Post A5dDnoTeoIDyXSgOie by pants@washingtonbeach.online
(DIR) More posts by pants@washingtonbeach.online
(DIR) Post #A5d48rSxtThgLdkzVg by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-26T20:40:23Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I am inspired today, once again, by the idea of duality and its fundemental role in our physical reality, from electrical duals, to quantum duals, to the round trip of light (earlier post) and so on...The more time goes by and the more I think of the world as an expression of Duals (the formal term) the more I realize that duality itself may be the unifying property of the universe that all things emerge from.I cant help but think that duality is a profound insight of the universe, but I havent quite connected the dots yet... All I know is everything we talk about seems to be only valid in duals and becomes unknowable when we try to seperate those duals in some way...I am going to call it "The Iron Curtain of Duality"... but I feel like I need to invest time thinking about this, something is there.
(DIR) Post #A5d8jfimvIR2SAxxia by DelishVeg@noagendasocial.com
2021-03-26T21:25:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo
(DIR) Post #A5dDnoTeoIDyXSgOie by pants@washingtonbeach.online
2021-03-26T22:21:24Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo Would the Iron Curtain of Duality also imply the existence of a Chiffon Curtain of Duality?
(DIR) Post #A5dDtzWOf2zIWruUfA by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-26T22:23:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pants Nah, but it implies the Chiffon Curtain of Singularity :)
(DIR) Post #A5dGxfz3XlUyxFlR20 by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-26T23:05:51Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo Maybe because the only way we (part of the universe) can understand anything is by breaking it into smaller parts and study the relations between them? It's always the relation that we call "law". And relations need at least two parts. Maybe?
(DIR) Post #A5dIYFeUVUgxxP9JXE by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-26T23:15:08Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@3ammo the problem with that logic is that we already can experementally prove that relativity is correct so any conventional measurement is moot going in.Moreover the idea that speed of light is a constant is not what is the issue. The speed of light **is** a constant when measured round-trip, that is experimentally provable. What is not a postulate and the part we cant prove is that the speed of light is a constant one-way regardless of orientation. We take that to be the case in relativity as a matter of **convention** not as a postulate. The reason we do so is because even if it is not symmetric it wont change any of the results, therefore any arbitrary convention works, so we pick the easiest one.Regardless you still cant actually measure it one way, if you do so conventionally you wont account for time dilation at all and get an incorrect answer where using the relativity approach you will get a more accurate answer but it will be interently a two-way measure.
(DIR) Post #A5dIwSDRRlvHsB2PGS by icedquinn@blob.cat
2021-03-26T23:18:33.084522Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @3ammo sagnac effect is weird.
(DIR) Post #A5dIwSdfsEuHBXJM9Y by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-26T23:22:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn Yea though keep in mind that is also a very different effect than what I am describing. The sagnac effect is about the relative motion of the medium through which light travels and compares a two-way or round-trip path clockwise vs counterclockwise. So its still comparing two different two-way trips and at no point is it measuring a one-way trip.@3ammo
(DIR) Post #A5dsyd05uvoQFZ8ADY by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T17:34:23Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo I think I get your point about the round trip, I'm not trying to contradict that (though I think there's something to be said here).But, as far as I understand, the speed of light (when said like this, refers to the instantaneous speed in any direction at all times) is taken to be constant as a postulate, not a convention. It's not about "measuring" it to be constant, the theoretical construction itself is built on this postulate. Relativity doesn't work only by saying "any measurement of the speed of light (which might be possible only as a round trip) will yield a constant". Relativity works by asserting the general invariance of the speed of light (all times, all directions, all position, all frames).For example, take the derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the two *postulates* (1. principle of relativity, 2. constancy of the speed of light). Einstein's derivation depends on the constancy of c, not on round trips, not even on measurements. There are derivations of other things based on this constancy as well.This is not a matter of convention, it is a matter of necessity. Because it is about more than just measuring things, it's about building a framework for understanding the world. Only *after* such framework has been constructed can we talk about experiments and measurements.You use the word "prove". How can we prove that relativity is correct? Experiments and measurements are not an objective, theory-independent proofs of anything. Any experiment is interpreted within a given theory. More on this in a bit, this reply is already toot long.
(DIR) Post #A5dtyZCc8dUIQOWNrE by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T17:45:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo So how do we "prove" relativity is correct?We are Newtonian people, then this guys comes along and says the speed of light is constant, so we set up an experiment to measure the speed of light (one trip, round trip, doesn't matter). We are Newtonian people, so we have absolute space and absolute time and absolutely no problem synchronizing distant clocks. And we find that the speed of light, in our Newtonian understanding of what it means to measure it, is constant. But that breaks our Newtonian understanding! We thus find a contradiction between theory and experiment even though the experiment was interpreted within the theory. What now?The guy then comes and says: I told you so. The speed of light is constant, and here's how you should think about space and time from now on.Someone says: but the way you set up the understanding of space and time makes it impossible for the speed of light to be *measured* to be any different!The guys replies: Exactly my point!People: Hmm...
(DIR) Post #A5dutwzsLLOojDvRya by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T17:55:52Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@3ammo So here is why its a convention and not a postulate… simply speaking if you pick some other convention that ensures the round-trip is unchanged but it is asymmetrical, all the math we do will give the same final results. Thus its a convention because it doesnt really matter since everything is eventually a round-trip anyway, so we just pick the easiest way to get the answer.As an example imagine a world at the most extreme asymmetry where light travels at c/2 in one direction and instantaneous in the other. If you use this convention and then apply the new form of lorentz transformations to any thought experiment that could be carried out as a literal experiment, you get the same result as you would get if c was symetrical. What happens is the error is just enough that it cancels out and produces the same results.Consider communicating with a distant astronaut and how we perform the very simple lorentz transformation there to synchronize time. Lets assume we know the real time (I will abbreviate it RT) and lets assume there is a meassured time, ill call this MT.. here is how it works out assuming C is symetrical. Astronaut flys 1 light hour away, experiment starts, RT 0:00 Earth sends light signal to astronaut saying “The time here is 0:00” (RT) Astronaut receives message claiming time is 0:00, he knows he is one light hour away so he now sets his clock to 1:00 (MT), he then replies “message received, I have now set my clock to 1:00” and sends this back home. Home base gets the message saying the astronauts MT is 1:00, knows again it is one light hour away so concludes after lorentz transformation that the MT is now 2:00. Looks up at his clock, the RT, and sees it says 2:00. Concludes the astronaut clock and home clock are set to the same time. But now lets look at the same scenario where the speed of light is c/2 in one direction and instantanious in the other, but the scientist dont know this so use the convention that c is symmetric. Being just a convention it should all work out (if it were a postulate then it would be meaningful and thus effect results and things would break here). Astronaut flys 1 light hour away, experiment starts RT 0:00 Earth sends light signal “The time here is 0:00” (RT) Astronaut receives signal, assumes c is symetric, therefore performs the same lorentz transformation as before and determines that the time must be 1:00 (MT), in reality because c/2 the RT is 2:00, so the astronauts clock is technically off by an hour. Astronaut replies “I have now set my clock to 1:00”. Home base again gets the message of the astronaut claiming the time being 1:00, home base again assumes time is symmetric so gets the same result he did in the earlier experiment assuming that the astronauts clock must be 2:00 by the time they hear the return message (which took an hour to get to them).. sure enough they look up at the wall and it matches RT of 2:00… but in reality the signal was not symmetric and the return time for the light signal was instantaneous instead. That means by the time homebase heard “my clock is set to 1:00” and they assumed it was RT 2:00 by the time they heard it this was wrong, the reply was instantaneous and in reality the astronauts clock was 1:00 by the time they got their response and their transformation was wrong, and the clock is still slow by 1 hour. However it appears to them everything is correct, the full round trip time was still c, they got all the same answers at all the same times they would have if it was symmetrical. So even though it is technically wrong, the results work just as well In fact you can pick any arbitrary asymetrical convention you want, so long as the round-trip results in a average speed of c, and you will get the exact same results and both sides of the communication would be unable to tell any difference at all.This is why its a convention, you can pick any asymmetry you want and none of the results will ever change, therefore a convention is picked arbitrarily to be easy. No one needs to say “this is how it is” because nothing changes whether it is that way or not
(DIR) Post #A5dvMD568UaIilqMM4 by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:00:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Now let's consider the symmetry thing.If we allow a *fundamental* theory to differentiate between directions (and in your case, it's even the same direction but with a negative sign) then we are building a very ugly *fundamental* view of the world. It's actually more than just ugly, we don't know where to go from there. In free space, we *postulate* homogeneity and isotropy and the isotropy of time as well. Because, why it be any different?Now, this is not really about the world any more. This is about *us* understanding the world. We have to build a simple model, then complicate things by adding stuff to it. That's how we understand anything. You may say "how do you know free is space is homogeneous and isotropic? Maybe it's not. Have you measured it?" I would say that free space is homogeneous and isotropic because I said so, not because of any measurement. Measurements can then be made within this model.If we make experiments that show that free space is not so symmetric, well then we will come up with another model of the world in which there is some other entity, more *fundamental* then space, and explain space in terms of that new entity. We will *postulate* that this entity is symmetric and that there are objects inside that entity that breaks the symmetry and produce a space that is not homogeneous and isotropic. If things are not simple, we just construct a deeper level of understanding, MAKE it simple and then explain complexity within it.
(DIR) Post #A5dvcjII8Za5GDtM5Q by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:03:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo The problem here is if you pretend we are newtonian people (which we are not since the world is relative and not newtonian) any attempt you make to measure the speed of light accurately will give contradicting and failed results, in part because you assume there is no problem synchronizing clocks when in reality there is.If i just assume a newtonian world, sync up two clocks at rest then transport the receiving clock to a distance location, measure the speed of light, then bring the clock back and compare I will get one measure for speed of light. If i do the same experiment but this time the transmitting clock is the one physically moved I get an entierly different measurement for the speed of light. Since we are pretending the world is newtonian it essentially shows us little more than "it is impossible to measure the speed of light (using newtonian physics), you will get different values when irrelevant aspects of the experiment change!". In short because relativity is more true than newtonian physics it is only using relativity you can measure speed of light at all (albeit it 2-way speed of light), and newtonian physics makes it impossible to accurately measure the speed of light at all.
(DIR) Post #A5dw0NakTfPstznnO4 by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:08:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo This isnt true because your missing the fundemental point... one-way light speed is impossible to measure, determine, or see.. so if it exists, if that is reality, it is unknown to use and can in no way effect what we observe and in turn in no way effects our math or models... Sure we can throw it in and assume c is different in a certain direction because its "reality".. but if we do that the results of all the equations (since the real world is always 2-way) remain the same anyway (and thus why its a convention not a postulate)... so all the complexities you mention are also moot.
(DIR) Post #A5dxQTkAKMNFSuDRNg by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:24:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@3ammo By the way even einstein said that the idea that C is symmetric in both directions is by definition (convention) and not as a postulate. Here is his own words on the matter in one of his published papers.First he says: “But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.”In this sentence he points out that we can not experimentally or otherwise theoretically conclude anything about these individual times without making an assumption, which implies it is arbitrary. He goes on to say (he put by definition in italics not me): “We have not defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires from B to A”In other words the symmetry of light is by definition, and not an assertion as to what is, namely, a convention.. he never says “we assume light to be”.. he says “establish by definition”, which is exactly what a convention is.
(DIR) Post #A5dxU1MLni2oaklWnw by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:24:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Again, I am not contradicting what you said earlier (the round-trip speed of light is constant). This is not the point I’m arguing.You mention the use of Lorentz transformation. What is Lorentz transformation, how do you get it? You either derive it from the postulates of special relativity, there’s only two of them, the second one is that the instantaneous speed of light is constant in all frames, OR you can find it from a complicated and convoluted way from Maxwell’s equations, which also yield a constant instantaneous speed of light in all directions.The point I’m trying to make is that you talk about experiments as if they are objective and model independent. They are not.
(DIR) Post #A5dxe9YoAH9ivFQLPU by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:26:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo My point is not to pretend that the world is Newtonian, I simply meant our state of knowledge, our working theory was Newtonian. I was answering the question of "How do we prove relativity to be correct in the first place?" And that is by finding a contradiction between the Newtonian view and the measurements made within the Newtonian view.
(DIR) Post #A5dxyuzDXtzfnqg6kq by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:30:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I get the point, I'm not missing it. But I am saying that it doesn't matter.A reality that is fundamentally hidden from us is not a reality at all.The points regarding symmetry are not moot. Our *understanding* of reality, measurements,...anything really, is impossible without these arguments.These are issues that we settle before and regardless of experiments and measurements.
(DIR) Post #A5dy7X1U0j6E5VqSQK by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:31:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo your use of words are loaded here.. you are correct that a lorentz transformation assumes the instantaneous speed of light is a constant in all frames.. but it does not derive from that as a postulate it derives from that as a convention. It is an important difference. If it were a postulate it would assume it makes some meaningful difference, and states something about how the world is… the symmetry of C is not of this nature. Because the symmetry of C is a convention, used simply because it gives you the same experimental results but is simpler, and not an assertion of reality, then the lorentz transformation is derived while using the convention that c is symmetric.To put it another way, you could, if you wanted, pick any arbitrary asymmetry for the speed of light that preserves the round-trip speed of light as C, and then re-derrive the lorentz transformation based on that (and get a much more complex result).. you can then apply that modified lorentz transformation to any real world experiment and wind up with the exact same results as the much simpler convention… again distinguishing it as a convention rather than a postulate.
(DIR) Post #A5dyFWHCfanK5c0V9M by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:33:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo sure.. which means the fact that you think you can measure light one way in the newtonian view, and it turns out you cant (without getting contradictory results) only proves the original assertion, that is, that light can only be measured round-trip and it is fundementally impossible to measure one-way speed of light.
(DIR) Post #A5dyvcH6l3XCr82HMO by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:41:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Ok I think I get your point. Will reply over on the Einstein quote toot.
(DIR) Post #A5dz2jU8LizLFEWPOC by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:42:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I'm really fine with that, I keep telling you
(DIR) Post #A5dzE0W5MospFhoKye by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:44:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo I know, just saying because im not sure it makes what you say relevant to the topic if we both agree what I said to be true.. my two assertions are threfore valid.. 1) you can only measure light 2-way 2) the speed of light being instantaneously constant is a convention and not an assertion as to how it is in real life.
(DIR) Post #A5dzbNpgqOXGE77xCq by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:48:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Yeah I'm writing the other reply. I think we actually agree in a certain sense. You want to call it a "convention" because of your view of reality as you explained it, I want to call it a "postulate" because of the way I see theory and reality. It's a philosophy discussion at this point (this is not meant to be disparaging).
(DIR) Post #A5dzkjczBD00Qfdzvc by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T18:50:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo I'm not sure if its a philosophy difference so much as a definition one.. though if we agree on most of what I said its hard for me to see how your perspective is different at all. You want to call it a postulate, but if your definition of postulate is the same as mine im not sure how if we agree on everything else.
(DIR) Post #A5e0dBSPvUVONWfEA4 by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:00:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Because then everything is a convention, if we do it your way. Which is fine by me, all theories, in the end, *are* conventions. Any theory and any framework is a set of choices, these are postulate. You say that calling it a "postulate" says something about the true nature of things, or reality, but it doesn't. As long as you have a consistent set of postulates that can describe measurements, you have a working model of reality. But you can also have a different set of postulates that describe the same measurements. In that sense, all postulates are conventions. I prefer to keep the word "convention" for details within a theory, not its building blocks.
(DIR) Post #A5e0z9MqNRK8GeX0ZE by alexey@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:04:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @3ammo Actually, all our social understanding of the world is based on the convention. :)
(DIR) Post #A5e144zi40de9W3qzY by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:05:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Yes. Postulates are definitions. That’s what I keep trying to say. The speed is light constant “because we say so”. I repeated that multiple times. It is a definition, we don’t use the word “convention” for this kind definition, we use “postulate”. And that has nothing to do with any assertion about reality. Reality exists, but you can only see it through the lens of some model/theory. If you want a lens that says “in reality, the speed of light is different in different directions”, you can do that, and your measurements will agree with my lens that says “the speed of light is constant in general”. Reality doesn’t care about our definitions of space, time, velocities and how we communicate times and clocks. This is us, not the world.
(DIR) Post #A5e1qwtQyLzXDUQcsa by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:13:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo alright fair, just a difference in definition then.to me the definition of a postulate tends to suggest what is.. the way you are using the term postulate sounds more like an axiom to me.
(DIR) Post #A5e21be2JVQgV9JA9I by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:15:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo well no if we do it my way conventions are things we just do to make the math easier but doesnt reflect reality in any way, like "conventional current" in electronics... postulates are assumptions made with or without evidence, about how the world works and used to derrive equations based on that assumption... axioms are assertions of any type assumed to be true... so a postulate and a convention would be the two types of axioms.
(DIR) Post #A5e2zCUCyu4Xqg7zKC by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:26:34Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo But the general constancy in the speed of light is about more than making the math easier. As we discussed earlier here: https://qoto.org/@3ammo/105963064680177147, the "isotropy" of the speed of light is also directly related to our notions of space symmetry (among other things). This a statement about the world.On the other hand, I'm not sure how will gravity look like then, since the theory we use relies on spacetime being a 4D-space, that assertion needs Lorentz transformation to be the same everywhere in all directions (constant c). Again, if you wanna call all of that "just making the math easier", I can also agree because I'm fine with the idea, fundamentally, theories are choices of the way to see the world. But I'm assuming that you don't want that.
(DIR) Post #A5e4FuuVgGioDPxtpo by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:40:31Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@3ammo qoto.org/@3ammo/105963064680177147, the “isotropy” of the speed of light is also directly related to our notions of space symmetry (among other things). This a statement about the world.two problems with this. space symmetry holds true for many things, but none of them in any way rely on a symmetry of speed of light. If light is antisymmetric then space can still be isotropic in all the ways we have observed it to be. you are referring to the cosmological principle and all it states is “When viewed at a large enough scale the universe will look the same to all observers”… this principle holds true even if c is asymmetric. we never defined how c is asymmetric, nor did I state it is just some arbitrary direction in space, the asymmetry could arise through all sorts of rules (none of which is testable mind you). For example it could be that light travels faster in the direction you are moving than the opposite. In relativity fashion therefore the direction of the asymmetry is opposite for each of the observers in a clock synchronization experiment, yet due to the reasons mentioned before once this is resolved by a full round trip to compare clocks the asymmetry cancels out and you get what looks like symmetric results. In fact this example is very much in line with what we see with time dilation and special relativity how the act of making a round trip resolves the twin paradox as the acceleration to reverse direction resolves the paradox. The point your missing (I think) and that is so important to this is that if an asymmetry exists it can not be distinguished from a symmetry in part to the impossibility of measuring light one-way. It is of a similar nature as trying to know two complimentary properties in QM, not only is it impossible, that impossibility is fundamental.
(DIR) Post #A5e55etiSeDxbwGYym by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T19:50:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo and no, gravity wouldn't change. A lorentz transformation modified so c is asymmetrical would result in the same experimental results as a symmetric c.. the math would be needlessly more complex, but the final testable results would be the same.If this were true than the asymetry would be testable, which it is not. All your doing is obscuring it in more complex situations and hope something will work out and change the results.. yet it never does if you do the math.
(DIR) Post #A5e6LyAafvThyCV5pA by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T20:04:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I agree with both points, but you’re replying to things I’m not saying.Maybe I’m not clear. I’m not referring to the cosmological principle, nor am I saying the symmetry (short for homogeneity and isotropy) of space relies on the constancy of c.What I am saying is this: Given free space and no interaction between the observer and the light prior to the detection (both are reasonable assumptions), why would light behave differently moving towards an observer than away from them? A statement of this sort says something about the asymmetry of free space. Why? Because this is not really about light or sound or similar things, it’s about establishing a way to measure things in general, we must send signals to interact with distant objects. If light was like sound, the postulate would be “the speed of signaling is constant everywhere”.Why do we want space symmetry? Like I said, this is NOT about the cosmological principle and our large scale observations. It about our assertion that there must be a “reason” to differentiate one point or one direction in space from another. If that was not the case, then science (or even any communication) wouldn’t exist because simply being in a different place means there are different “laws” of physics, Of course, it’s not even a law of it changes every time we move.And the above paragraph is NOT about the measurement of the round-trip of light that will remain the same. You can’t even make that statement, let alone make a measurement, if the laws are different in each point in space without reason. So what is the reason? It’s any space dependent interaction. We start with completely symmetric clean slate, then add non-symmetric objects as space-dependent Lagrangian or whatever you choose to represent physics. It’s the first law of Newton “Things are the same (symmetric) unless there is a reason (force)”. Now, if you assert that light has different speeds in different directions (keeping round-trip measurements constant), then you have provide a reason, that is, some interaction theory. Fine, in THAT theory, you will have to assert the existence of a signal that propagates with symmetric speed: what we call light.Locality is another reason we have all this, in addition to the symmetry of space.You see, this is not really about light or measurements. You can’t measure anything without having a framework for interpreting such measurement. This is really deeper than just accounting for the constancy of the round-trip speed of light.
(DIR) Post #A5e6k7Z9ONcC3sVLRQ by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T20:08:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Like I said, I'm not sure how that works. I have no reply until I actually carry out the construction of spacetime that way.
(DIR) Post #A5e7WtiFgdhfHo1JSq by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T20:17:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo My point is you can literally make up any theory no matter how nonsensical and so long as that theory only has the result of effecting the one way value of c you can not disprove it no more than you can prove c to be symetrical.I could for example say “Well space just happens to be asymetric by its very nature, there is in fact a special orientation and space itself is deformed in such a way to give these results” If i say that it wouldnt disagree with any evidence we have and is just as plausible as saying space-time is inherently symetric.take a step back and look at the already existing asymmetry we see in special relativity. If i am on a ship moving away from some other ship, I will always see the clock on the other ship move more slowly than mine. This is true no matter which ship did the accelerating that caused the movement. So from my perspective on the ship it would appear (incorrectly) as if i am in a special frame of reference and/or that there is some prefered orientation to the ship. But we also know the same would be viewed from any other frame of reference and that round-trip the symmetries resolve and we only have a one-way paradox (not unlike our current discussion). The difference is in this case we can actually see an asymmetry, in the case of light that is hidden from us. Its only because the asymmetry resolves itself on round trip that we consider the paradox solved, because it effectively produces consistent results that can be tested.So why does one asymmetry bother you anymore than the other? There is no framework to suggest to you light has symmetry anymore than there is a framework to tell you it is asymmetric.. so you have no reason to prefer symmetry
(DIR) Post #A5e7h2cfPlybodFEaO by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T20:19:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo You could just accept it due to the fact that it is accepted by the body of scientists as true who have already done that work. Though I do encourage you to do the exercise for your own knowledge.
(DIR) Post #A5e7zcE1melXRoZp7Q by 3ammo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T20:22:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Yeah it's not about acceptance. I wanna do it myself to really see what assumptions will I be forced to make. There's always something to learn playing in the mud.
(DIR) Post #A5e8G61GmFoaUCT47c by freemo@qoto.org
2021-03-27T20:25:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@3ammo Agreed, you will certainly learn from that process and it might connect the dots for you as to why an asymetric speed of light would be impossible to test and would in no way change the observed universe