they at the same time claim to be upholding. So I think that this is _actually_ , still an entirely unresolved paradox. _Even if your ingenious explanation is wrong_ about the nature of light and how its velocity would be perceived by various observers - it may well be exactly the way forward for understanding the behaviors or characteristics of _material objects_ . That's something that I've been cracking my brains over, for a long time. However I'm wondering if we are still left with a paradox - regarding a seeming contradiction between the way that light behaves (if the logic of the Michelson-Morley experiment actually was sound) - and the way that material objects _must_ behave - if the universe is to make any sense. Keep up the good work - I'm still very much hooked on these novel ideas - even though I'm also skeptical!

Well - let me try thinking through this a little bit harder - again. I don't have solutions - but I do have a question. It seems to me, very very obvious that there must be some "background of motion" anywhere or everywhere, in order that the universe not produce twin paradoxes. I could go into an endless number of arguments explaining why - it is not difficult to do. That is to say that there must be an "absolute frame of rest", anywhere - which if an object is occupying it, it must have a (an _objective_ ) Lorentz factor of exactly 0. So my question is - is it possible to imagine a way in which such an absolute frame of rest could exist - without it requiring the existence of an aether, per se - and _without_ it producing the same phenomena that the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to test for? If that is - the Michelson-Morley experiment was soundly designed - to begin with. It is difficult for me to conceptualize how there could be. If, in relation to an absolute frame of rest - we are moving forward at v₁ - and I throw a baseball in a sideways direction at v₂ - to an observer _in the absolute frame of rest_, the baseball would seem to be moving at a velocity of sqrt(v₁² + v₂²). If photons behaved in that way - we would find photons in the universe moving around, ultimately - at any old speeds - anywhere from near-0 up to anything - light would have no particular speed, in relation to anything - not even to the background frame of absolute rest. And this does not seem to be the case. So I _don't see_ how an absolute frame of rest (which I think, however, must be logically necessary - in order to avoid a twins paradox) can be conceptualized in such a way that it would differ in practical, detectable effect from the hypothesis of an aether. But, _unless the Michelson-Morley experiment was very poorly designed in the first place_ - and has wrongly been believed to be valid, along with all of its similar successors, by physicists ever since - _perhaps_ there is some other way than of conceptualizing such an absolute frame of rest that would differ in some way from the concept of an aether - _as traditionally conceived_? I don't see how this can be done - but in a sense, I think that something like that is the nut that needs to be cracked...

Because we never measured the one way speed of light, we don't know weather light travels at different speeds. since we don't know if light travels at the same or at different speeds, we have no reason to make one assumption more probable than another, so both possibilities are equally probable

@@goawqebt6931 You are correct that we have no reason to assume one is more likely than the other, but that doesn't mean that they actually are equally likely. To assume that is to merely replace the assumption of an uneven probability distribution with an assumption of a uniform one, and there's no reason to do that other than mathematical elegance/simplicity, which was the problem with the original assumption that epsilon = 1/2.

The idea that there is a master frame sure seems at least equally probable as relativity, in principle. But in the master frame hypothesis, you have to explain: why is it that the laws of physics never allow us to measure anything related to this master frame? It seems like a conspiracy of nature, which suddenly makes it less likely. To me it doesn't pass Occam's razor.

@@thealienrobotanthropologist How does an invariant speed of causality propagation prevent causal explanations?

​@@iamnotamemeoccam's Razzor is not a fundamental physical principle, one can prove the earth is flat with it...

In Einstein’s version, the equivalence principle asserts that in free-fall gravity ceases to exist and is totally abolished in all possible experiments. And in free fall, general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial non-accelerating weightless state. NIST WTC Towers FAQ 31: As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: "The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass." "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance the building section above came down essentially in free fall." "As the stories below sequentially failed the demand increased on the floors below."

What about the doppler effect in the 2-way travel of light for at least finding out the direction of motion in an inertial frame of reference?

Have you forgotten about inertia? The floors below collapsed because the floor above slammed into it. They were in different inertial frames. I know, I was there. @@davidmudry5622

The premise is false. It is easy to sync the 2 clocks with any epsilon: =>5 | travel time to clock 2 3, 5 | send 41 (46,52) | save 52-41=11 somewhere at clock 2 5 | send -5 (52,58) | calc 11-5=6

No we don't.

I think we could synchronize two clocks in frequency by phase locking one to the other. By moving them apart they would however not show the same time but they would measure past time the same. We could also know the distance between them. I believe a signal front from one clock point send at a given time count on clock A could then be noted to arrive at a clock count on clock B. This in itself would only give us 2 numbers but no actual result however if we did the same the other way I think we could work some thing out from the 4 numbers we would have. They could be taken to any point as numbers independent of time for the calculations. It is possible we should have a 2 way count as well but theoretically we could use the normal speed of light over a distance to give the 2 way count.

But given an intertial frame of reference rulers and clocks are consistent

@@anuman99ful That is probably correct but that doesn't help us. As soon as we move a clock even in the train it will change time. The problem is that we don't have anything that is instant. That is light takes time to travel from where it is emitted (reflected) to get to our eye's. As soon as we are in what is called the Far Field which is longer than one cycle of the frequency we use to see with (light) and that is a very tiny distance we are no longer in the same frame as what we see is already out of time.

If you don't understand math or physics then you will think this guy has some sort of idea how things are. if you do, you know this guy has no clue.

@@markiv2942 The stuff with the epsilons? It is drawing on the work of several physicists. There are varying opinions and interpretations of many things. It's not the mainstream understanding - but that's not saying the same thing. The idea of an aether, too, continued to be supported by a few major physicists even after Einstein's publication of his special relativity paper.

Choosing different values for epsilon destroys causal structure.

The epsilon values correspond to the shift vector (aka the dt•dx terms of the 4-metric)

@@codetoil Can you elaborate? The shift which I know as beta is usually a vector in the ADM formalism of GR. I think his epsilon is simply the value c for the speed of light.

@@youtubesucks1885 The epsilon measures anisotropicies in the one-way speed of light. But anisotropicies are directional. This leads to 3 epsilon components, one for each spacial direction. These correspond to the 3 components of the Shift vector.

In addition, the freedom to choose your epsilon vectors constitutes 3 out of the 4 components of the diffeomorphism symmetry of gravity.

I think that there are exactly 3 degrees of freedom in the choice. You can select an epsilon for 3 orthogonal spatial directions. But for all other directions, you must calculate the epsilon from the 3 components.

If you are measuring things spherical coordinates, or assuming a curved universe, you must invoke general relativity. The video focuses on special relativity. But yes, you can choose a different definition of flat space with your choice of 3 epsilon values in 3 orthogonal directions, then rederive general relativity with your new definition of locally flat space.

3 dt•dx terms for each of the epsilon components.

GR is just outdated, it has its use, just like Newtonian still has its uses, but it's just a geometric trick, it won't help to understand anything. The real issue is that it's an heresy to publicly state that truth, despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics already made relativity obsolete, which was the reason it took so long to Einstein to accept it! Now it's really time to get over it!

@@armandaneshjooWhat gave you „quantum gravity“? That Dirac worked for years…? So the problem is solved?

Im getting the same feeling as well. I wanna see Dialect cover the michelson Morsley experiment and how it relates to Dialects interpretation of Relativity.

He's been saying a lot of things that I have been thinking for a long time, but he has also said some novel things I didn't think of before. I am curious.

I suspect that dialect will argue that dilation is a consequence of the isotropic assumption of the speed of light, and that assuming a universal reference frame will cause time and space dilation to disappear.

@@challox3840 Au contraire, under this interpretation, we must absolutely accepting the phenomena of time dilation and length contraction. However, we will, for the first time, be able to give them causal mechanism.

@@dialectphilosophy Yeah, exactly. And after adopting the non-Lorentzian coordinates you describe in the video, all observers besides those at rest in the "one true rest frame" will interpret even their own clocks as dilated and rods as (direction-dependently) contracted. Looking forward to seeing the animations you come up with to illustrate mechanical time dilation and length contraction.

@@dialectphilosophy huh, sounds very interesting! I'll be excited to see that in an upcoming video.

You unwittingly succumbed to manipulation. There is obviously no real relativity in this video. Consider for yourself: How systems 1 and 3 behave among themselves relative to system 2, where the following velocity dependence holds relative to system 0: 0 < V1 < V2 < V3 For simplicity, consider the movement not along the axis of the experiment, but across it.

you might think you're smart person

Relativity physics works the same. But who knows if directionally based one-way speed of light could make some predictions. Guess we need to look into the quantum world.

There are preferred frames of reference, e.g. the center of the galaxy we're living in. But the video did NOT say that there is a preferred frame of reference. It just said we could reformulate the equations of special relativity (and all the equations of physics that are relativistically covariant) in a way to work with a preferred frame.

@@renedekker9806 I see. a follow up: 1. If einstein relativity is consistent with different choice of ε for different observers, and that the one-way speed of light can't be measured independently from two-way speed of light (my 2nd question), is there really a problem with einsteinian relativity? seems like whatever ε happens to be for different observers don't affect measurement results anyway, like picking a gauge in electromagnetism 2. If an absolute frame exists and it can be anything, how is all of this even make sense? What if its changing, uncertain, or not unique even? I got this feeling that the "loophole" in einstein relativity is way overblown and that the end of the day it wouldn't change anything

@@renedekker9806 "The choice of absolute frame is just a convenience one. It does not make a difference for the physical outcomes." the video didn't _seem_ to lean in this direction Overall I think its more clear now. Thanks for your insight.

Enter Mach’s Principle

@@timjohnson3913 I still have to get my head around that topic, lol. I haven't yet understood the sutble problems and questions completely there. Basically it is very similar, isn't it? You can define a centrifugal force and a corriolis force in a rotating frame, but at the end, even tho mathematically equivalen, it is more sensible to express the laws of nature in a frame that transforms away any such extraneous forces.

@@nsacockroach4099 I think of the main thrust of Mach’s Principle to be that the distant mass of the Universe is the cause for local inertia since there is inertia with respect to rotation and rotation occurs with respect to distant Universe. So my hint at Mach’s Principle was more of a suggestion that this could be used as the “global frame” you were asking for. One thing to keep in mind with understanding Mach is that if you try to, for example, explain Newton’s bucket by centrifugal forces and inertia you have already blown past the point of Mach because Mach was looking for a reason to explain inertia and thus centrifugal forces.

@@timjohnson3913 What do you mean by "distant mass of the universe"?

The frame of reference or the rest frame must be the background quantum field.

That's an interesting point to raise. Our knowledge of phase vs. group velocity is very limited, but others have mentioned similar issues as what you suggest here. We will be looking into wave mechanics more thoroughly at some point.

Is it though? If I rotate faster within your field of rotation, then I won't see you rotate

If i may: I strongly suggest: The origin of mass by Nassim Haramein And: Wilhelm Weber electrodynamics ( good paper on google ) which sort of correlate with Nassim's latest work But what is understood is that space-time is the zero point energy field which mediates momentum/inertia, waves light and its modality causes gravity Since feynman disc paradox shows that electricity acts on inertia it follows that you can use capacitors, solenoids and dielectrics in various ways to get electric propulsion. (Which was achieved by EM drive, IVO quantum drive and other experiments following Mike McCulloch formula) Perhaps relativisticly rotating ionized mercury gasses and applying electric fields and magnetism via solenoids could also influence the sorrounding ZPE to gain buoyancy or something. But there must be a way

Possibly. I've never calculated the difference in path length for two different rays around a gravitational lens so I don't know if you have to assume some speed of light to do it. You might have to to calculate the deflection.

No because, the arbitrary nature of excellent only affects the speed of light going to and from the observer. Like going 90° to that path will always be at c relative to the observer. The value will be similar between c are you coming value for light that is coming in at an angle. Consequently, such calculations result from the fact that gravitational lensing causes the light to have a slight angle to it.

It wouldn't be a very precise measurement. In general, astronomical distances can only be estimated very approximately.

There's very poor evidence they're viewing things through "gravitational lensing" though they love to invoke it, a 1 in 100 million chance event, constantly.

It's only impossible to measure one way speed of light in vacuum. You can measure it in medium, or use electromagnetic field as a proxy. I suppose no one disagrees that if speed of light in vacuum is different in different directions it would be different in medium too?

Popper does not agree. Although it is impossible _to verify_ a scientific hypothesis, _it is possible to falsify it!_ From the hypothesis you make a prediction. You set up an experiment, and when the outcome of this experiment turns out to contradict the prediction you _have falsified_ the hypothesis, at least under the circumstances of the experiment. So we can never know whether we are right. But we _are able_ to find out whether we are wrong! Popper was very cautious in stating his epistemology, because he basically could not accept the idea, that _truth_ as such is an unscientific concept. Truth is basically _a religious concept!_ Therefore the whole idea of truth should not be a part of science. What we have are fantasies, which we call scientific hypotheses. The origin of any scientific hypothesis _is not observation, is not existence but is always a guess!_ Therefore it comes from our fantasy. After having created a hypothesis with our powers to fantasize, we can then use it to deduce consequences by mathematical and logical means. If, in our experiments, we do not succeed in producing an outcome that contradicts our consequences within our measurement-tolerances, the set of all consequences thus tested become _a region of applicability!_ If we refine our experiments, and make the conditions ever more extreme, we can hit upon phenomena that contradict our logical and mathematical derivations. And then we can say, that under those more extreme conditions, and with more accurate measurement -tolerances (more digits behind the dots) our theories do not make the correct predictions, and therefore we now know _when_ our hypotheses do no longer lead to predictable results. And then we are faced with the problem to construct a better theory, that _is able_ to produce the new results. We must then use our creativity/ability to fantasize to create other hypothesis that are _not_ in contradiction with these more refined measurements, _and_ which are also _not_ in contradiction with all earlier results of previous, less accurate measurements wherein the deviations could not be observed. In that case, we have formulated a new theory that has a wider domain of applicability. So, _the content of all scientific theories do not consist of reality as it is, but only as it appears to us = whether it is not inconsistent with our assumptions!_ (Kant: although all knowledge _begins_ with experience, knowledge _does not arise out of experience_ (Kritik der Reinen Vernunft!) 'Das Ding an sich' is unknowable. But, according to Popper, we _can find out_ whether we are wrong! That is what we basically do when we experiment. A nice example is that the GPS system we use in our smartphones _require general relativity_ to be able to locate us within a few meters. Newtonian mechanics didn't cut it!

Question: If we really can establish an experiment that proves that light speed varying? I mean can we measure this even theoretically? If there is no experiment that can prove this is it meaningful for us? If it is only makes math more complex and doesn't bring anything new consequences which we are able to measure does it than make any sense?

@@dmytrooleinichenko9865 Many do not realize that all scientific theories originate in our fantasies. Popper has shown that there is no such thing as 'induction from facts'. The only thing we can do is use our creativity/fantasy to create hypothesis, and then to see whether there are facts that contradict them. This is why we should stick to our most simple hypothesis, _until_ there is a fact that contradicts such a hypothesis. We can _never_ prove that anything _is right!_ We can only attempt to prove ourselves wrong. And if that fails, we have found a domain of applicability of our fantasy. But as soon as we set up an experiment that contradicts a prediction, _we know_ that we are wrong! So, all _real_ knowledge consists of _knowing that we are wrong!_ So, we cannot find truth. But we _can_ find certainty. Certainty that within a certain domain we do not find exceptions to our hypothesis. A certainty that comes from experiments. But as far as _the contents_ of our theories is concerned, they can _never_ be considered descriptions of reality _as it is!_ They can only be theories that tell us that, and under what circumstances, reality _appears to us!_ As Immanuel Kant said: although all knowledge _begins_ with observation, it does not _arise out of_ observation. The ultimate source of all of our knowledge is our own fantasy, because that is where all knowledge begins. An origin our theories _can never escape!_

@@konradswart4069 Uhm, not really. We still cant falsify a single hypothesis without adding the auxiliary hypotesis one. A big example come from the discovery of Neptune. By using Newlon law of gravity we can predict planet law very accurately. But then, 19th century scientists discover that Uranus orbit a bit different than predicted. So Newton gravity law falsified on the 19th century? Well not really. Instead of falsify/ modify Newton law, some scientists suggested to modify the auxiliary hypotesis: 'there are 8 planets instead of 7'. So, by assume an unknown planet which affect Uranus orbit, they can save Newton law. It really did work! And we now called this planet as Neptune. Of course the same strategy didnt work to explain Mercury peculiar orbit, but that is another story.

The Lorenz transformations are not ad-hock postulates by themselves, they are derived from the presumption of different one-way light speed and you are totally right that two-way light speed isotropy is only preserved if we add Lorenz contraction factor into the picture. This contraction may seem difficult to explain at first, but it is not. It is possible to add anisotropic changes in the fields like EM field that are directly derived from the different two-way speed of light in a moving reference frame, and this change in the EM field will directly produce length contraction in the direction of movement and no contraction in the perpendicular direction. Yes these make the picture more complex than the false assumption of constant isotropic one-way speed of light, but who is saying that nature phenomena are not more complex than our first created model.

Believe me I don’t have the brainpower to understand the video but I think that what the video is saying is that the statement that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference is a consequence of choosing e=1/2 as your epsilon.

@@jonnelson9760 yes, indeed that is the case, the one-way speed of light is constant in all inertial frames because of this choice of epsilon, which means we have to be very skeptical about it, however the two-way speed of light is constant in inertial frames, that much we do know so my point still stands

I'm just trying to understand everything you wrote, but how did you derive at the t1 = e*(t1+t2) ? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

@@jojo_125 Well, t1+t2 is the total time, it's the time the light beam requires to go from A to B (t1), to bounce back and go from B to A (t2), since we defined epsilon to be the time it takes the beam to travel from A to B divided by the total time, that means that t1 = e*(t1+t2) For example if e=2/3, it would take the beam of light 2/3 of the total time to go from A to B

The aether doesn't produce drag. There, fixed. Or at least to the extent there's any drag, it's to enforce a limit of C on electrically neutral bodies.

I don't see how this address MM. You have to explain why you can't detect the difference between orthogonal light speeds. The classical wave analogy (sound for example) doesn't explain it, as a MM type experiment for sound would detect a difference. @@paulthomas963

The experiment compares two different two-way speeds of light. While dialect is saying that one-way speed of light is relative to observer but two-way stays constant.

Thanks for watching! You are correct; as we state in the video, this interpretation and Einstein's are empirically and formalistically equivalent. However, this interpretation WILL grants us something Einstein's theory can't: causal mechanisms for the phenomena of time dilation and length contraction. Stay tuned!

@@dialectphilosophy It must be understood that clocks have nothing to do with time. Throw clocks away for they do not measure time nor do they sentiently detect time. In the video t1, t2, t3 are different because if you send a photon from point A at t1 to point B arriving at t2 and photon bounces from B back to A arriving at t3 cannot do it instanataneously. When the photon hits point B it MUST stop by deceleration. When the photon bounces back to A it must start its way there by acceleration. And the reversal of direction is NOT instantaneous. Therefore, the photon is slowed down by this reversal and as the video says it is impossible to see it two way street progress of the photon. It comes from the fact that noting happens in zero time. You can't run a 100 meter sprint in 0 seconds. It is impossible. Thus, the photon cannot reverse its course instantaneously for in order to do that it must stop and then go the other way. As far as simultaneity it depends on the angle of the observer in relation to the signal or signals being transmitted. It is a completely different picture and a different frame when one is seeing the signal passing parallelly to the observer and different when the observer is positioned perpendicularly to the signals being sent. So, angles here make a difference and one can calculate from pythagorean theorem the distances by the angles and when the triangle is not a right triangle then simple formula for finding the highth of the triangle can be used. There is no definition of time, therefore time is static and the speed of light can vary.

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d acceleration of photon from 0 to c? lets say you have layman emmision of Hydrogen atom from n2 to n1 orbit. If electron accelerated from 0 to c it will have a little bit less energy, than difference in energy of electron jump. There is a reasons why bosons moves only at c

@@user-qd2nd6hi8j Thank you for your response. So, you are saying that electron accelerates. Does it accelerate smoothly or does it jump? It seems like there is a contradiction here between a jump and an acceleration. Acceleration is continuous and a jump is discontinuous. And if it jumps from n1 to n2, what happens to the electron between the jumps?

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d No one knows. My guess: instantly, by warping space-time, and afterwards space time became smooth again and energy manifests in photon

Very well said... we will indeed be arguing that anisotropy is required in future videos. (We already technically argued it, albeit implicitly, in our previous time dilation video). The problem we're having is that the relativistic mindset is so ingrained in peoples mind's that we're having to walk them little by little backwards out of that territory, a very difficult task indeed. Relativity never really made logical sense, so most people who have accepted it have done so with an almost religious or ideological mindset, i.e. the "this is what must be right or else!" kind of thinking, and thereby feel that any criticism of the theory presents an outright existential threat. And at some level, you sort of have to be a crank or a crackpot to want to do theoretic physics... so we don't mind the name-calling 🤪

without anyproof? you should look into tons of experiments trying to measure anisotropy - and none every found any

​@@TheDummbob I know what you are thinking of, and these tests are not related to the discussion at all. You are talking about tests that don't take into account time dilation and length contraction. Veritasium did a video on the one way speed of light that is related to this video. It shows how we literally can't compare the speed of light in one direction to another, or even measure the one way speed of light. This would be required to accept or reject either isotropy or anisotropy. That's why there is no proof. If you watched the Veritasium video or this one, you'd see that there would actually be no way to say whether light was moving relative to different frames at different speeds (which is anisotropy). In fact, our reference frame can make the assumption that light moves isotropically relative to itself, but *not* all the other frames. Other frames can also make the same assumption. It's literally the only things we can all agree on. Yet, relativity says light is moving at equal speeds in all directions relative to all frames. This is nonsensical to many people, but considered a feature of the relativistic model, and attempted to be explained with 4d representations. The problem is that it should be impossible to say whether there is an absolute reference frame or not. Despite this, we assume there isn't... However, this assumption could conceptually change how we view how the universe works... and most scientist commonly accept that anisotropy doesn't exist. Yet, there is zero evidence for it, nor can evidence ever exist for it. The big conceptual difference is what separates the universe from being potentially purely 3D or 4D.

ok i read on the topic and realized that this is just going to the old Lorentzian ether: it says it has absolute time and psace, but actually needs to introduce length contraction aswell as clocks running at different speeds. I get it now it s just a question of what you prefer philosophically. My philosophy of physics prefers relativity over lorentz ether, because to my mind, clocks and rods are what we use to measure space and time with,m and what we think about space and time originates from these measuremnts. absolute space and time are not physical since they are not measurable ever@@nickr7437

@@TheDummbob Well, we don't actually need ether... but, its the same principles. I think its more than philosophical though. There is a perceived conflict between QM and relativity, because of the relative and continuously translatable nature. QM needs some fixed spatial and temporal structure, because its dealing with things like photons and EM forces should always behave the same regardless of a person's SR perspective. So, if you were to throw away the relative interpretation, I think you'd be forced to explain length contraction and time dilation in terms of QM. So I do think it matters. But, this goes back to what I was saying. When everyone accepted relativity, everyone collectively just accepted Einstein's premise. You say you forego absolute space's existence because its impossible to measure, but so is a fourth timelike dimension. It seems silly to me to have to add dimensions to the universe to support an idea that doesn't actually require the extra dimension. Not only that, but even if you add a 4th dimension, its still not actually possible to reconcile the different references frames in regards to the actual position of light. So in my opinion, its still contradictory... Its an explanation with no evidence, that is far more complicated, and isn't required. I get that people find Einstein's explanation more "neat", but that should have no impact on what we accept.

Hey! The several references we used are listed in the description section. There's probably a good deal more of them out there -- there was a popular flurry of "test-theories" published in the 80s after the Mansouri and Sexl paper, but the 1998 paper by Anderson, Vetheraniam and Stedman will probably suffice to address a number of your broader questions. As these papers show, there is certainly a lot of mathematical fun to be had playing with around with epsilon and its implications! But we are however more interested in hammering down a consistent physical picture to give to the theory, whether it proves exciting or not 🤷‍♂️

@@dialectphilosophy do you have some evidence against the geocentric universe

Consider these items as well: IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?

Someone said: space is information And also it seems natural to me that there is infinite amount of energy (so actually correct that it cannot be destroyed or created hehe)

I do ask intriguing questions btw 👍

* u do

can you break this down

Electro-Positronic Field: -ve gas binds a ball of +ve cells freed by Full Escape Energy as electron_positron pairs -- Spin: particles pull gas in/pump it out (to others in magnetic circuits made +ve as moving gas neutralises cells less) -- Mass: gas acceleration drags cells further apart inwardly but closer laterally. +ve shells, -ve gaps, packed core -- Dark Gravity: gas flows from voids so their field expands, to galaxies so their field contracts, warping space(time) -- Heavy Force: mass multiplier mechanism pulls in field before annihilating all particles but (anti) protons/neutrons -- Heavy Fusion: in the Big Bang (and stars?) 2 positrons oppositely hit 1 electron (more than 2 electrons hit 1 positron) -- Positronium: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau -- Antimatter: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau -- Lifetime: Velocity (and gas density?) slow Local Time. (Anti) muon/tau heavy force starts after it slows from near C? -- Beta- Decay: pep_e => pep e. Beta+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p. Weak Force: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs -- Nuclear Force: neutron electrons bond to protons. Mass and magnetism compact and strengthen the nucleus -- Black Hole: atoms cut into neutrons fused as tau cores (epep). Field spins, time slows, core annihilates, no singularity -- Dark Matter: more (anti) muon/tau (solitary cores?) as the galaxy thins out? 'Black hole spin'? Quantised inertia? MOND? -- Photon: compressed, concentrated gas wave core pulls in field cells as it passes. Field warps diffract and interfere -- 2 Slit Experiment: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides -- Inertia: energy lost moving through the field is returned as the field rebalances behind with a kick straight on -- Entropy: simplicity. Time reduces closed system complexity. Universe's simplest state is perfectly ordered empty field -- Entanglement: correlation broken by measurement? Physical link?

The whole video felt like unraveling a puzzle or mystery. Everything suddenly makes intuitive sense now

No. This, and the previous related video, is immediately becomes meaningless if we consider it this way: A. systems moving not along their axis, but across. B. If we consider systems 1 and 3 among themselves in system 2, where the systems move according to the following speed law: 0 < V1 < V2 < V3. In other words, Dialect is intentionally not independently relative; he are considering one point of view, not several, a priori is not relativity.

@@user-tm3rd7zj5b he's planning to cover more cases in other videos

Well, proper time progresses more slowly in the reference frame of the Cosmic Microwave Background than it does in any other reference frames after adjusting for any gravitational influences. So is that close enough in the universe we currently have access to?

You seem to have missed the fact that epsilon is an arbitrary value selected by the observer. You can have two observers in the same frame of reference using different values of epsilon. Also, while you can change the value of epsilon that you are using at any time, you're not going to get consistent results. Also, one thing that Dialect slipped up on is that regardless of the epsilon the speed of light in any given direction it's still centered around the observer.

@@ChuckCreagerJr But, we have CMB, so we can choose epsilon relative to CMB, who is the same for ALL of us.

@@marchidan21 Except that Epsilon is about the speed of light relative to the observer it is Epsilon relative to CMB or anything else. Furthermore, why you could set a standard Epsilon that is used is still an arbitrary figure, there may be various reasons for using a different Epsilon at different times. Also, there is an Epsilon that is generally used and that is 1/2. It doesn't change the facts any, just has the simplest calculations.

@@ChuckCreagerJrEvery object in motion can calculate his sped relative to CMB and them can calculate his epsilon relative tu CMB. CMB is not arbitrary, is fixed for everyone, so that it make a perfect coordinate system. Relative to this coordinate system we can have absolute simultaneity.

Are you talking about ScienceClic, PBS Spacetime, and Science Asylum?

Also, what do you mean by “point of view”

Oh ya! Science clic love that guy. Dialect is the new king in my opinion anyway. Don’t be jealous science clic; love you just the same. I see where all the stuff is going. The puzzle has been mostly solved, it’s just the interpretation that remains the problem. I just wish we were able to solve space-times flow into mass and energy. (Aka gravity). What the heck is going on, what’s the mechanism. I highly doubt it’s a boson? More fundamental Physics? Gosh I want to know so badly.

Hopefully, you are more attached to finding out the true nature of our physical reality than to any YT channel…

Dialect cites his sources which some channels rarely do.

I think the idea is that the one-way speed of light changes for different observers exactly because they're moving relative to absolute space.

Michelson and Morley’s experiment didn't actually measure the speed of light in different directions though did it? They just claimed to.

​@alexjohnward There were a lot of experiments with interferometers pointing in a lot of different directions during a lot of different times of year, for many different durations, over many years.... *all* of these experiments measured no difference in the speed of light under any of these circumstances.

I guess my underlying point is, if we assume that light travels the same speed in every direction, that requires fewer assumptions. If we assume something else, I feel like the epsilon corresponds to something in the real universe, ie is not just an arbitrary value. And if so, then for an epsilon not always equal to 1/2, I feel there is a burden on the person making that claim to explain why that makes sense. We may not be able to test it, but that should have some explanation of why light’s one way speed galactic east is faster than its one way speed west, and similarly at any angle to that direction.

@@alexjohnward Sort of. They measured the difference between the light moving parallel to the Earth's travel and light moving perpendicular. If there was an ether it was waving, the distances it would have to travel would be different. Going a mile upstream then downstream is different than going a mile across the current and back again.

Ah, I just posted about the mirroring time. You beat me to it

I think, the escape velocity of the black hole also becomes direction dependent. The shape of the black hole is already ill defined, the spherical shape is a coordinate dependent phenomenon. The event horizon is a 3D manifold in 4D spacetime, it includes a temporal dimension. You need to slice it at a specific moment in time to define a shape in 3D. And you need a definition of simultaneity to create this slice. But I think that with epsilon != 0.5, in a reference frame where the black hole is not moving, you would indeed get a definition of simultaneity where the black hole is not spherical.

maybe heavy things naturally approach 0.5 so it's hard to tell the difference?

@@alexjohnward epsilon is a property of your model of physics (your choice of coordinates, in fact), objects don't have control over it

@@JubilantJerry The model here suggests all masses can have their own, some below 0.5, some above. When lots of mass connected the numbers might average out close to 0.5

I don't see the problem with applying a tensor formulation to a universal frame, a tensor formulation of gravity already works in newton-cartan models

That's pretty straightforward : Take the Minkowski metric : ds² = dt² - dx² Define the new coordinate x' = x+at You have x = x'-at, so the metric becomes : ds² = dt² - (dx'-adt)² A light ray must obey ds² = 0 so : (v - a)² = 1, where v is defined as dx'/dt This yields two solutions : v = 1+a, and v = -(1-a) If you set a=(1-2ε)/(1-ε), this describes the situation for any ε. For ε=1/2 in particular, we get a=0 and the usual Minkowski metric. Basically choosing a different ε only amounts to slanting the space axis of the spacetime diagram.

@@ScienceClicEN Neat! A check-mark explaining physics. Leaving this reply here, so I can remember it!

Chosing an epsilon other than 0.5 makes the math harder as he has shown in one example. And don't forget that this is all just a Gedankenexperiment. The equations you learn in physics books have the simplest form and are based on the most reasonable assumption: that epsilon be 1/2.

My revolution in physics has been valid for 28 years because I discovered aliens and realized that we live in the parallel universe, light years are just fairy tale lies because they don't exist. Johann Zdebor January 17, 1995

There are lots and lots of pulsars. Pick some perpendicular to the line between your clocks, and you can synchronize to any degree of precision, certainly enough to measure relativistic effects.

Seems very out of charachter for Gödel to be a platonist.

​@@tinkeringtim7999How so? He was a pretty vocal Platonist too, publicly arguing for it.

@jameson44k That's what's written about him. Not what he wrote, the nearest you'll get to that which he wrote is he suspects that one day platonism will be shown to follow from rationalism. His work was challenging the status quo and in particular Hilbert's view - which is often considered platonic but vehemently at odds with Gödel. Bear in mind Gödel and Einstein both considered themselves to be extremely misunderstood in their time. They used to walk together at Princeton, quite alone in their largely misunderstood genius. Quote of Gödel regarding Platonism. "Of course I do not claim that the foregoing considerations amount to a real proof of this view about the nature of mathematics. The most I could assert would be to have disproved the nominalistic view, which considers mathematics to consist solely in syntactical conventions and their consequences. Moreover, I have adduced some strong arguments against the more general view that mathematics is our own creation. There are, however, other alternatives to Platonism, in particular psychologism and Aristotelian realism. In order to establish Platonic realism, these theories would have to be disproved one after the other, and then it would have to be shown that they exhaust all possibilities. I am not in a position to do this now; however I would like to give some indications along these lines. (Gödel 1995, p. 321-2)."

You're absolutely right.

Anything you do to measure those properties incorporates the speed of light in whatever direction in such a way that your measurements will be the same.

Hi @@jmodified Surely the electric and magnetic constants can be calculated by measuring forces on charges due to electric and/or magnetic fields without incorporating c… Isn’t this how maxwell demonstrated the electromagnetic wave properties of light… by using measured values for the electric and magnetic constants (found by measuring forces), and calculating c in his wave equation, showing it was the speed of light. Now, i do appreciate that in rationalised MKS units that the permeability of free space is by its relation to the permittivity of free space and the speed of light, but… That is how Maxwell did it… Both constants were measured (by others) by using forces due to the electric and magnetic fields on charges, and then substituted in the wave equation to find the speed of the EM wave that his theory predicted.

It would be rejected because it dares to questioning Einstein is my opinion.

submit what ? that one way light speed cant be measured ? that is already known and accepted, there is nothing new there

@@riverchess-so7pr obviously there was a whole lot more built upon that idea in this video. I was referring to that. And it might not be that this line of thought is necessarily altogether brand new. It could be submitted as a "letter" or other type of article then.

Epsilon would be a value that measures your own distorted view based on your relative motion to the absolute frame. Nature would only care about the "master" frame at rest, but *we* would only be able to measure with some distortion from our own motion relative to that master frame.

It seems way less contrived to me than having time pass at different rates in different places. I think the mechanism could be the same as we see for sound waves. So long as the medium the sound is traveling through is uniform and it has a uniform velocity with respect to the transmitter/reflector/receiver, the two-way speed of sound is also constant.

Strike that. A quick calculation reveals that the two-way speed of sound wouldn't be constant.

@@Elrog3 I try to visualise space as a pond. Ripples travels at the same absolute speed, regardless of whether caused by a skimming stone or a stone dropped straight from above. But the skimming stone would be travelling at different speeds from the ripples heading in the same direction from those heading in the opposite direction.

@@Elrog3Okay, but also this has been experimentally verified, time time dilation occurs, we’ve seen it.

I think it said “at least kinematically”, meaning they don’t know if it is equivalent for physics beyond kinematics

That's what I would have done. However, you'd have to move the remote clock very slowly to avoid time dilation problems. You could set up a receiver on the moon, say, with its time base originally synced to its Earthbound counterpart. It takes approx 1.3 seconds to get a signal to the moon. This is far enough for a one-way measurement experiment, but not too far for a rocket to take it there in less than say a month. One month wouldn't give much time dilation. It would give some but it should allow an upper bound on epsilon

GR is just outdated, it has its use, just like Newtonian still has its uses, but it's just a geometric trick, it won't help to understand anything. The real issue is that it's considered an heresy to publicly state that truth, despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics already made relativity obsolete, which was the reason it took so long to Einstein to accept it! Now it's really time to get over it!

Except for the fact that it is based on a misunderstanding of the synchrony conventions. Regardless of the value you said for epsilon. The incoming value of the speed of light to the observer it's always the same in every direction, as is the outgoing value of the speed of light. In other words, the speed of light is still centered on the observer. Dialect gets this wrong there is no set of epsilon values in which there is an absolute notion of simultaneity. He come to this conclusion only because he does not understand what is really going on.

There is no "concrete motive" to assume, as a value of 1/2 does, that movement does not affect an object or particle's relationship with space. Movement is relative in every other area of physics but the value of 1/2 assumes that space is the unique exception to this, as though space was not a physical thing. It also assumes that time and space are part of the same entity. While both the above may actually be true, we have no evidence to support these assumptions nor any logical reason to believe they are true. And here's a question for you: If space is not a physical thing, how do gravity waves propagate? Waves require a medium. Science is not a belief system. Let's not treat it as if it is.

@@antonystringfellow5152 Hi! Thanks for the comment! Where did you see me say that space is not a physical thing or any affirmative in this way? Good arguments, though! Just don’t need to be this much reactive.

​@@antonystringfellow5152(Special Relativity makes predictions that have been experimentally tested, just sayin') Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium, and neither do gravitational waves. The "wave" is really just a time-delayed observation of a distant oscillating charge/mass. The direction/angle of the force felt on your test charge/mass changes, which makes it oscillate too. All you need is a straight line force vector between the charges or masses.

At the end of the day the circularity of determining light-speed makes it impossible to know whose frame is the "right" or "ether" frame, at least in the context of special relativity. However, if we take the view that motion is ultimately a human construct, this really isn't a huge issue. For instance, you wouldn't say that the inability to determine which point in space is the (0,0) origin point means absolute space doesn't exist. It just means our descriptions and knowledge of space are relative. In this sense, it is much more consistent to state that we can't know which "frame" is the absolute one, because it would be like saying there is an absolute origin point in a coordinate system. We know there must be an absolute frame, but we are free to choose whichever frame the we like to be the "origin" frame.

@@dialectphilosophy Well, I wouldn't say we _know_ there must be an absolute frame, but it should be possible to assume one without loss of generality. _All_ our measurements are relative, and whatever they're relative to is essentially the absolute frame by definition.

@@dialectphilosophy I would propose that the frame of reference in which the cosmic microwave background radiation is isotropic is a good candidate for an absolute frame of reference. I believe the center of the galaxy moves with a velocity of 600 km/s in that frame of reference.

@@dialectphilosophy One thing I wonder is, if we can freely choose whichever frame we like to be the origin and without any noticieable effect, woudln't this suggest that there is no absolute frame out there? I have a feeling that, in order for a frame to be absolute over others, it should have some unique property to it, shouldn't it?

​​​​@@dialectphilosophy It seems to me that you are speculatively mixing different concepts denoted by one word. The term “Absolute System” has many different meanings. 1. Where there are absolute coordinates. One report point is highlighted relative to another. Center of the world. 2. In systems where there are no absolute coordinates, but there is absolute speed. Ether. 3. There is no absolute speed and coordinates, but there is another absolute. There are absolutes in our universe: 1. coordinates: in dimensions: micro and macro behave differently. particle sizes. 2. Speeds: low and high speeds behave differently. Galactic velocity distribution. But notice that all these absolutes are slightly different, they seem to be perpendicular to the things that we are considering.

There is no physical length contraction or time dilation within an inertial frame. There is only a relative measurement difference due to light traveling between observers in different inertial frames. For this to be always true in an absolute space as well it cannot be purely Newtonian but there are potential workarounds such as time representing an expansion of 3D Euclidian space (which then gives rise to curvature in spacetime). In this formulation, length contraction and time dilation are actually physically manifested by "skipping over" units of absolute space as velocity in space approaches the time expansion of that space (at the speed of light). I suppose other solutions are possible but I haven't seen any. A separate question arises with respect to the quantum interaction between matter, energy and (absolute).space. We know time is also involved in at least one such interaction, gravity. On the other hand, conservation of momentum suggests there is no kinetic interaction of the type suggested in the above post.

Van der waals forces (torque) in the quantum field affect frequency and wavelength which can explain time and length contraction with a physical mechanism, without the need for relativity. Well I guess it is a relativistic effect, but it's electromagnetism not gravity.

No useful information can be sent via QE. According to current consensus anyway.

IE Striing theory. It's not science, its a religion, because one must believe in it when it cant be tested..... like religion. Take the whole UAP thing. There are UAP, for sure or Congress and the DoD wouldnt be taking it so seriously, but to claim we are being visited by "inter-dimensional travelers" is ludicrous. There is no evidence that UAP come from another dimension. A good ole spaceship is good enough explantion without the need for "extra dimensions"

I guess in their argument its just the case that, yes - the maxwell equation have this symmetry - but its just not the case that changing reference frame to another one moving relaitve to the first really correxponds to applying a lorentz transformation to the maxwell equations - they will change their form instead! this is a feature of many wave equations actually: you can think of it like this: a wave equation is invariant under lorentz. this means under lorentz the wave doenst change its velocity. however changning to a different refernece frame physically might actually lead you to a situation where the oneway-velocity of the wave *did* change. that is what he is claiming. im not really byuing it tbh, there have been many experiments specifically testing isotropy, and they all have found that light propagates isotropically indepenent of reference frames. this issue must be adressed, since Dialect implicitly claims that every single one of these experiments draws wrong conclusions from their observations. starting with michelson morley, who TRIED to prove the absolute reverence frame, but found nothing famously

Speed of light is not constant

SAAD can not be used here, at least if our understanding is correct. You can't use SAAD to transfer information, because, essentially, you can't tell the difference between 'reading the current value set by the other end' and 'sending a new message to the other end'.

The electromagnetic force travels FTL. Even wiki admits that. The photon (NOT a particle, it's a wave) in the double slit experiment is just long. That explains the result.

Consider these items also: IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?

If light behaved differently by direction, one side of the sky would look different from the other, particularly in the CMB. This is not the case, as the cosmological principle has already disproven it for large time scales.

@@charlesbrightman4237 "Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above." Good question but yes it has to be loss of energy and there are a few options, the one you mention which could have more than one theoretical mechanism or the other common one is when passing through gas clouds there is a downward shift as energy is passed into the gas. All of your questions are surely worth asking though.

@@charlesbrightman4237 Numbers don't "exist." They're adjectives describing collections of objects. You don't have a three. You have three of something.

@@charlesbrightman4237Charles, you took the words right out of…. . E x a c t l y. The overconfidence of physics is jaw dropping, I think.

That's a really interesting idea. Have you worked that out in any more detail in a paper or some written form you could send to us?

@@dialectphilosophy i haven't done it in any more detail than that yet but i'll try and write it up soon! i'm glad it's interesting and not just nonsense lol

What makes you think the anisotropy must be global to the whole universe as opposed to a local anisotropy?

The anisotropy would be most pronounced at high speeds relative to the master frame. Our planet is not traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, so when you look into the sky you won't notice much. We have measured our motion relative to the CMB, and that might provide a good estimate for epsilon.

Actually, we do see the anisotropy in the cosmic background radiation, which shows a slight redshift in one direction and a slight blue shift in the other.

Guys, this is literally just coordinate transformations. It's completely arbitrary and has no observables.

@@alexdevisscher6784 well, as I said, if there are few percent difference, it would be hard to detect, significant difference would be hard to miss. CMB is pretty homogeneous, fluctuations are in microkelvins. And I just in case looked at the CMB map, for my eye it looks random. There may be a slight difference depending on direction, and it might be even because of tiny speed of light difference. But those differences are most likely random fluctuations due to sound waves in early universe or something else. We definitely don't see any significant differences to believe in possibility of significant variations in speed.

I dont understand sorry. How is time and space absolute if the speed of light isnt constant or is anisotropic. And also is spacetime are absolure does that means that spacetime curvature and time dilation doesnt exist?

I was one of the commenters about this exact thing, still couldn't understand how this was solved. Veritasium posted a tweet about this exact argument after people commented and discussed it

I don't think objection 1 could hold up. Think about a light bulb on a rocket ship heading away at .5c. We know there is length contraction and time dilation... but light still comes out of the light bulb, and you on your assumedly stationary earth can explain why. It would be no different if the rocket ship assumed it was at rest, and the earth was moving at .5c . Everything still works according to the equations derived on the rocket ship. It's all totally explainable. By extension of that, we only need one frame to have actually isotropic light speed. The mass moving relative to this frame would just be deformed, and not know it. Nothing about physics changes. You get to discover the rules of physics in every frame, even if they only are being applied from a single frame.

They're _arguing_ that that postulate is an incorrect assumption. I don't know whether they're right or wrong.

First of all, epsilon is a number selected by convention it is not something that can actually be measured it is a chosen value that basically defines what now is. Second, in any convention, the variation in the speed of light is based on the direction it is traveling relative to the observer. Consequently, the speed within the coil would vary depending upon its direction relative to The observer, which would be the measuring device at the other end of the cable, it would fluctuate back and forth across the entire range depending upon your chosen value of epsilon and always average out to be the speed of light within the optical cable.

I'm focusing here more on this possibility of light having different speeds depending on direction. If, say, light were to have c/2 in one direction but to be instantaneous in another, maybe that experiment would show different results?

The Michelson-Morely experiment tested a two-way average, however it did so in directions both parallel and perpendicular to the presumed motion of the ether. The consequence of this is that, if one-way light speed were not isotropic, the parallel path must be assumed to experience length contraction. Thus, if we adopt the epsilon-choice interpretation, then what the Michelson-Morely actually demonstrates is the physical reality of length contraction. We will be diving deeper into this topic in future videos.

@@dialectphilosophy We also don't know the physical properties of the Aether, could it be that it is dragged around by a large body like the earth so that it is relatively stationary near to the earths surface leading the Michelson-Morely experiment to measure no difference in the speed of light? A way that has been proposed to test this would be to do the Michelson-Morely experiment in space and see if it gives a different result.

at the end of the day, all of this is about choosing one of the options. Einstein went with invariant speed of light, they decided to go the other way, but are being a bit arrogant about it and not really admitting the fact that they're making just as much of a narrative as Einstein or anyone else did. But that's a conversation scientists don't really want to have right now, because it's easier to wield power when you deny the fact of having made a particular choice. It's why "this is just how things are" is a common excuse for all sorts of powerful people and groups, from parents to land lords to capitalists today. There might be a way around the problem of there not being a way to measure one-way speed of light, but that'd require exploring the implications of either option and finding a way to check for those instead, which might not be as easy to do. There'd have to be enough scientists willing to make that kind of choice too, which could be difficult. Personally I'd refrain from making a judgement for now, but I guess I get why they're doing this

Agree

Enter Mach’s Principle with a reasonable choice of reference frame that is not arbitrary.

@@timjohnson3913 Well if you want intergalactic travel then sure, you can use distant pulsars with stable frequencies and average out their motion. You could call that priviledged because it's useful for intergalactic travel. And extremely useless for anything within the solar system or even within the galaxy. Chosing the Earth as the "stationary" frame makes the most sense on Earth, choosing the Sun for interplanetary is the best etc. etc.

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but it seems like you're right. We know that thousands of experiments confirm SR, so any other theory which describes spacetime must be (almost) the same as SR. It is probably possible to construct such theory where the speed of light isn't constant, but it would just make calculations uglier, so it looks kinda pointless to me.

There would be infinitely many different origins we could pick for absolute space and time, but the relative velocities of everything would have to agree in all of them (but would differ from the relative velocities of any values which don't preserve time and space being absolute). There's no real problem with this. We can just pick a point and call it the origin the same way we have picked an intersection point for the equator and prime meridian to help us navigate on Earth.

Well it's not explained as a real force

Actually, it's not even possible in special relativity. Dialect basis his claim on his failure to see that the speed of light is still centered on the observer. It is just a question of incoming versus outgoing speed.

Choosing to use the CMB as a reference frame is just as arbitrary as choosing to use the Earth, or the Sun, or Sagittarius A*, or my butt as a reference frame.

Re: GPS. It had to be synchronized first (presumably on Earth). After that you don't know how much "time" has passed at the sattelite. If you go to check, you still don't know because you'd be changing frames of reference. [Or something like that.]

@@naromsky Not quite mate. It is a bit more involved than that.. or something like that.

You are partially correct. Let's do a thought experiment. You have a world that decided to define a meter by the amount of rainfall a region has, but each region has different rainfall. Once a year they all meet and realize that their meter is different, so they assume that space is smaller in some regions and bigger in some others. That's like assuming epsilon is equal everywhere. Another way is that at that meeting, they decide it is not acceptable to say this, and they decide one of them has the right meter, they all make their meters equal to each others, then go back in their country and realize that rainfall is different but space is the same. That's all there is to it. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The first, the observers are independent and can work without ever talking to each others. The second, they have to meet regularly, or at least once. GPS of course uses the second method, it is always synchronized to a standard.

“What mechanism changes the light speed between clocks?” In earlier videos, he gives a waterfall analogy to demonstrate gravity. So I’m guessing the mechanism will be a sort of flow of space (i.e. space as an ether).

@@timjohnson3913 So what direction is the ether flowing in?

I had the same thought. It seems like it would be the only way. We would have to figure out how to sync clocks via entangled particles.

@@jrroelle yes now that would be the ultimate atomic clock.

That’s impossible. Suppose you have 2 entangled particles, one on earth and one on the moon. Now, a scientist on earth sends a light beam to the moon and at the same time measures there particle. The particle on the moon will be the opposite state and 1 second later, the light will arrive. It is a little more complicated though because in order a scientist on the moon to know when the earth particle gets measured, they must measure the moon particle very frequently. The measurements will be random until the earth particle collapses. It seems possible, but the particle on earth won’t stay in its state after the scientist measured it, it will go back into a super position. The earth scientist could measure the earth particle very frequently too, but the earth particle wouldn’t stay in the same state in each measurement so the moon and earth particles will just be random but correlated. The experiment doesn’t work.

@@chenlaura5958 yes with current technology you are absolutely correct this is not possible, but I didn't ask about current technology, I asked if it was possible at all, meaning if there it some way possible, then experiments to create the technology to make this possible could be discovered, if it is possible. Think to the future don't limit yourself.

Your professor might frown on sourcing your information from UKposts, but we say go-ahead 😎