Einstein's Relativity contains a HUGE Loophole. Its Implications Can't Be Ignored.

[@ScienceClicEN]

Again an interesting video, but I don't really see why this would be a loophole in the theory. In particular, this doesn't have any implications about how the theory accurately describes the universe. You seem to be opposing "reality" on the one hand, and "narratives" on the other hand. But I would argue that all theories are just narratives, models, which we use to describe the world. Two different models / narratives can describe one same physical world, just like we can devise different interpretations of quantum mechanics. I had a similar issue with Veritasium's video about the two-way speed of light : the only thing which matters in relativity is the causality web that connects events. Once you have that, the way in which you embed this web using coordinates is arbitrary, and in particular you can distort the embedding without changing the underlying structure (which amounts to changing the value of "epsilon", or the balance of the one-way speeds). Choosing different epsilons yields different equations, but still describes exactly the same physics. In the end we simply choose the solution with most symmetries, because it leads to easier descriptions. I think your videos are actually questioning the way we communicate about relativity, rather than the theory itself. You are raising an interesting question though : should we present the model as being "truth", or instead just a "useful narrative". Science communicators (including myself) tend to choose the first option in what regards relativity. But we also tend to select the second option in what regards quantum mechanics. So this is indeed an interesting question to raise. I am curious to see however how this would all fit with general relativity. In special relativity you can indeed choose any single frame as your "absolute frame" and define an absolute simultaneity etc. But within general relativity, I believe this would be far more difficult. I am also wondering how this would fit with modern particle physics and Yang-Mills theories ? In both general relativity and Yang-Mills theories we use the invariance of physical laws (local symmetries) to write elegant laws which are as simple as they probably could be. This allowed us to describe all fundamental interactions.

[@timjohnson3913]

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.

[@ChosunOne]

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.

[@JubilantJerry]

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.

[@TheoEvian]

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?

[@Laff700]

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.

[@FunkyDexter]

This is related to c being equal to 1/√e0u0, the electric and permittivity constants of empty space. If we allow those values to vary in a gradient across space (like in a gravitational field), the effective speed of light can change, but each observer will still measure the same speed regardless because light has first to climb the gradient (going slower) and then descend the gradient (going faster). The matter is complicated a bit by the fundamental non inertial nature of gravitational fields, but it's a good enough line of thought. The question really boils down to choosing "beautiful" mathematics (simple to treat, but with weird philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality) or choosing sensible philosophy (space being a physical thing, capable of deformations and oscillations) with very complex and headachy mathematical descriptions.

[@antonystringfellow5152]

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.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

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

[@antonystringfellow5152]

@@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?

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

@@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.

[@FunkyDexter]

@@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.

[@ranisharoni75]

The video is basically about "Lorentz ether theory" assumed to be indistinguishable from special-relativity

[@youtubeforcinghandlessucks]

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.

[@AndrewWutke]

This presentation is about absolute rest and siultaneity. LInear algebra cannot define physical properties ofthe ether but together with proper postulates the absolute rest and simultaneiy can be proven necesary without rederence to any media, only hoping other theories agree on the physical aspect of the ether.

[@caperider1160]

Einstein's theory of relativity does NOT describe the hardcore physical universe in its entirety. It describes how any entity bound within the 4-D spacetime will EXPERIENCE the universe.

[@henricusholtman3883]

I learned in physics that Newton brought with him the Galilean notion of relativity of motion, thus relativity of space. Einstein introduced the relativity of time into the mix. Einstein himself in one of his books said that the ‘Ether’ in which electromagnetic waves travel and empty space are the same thing, not exactly dispensing with the notion of the ether, but folding it into empty space.

[@АндрейМирон-х2н]

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

[@Fstop5.6]

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?

[@linuxp00]

@@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.

[@glenwaldrop8166]

​@@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.

[@JosephLMcCord]

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.

[@roy6867]

Astronomers have witnessed the same supernova explosion more than once due to gravitational lensing and were able to accurately calculate when the next observation was going to occur utilizing the speed of light. Is this not an example of measuring the speed of light in one direction?

[@neilreynolds3858]

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.

[@ChuckCreagerJr]

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.

[@JosephLMcCord]

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

[@paulthomas963]

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.

[@apexmoon6912]

We have hundreds of thousands of pictures of gravitational lensing, it's quite annoying having a giant bright object photobomb us in a single picture three times. Yes, a type 1A supernova (wiki it) is very specific and trustworthy because it will always avoid gravitational collapse right on the edge of it's schwarzschild radius.

[@justuseodysee7348]

One major issue: Observers arent free to choose epsilon. They're obligated to pick one in agreement with the rest of the framework.

[@brothermine2292]

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

[@jonathonjubb6626]

. meaning what, exactly?

[@ChuckCreagerJr]

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.

[@christopherdixon4472]

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.

[@ChuckCreagerJr]

@@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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6aUhaKBq9eJrs0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4msgqqqq7WUfrc

[@spyro1159]

Don't keep us waiting with what's next, man. I haven't been this excited about absolute space and time for several years. Very much like what you are putting out here!

[@АндрейМирон-х2н]

Where is the Michelson-Morley experiment in this video?

[@riverchess-so7pr]

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.

[@comradecapybara]

@@riverchess-so7pr what an insightful comment :/

[@edwarddodge7937]

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

[@Jonas-Seiler]

@davidmudry5622 wtf are these insane ramblings even supposed to convey

[@Jim-uq1mc]

c=1/sqrt(e0u0) and thus is a scalar valued entity. Some anisotopy induced via direction dependent propagation velocities of light contradicts the scalar property of the relation c=1/sqrt(e0u0). The speed of light thus needs to be isotropic in any reference frame, closing the alleged loophole.

[@darrennew8211]

I don't think it's "equally probable" that the light travels at a different speed in each direction. I think it's simply a possibility that hasn't been accounted for. We don't know how probable a thing is if we never measured it, so to assert anything about the probability seems off. That said, very interesting take. I'm now curious how the "curvature" of spacetime due to mass plays into this.

[@goawqebt6931]

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

[@hughcaldwell1034]

@@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.

[@iamnotameme]

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.

[@darrennew8211]

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

[@midas-holysmoke7642]

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

[@GeoffryGifari]

Some questions: 1. IF the one-way speed of light can be different for "observers" in different reference frames (whatever form that may take), will it still be consistent with the constancy of two-way speed of light as per Einstein's postulate? 2. Are there physical processes that only depend on the one-way speed of light? 3. If there was an absolute reference frame, what is it?

[@GeoffryGifari]

@@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

[@GeoffryGifari]

@@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.

[@BangkokBubonaglia]

I can intuitively visualize this for a single, linear dimension. But I'm having a much harder time convincing myself there is an epsilon field that can be chosen to satisfy these constraints simultaneously for all inertial and accelerated observers in 3 dimensions. Can you make another video, this time with a little bit more math, expanding on this concept except applying it to 3 dimensional space?

[@JubilantJerry]

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.

[@JubilantJerry]

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.

[@codetoil]

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

[@DR_1_1]

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!

[@lowersaxon]

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

[@danioldan4189]

i say, that assumption is false. 1. how would observer-B be able to change its epsilon , relative to observer-A ? only, by moving at different speed ! 2. but this would also modify the time-of-simultanity and relative position . with this dependency, there is NO arbritrary chosing possible of the ratio of two-way-time, at least not in way, that would violate time-of-simulteinity.

[@hsasser3]

AT LAST!!!!! An explanation for "Relativity" that makes PRACTICAL SENSE!!! Thank you!!

[@TheoWerewolf]

Oh soooo close! You're right - the important word is "measured", but the loophole is that you can't prove that the measuring tools (clocks, rulers) are consistent. In fact, we KNOW they aren't - that's literally what the Lorentz transform is transforming - the rulers and clocks. Buit we tend to equate the rulers and clocks with space and time as if they were the same thing.

[@hoochygucci9432]

No we don't.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

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.

[@anuman99ful]

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

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

@@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.

[@apexmoon6912]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Rulers and clocks are only consistent in relation to the speed of whatever they're testing due to speed length contraction and time dilation in an inertial frame. I.E they aren't consistent.

[@jonathandawson3091]

So we have all been lied to guys. There _is_ a preferred frame of reference. In that frame, light speed is isotropic. In all other frames it is not. The trouble is though, we can never know that preferred frame, since the physics works out the same for us.

[@mikkel715]

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.

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

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.

[@DarthEditous]

" The trouble is though, we can never know that preferred frame, since the physics works out the same for us." Which is the same as there being no preferred frame of rerence.

[@-_Nuke_-]

THIS. VIDEO. BLEW. MY. MIND. I again need to say a huge thanks to this Greek guy who upon a comment of mine suggested that I was wrong and linked me Dialect's channel as a response to my thought experiments. From that time, I have been hooked up, like a 18 year old girl that falls in love for the 1st time :3 I can't wait for more! The topic of special and general relativity are in absolute synchronization with my very soul. I remember how terrible I was at physics when I was in highschool - while at the same time instead of going out to play with the other kids, I would stay inside reading Einstein's Special and General relativity that I happened to discover at the very last pages of our physics book that our teacher NEVER EVEN MENTIONED - EVER... How was this was the ONLY topic, in the ONLY school book, in all my school years - that I felt like reading it myself, word by word as an actual book is supposed to be READ and NOT just studied? I still don't know... Of course now Im intrigued at any type of scientific research. I guess school manages to take the most exciting aspect of Human ingenuity - PHYSICS - and find the most boring aspect of it, and pressent that to its students, instead of things like stars and planets and rockets and space exploration... Thanks for that school... I need to see the scientific community reacting to your videos Dialect. You guys are making the whole world a huge service, first of all - by keeping everyone accountable for what they say and secondly by actually and patiently and surgically and artistically - teaching us and pressenting us your updated view on the subject. I'm hooked! Thanks so much guys!

[@charlesbrightman4237]

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?

[@michalhajek6135]

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)

[@michalhajek6135]

I do ask intriguing questions btw 👍

[@michalhajek6135]

* u do

[@mathoph26]

I have the feeling you are building something strong... your last video on time dilation with Pyhagorean theorem for gamma and the wave front delay was astonishingly simple and brillant. When I see this, I wonder: why nobody thinks about that before ? Or maybe there is a big mistake we dont see ? I dont Know.

[@YodaWhat]

Electromagnetic waves traversing a waveguide almost always have *2 different speeds involved, **_one slower than c and one faster than c,_** when looking at the **_phase velocity and the group velocity._* They handle that in the math by squaring both speeds, and using c^2. That squaring trick always bothered me, because _the sum of squares DOES NOT equal the square of sums, _*_except for the special case of both initial numbers being equal._*

[@dialectphilosophy]

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.

[@rjk-h6m]

I love these videos. Any new person might think it's some idiot trying to be over smart to prove Einstein wrong but these are genuinely great videos.

[@АндрейМирон-х2н]

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.

[@Nat-oj2uc]

you might think you're smart person

[@TerranIV]

Great thought-provoking video! I wish more people did this sort of well researched speculative science/philosophy. Looking forward to your next one!

[@justanotherguy469]

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

[@user-ut2mk6fm4y]

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

[@feynstein1004]

So in summary, the tradeoff here is that in order to preserve simultaneity, you're assuming anisotropy of the speed of light. This seems doubly troublesome to me because a) simultaneity is irrelevant and depends on the observer. b) anisotropy of the speed of light implies that not only some directions are preferred to others but also, how would light know which direction it's traveling in? And also, why would that direction be preferred?

[@helifynoe9930]

Imagine that a big bang occurred, which produced a 4D environment called Space-Time. Now also imagine that due to the big bang, everything present within the Space-Time environment, is violently thrown outward from the single point of which the big bang occurred. Thus everything would be thrown outward, and done so with one specific magnitude of motion. Let's call the magnitude of that singular measure of motion, as the "c" magnitude of motion. As I have proven many years ago, this simple setting, will result in the creation of the Special Relativity phenomena. To have light going in one direction, faster than in another, something radically different than the simplicity that I have just mentioned, would have had to have occurred.

[@taylorwoods8001]

Move the clocks next to eachother and synchronize them by observing both clocks from a single observer who synchronizes them through a single switch, once the clocks are aligned move them apart and then fire the light beam. since both clocks are already synchronized you can now measure the oneway speed.

[@quantisedspace7047]

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

[@DarthEditous]

@@quantisedspace7047 It doesn't matter how slowly you move the clocks. The time dilation will always be exactly enough to make any attempt to measure, or even put limits on, the one-way speed meaningless.

[@emiliosani9924]

The only real `loophole` are people who do not understand what Einstein understood clearly and Hans Reichenbach marvelously dissected and explained in his wonderful book. He `defined` the speed of light to be constant and chose the simplest `definition` as to make equations and understanding simpler. One excellent `historical` book is Einstein`s Mistakes` by Hans C. Ohanian, and it is excellent on many unknown facts about Einstein life, but since the beginning we notice the author never understood Einstein ideas and kept his `engineer` view that Einstein `cannot define` the speed of light to be constant....in the whole book almost every time he mentions what he believes is an Einstein mistake the mistake is his own misunderstanding. When Einstein really made mistakes (or had ideas, and he had extremely many) very soon he recognized them and laughed of himself...the video is very good, mainly after understanding what Reichenbach explained, but the `loophole` in the title only is understandable as a click bait, and worse is `its implications can`t be ignored` without really explaining what are the implications... for me it seems the title is `implicating` there is some `mistake` but cannot really demonstrate it, like Ohanian....

[@simoncomeau]

This fun trip through logic is really well told and the animations are awesome! I think you could pursue the story and show how the "loop hole" can be generalized with the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity: For ANY space-like slice through the manifold, the extrinsic curvature and energy momentum tensor evolve to reveal the same causal structure.

[@youtubesucks1885]

Choosing different values for epsilon destroys causal structure.

[@codetoil]

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

[@youtubesucks1885]

@@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.

[@codetoil]

@@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.

[@codetoil]

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

[@Loreweavver]

Omg. Thank you. I've been trying to think of a way to word my thoughts about how "bullet time" would work in an online multiplayer game and this is it. Ones perspective can be sped up for a fraction of time so long as it is slowed down relatively to the amount of time spent sped up.

[@auriuman78]

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.

[@jacobsee4196]

it doesn't matter what everybody thinks.... time dilation is a real observable thing, and thats a fact.

[@jacobsee4196]

i think if everybody just thrrew away "speed of light" and said it for what it really was, its denoted as "c" in the equations, because "c" stands for "causality" its the speeed of light becuase light goes at the speed of causality, because its wave doesn't have a medium, the medium light waves travel through are the fabric of spacetime itself, so since there is no medium, it travels at the speed limit of the fastest a cause can precede and effect. the speed of causality is so much easier to understand, i think. so instead of looking up at light beams and wondering it the absorption of light and the reimission, etc.. constitutues as actually light slowing down or not..... its easier to just think the absolute fastest speed that somethnig can cause something else to happen.

[@Loreweavver]

@@jacobsee4196 most people can't tell you what the E means. They know it's energy, yeah, but they can't actually express an understanding of what the equation means beyond parroting that energy equals mass etc.

[@mitymi]

I'm really enjoying your videos, as they force us to look at relativity in a different perspective. The more we open our minds to the implications of our assumptions, the easier it is to develop a good intuition. This is a great discussion, and I agree that the way relativity is currently taught causes issues with our expectation for simultaneity. All you have to do is change inertial frames to create a disagreement. However, adjusting epsilon in each frame to create one "true simultaneous" could be done in a completely arbitrary manner. How can you test which is the "true" "order" of events. This is where I think that, mathematically speaking, it's all the same as Einstein's formulation. On a spacetime diagram, there are basically 3 regions: The future (events in spacetime we can still intersect), the past (events in spacetime that we have already "seen"), and everything else. It is this third region where we have issues with simultaneity. BUT it is also the region we cannot change. The only way to reach any of those events, would require FTL travel. We cannot currently test the truth of this definition of reality over Einstein's definition. That is to say, it doesn't matter what is considered simultaneous (to us) if it does not affect causality. Whether we consider the speed of light constant, or constant on average becomes irrelevant. Relativity already preserves causality from any POV, becuase while time and space may be relative independently, spacetime as a whole can still be absolute. I look forward to your next video.

[@dialectphilosophy]

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!

[@LinkenCV]

@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

[@LinkenCV]

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

[@amalnambiar11]

@@dialectphilosophy I disagree that this interpretation and Einstein's are empirically and formally equivalent. It is true that Einstein did not clearly elaborate a reason for epsilon should be taken to be 1/2. However, this does not mean that all choices of epsilon are equally natural. For an observer in a given state of uniform motion, only one setting for epsilon can ensure both constancy of two-way speed of light and validity of NLM. It just so happens to be the case that e=1/2 for every inertial frame and this is deduced empirically. I have left a comment on the video detailing my argument better. PS- By NLM, I mean NLM after relativistic corrections ofc.

[@digguscience]

The visual animation is very easy to understand. Learn a lot from here

[@aydinabiar4842]

Isn't "direction" relative ? A straight path for a specific frame won't be straight in another so a "one way" measurement of c won't appear "one way" at all in another frame ?! How to reconcile this ? Also, why is it mandatory to tune the clocks with light itself? Can't we assume we could synchronize them using a well known and well behaved wave like soundwaves for example, for which we know the one way speed. And once synchronized, we can measure the one way speed of light using the clocks

[@luthfinashi5558]

This (and Veritasium) video rest on Duhem-Quine problem, which said that it is impossible to verify or falsify a scientific hypotesis alone, we need to include the auxiliary hypotesis too (bundled hypotesis). When it come to relativity, the auxiliary hypotesis is 'universe is isotropic', hence it is reasonable to assume that light speed doesnt depend on direction. Like it has said, ATM it is impossible to measure one way light speed, right? Until there is actually an experiment to measure one way light speed, we have no idea of the truth.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

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?

[@konradswart4069]

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!

[@dmytrooleinichenko9865]

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?

[@konradswart4069]

@@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!_

[@luthfinashi5558]

@@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.

[@eduardocolin9473]

This series on relativity is truly amazing, I can't wait to see what comes next. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the Michelson-Morley experiment fits into all this, since it seems to favor the view of the isotropic behavior of light. I hope you address that in a future video.

[@dialectphilosophy]

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.

[@rwmcgwier]

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

[@TimoYlhainen]

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

[@JosephLMcCord]

@@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!

[@JosephLMcCord]

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...

[@nickr7437]

I'd argue that this anisotropy is actually required. The only thing we can agree on between frames is that light can't be moving at the same relative speed to all frames. Relativity goes on and claims isotropy must be accepted in all frames, without any proof, and such a claim not being consistent with the observations of any two frames. About 20 years ago, I spent a lot of time on this subject, and I was able to derive the same effects changes in apparent time dilation and length contraction while assuming that light is only isotropic to one frame. So, the relative part of relativity is actually not needed. You can derive the lorentz factor and apparent changes from simply assuming that everyone *measures* the same round trip speed of light. The line of thinking actually leads to different ideas, which actually cause some divergence in the principles of General Relativity as well. Most attempts to get around the two ways speed of light problem, like the light sphere derivation, have some critical flaws. The biggest is that they use the same units of space and time for both reference frames. The big issue with this is that we know space and time are not measured the same way in different reference frames, so standard units of measure in each frame are not equal. Once you adjust for this, you can either no longer derive anything or the equations will be obviously false. What bothers me is that most people will call you a crank for believing this... yet the claim for isotropy in every frame is not scientific. It has no basis, no proof, and it flies against the observations of every reference frame. Sometimes I feel like Einstein's theory led science down a path of fantasy. You see the same type of low evidence assumptions being made in QM, string theory and a few other areas. We have theories proposing 13 dimensions, many world interpretations, etc... with nearly zero evidence.

[@dialectphilosophy]

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 🤪

[@TheDummbob]

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

[@nickr7437]

​@@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.

[@TheDummbob]

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

[@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.

[@JosephLMcCord]

You guys are ON THE BALL with this. I have been wracking my brains over all of this - the paradoxes and the *purported* explanations of them, etc. - for a very long time. I've been intending to do some serious in-depth scholarly work on it someday - mostly approaching it through study of the history - but I think you're way ahead of me, here. This is *very* satisfying to see. I have the feeling that you're on exactly the right track. Incidentally - I at first intended to send you an email - but for someone reason the youtube feature that's supposed to give that doesn't seem to be working...

[@markiv2942]

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.

[@JosephLMcCord]

@@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.

[@jonathanaarhus224]

Maxwell's Equations dictate that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all reference frames, so the two-way speed must be equal to the one-way speed. Besides, the Special Theory of Relativity doesn't actually have anything to do with light. It has to do with the arrow of time and the fact that Lorentz transformations form a group with no hysteresis effects. Philosophy Engineered mad a video about this topic.

[@markerena2274]

Extremely cool video! But there has to be something that I'm missing, because we do know that the 2-way speed of light is constant. My problem is that if we choose a master frame (let's just call it the ether) relative to which you're moving as you showed in your great animation at around 18:00, in that frame, the speed of light has to be isotropic and be constant. Now, if you move relative to the ether with speed v, and try to synchronize 2 clocks using a light signal such that t1 = e*(t1+t2), where t1 is the outgoing time and t2 is the incoming time (and e is epsilon), we can indeed calculate the 2-way speed of that light beam using the formula you showed at 8:18, keeping in mind that v outgoing has to be c-v and v incoming has to be c+v. Doing so, we get that the 2-way speed of light is c - v(2e-1), which can only be constant if 2e-1 = 0, or e = 1/2. So, does this mean that special relativity is still correct? I think the only two ways to make this issue go away is to still assume that length physically shrinks as you move through the ether, just like Lorentz did, or to assume that velocities don't add up like we assumed. Yet, these assumptions are just as unsatisfying and as arbitrary as the assertion that the one-way speed of light is constant, like it is in SR.

[@k_dankov]

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.

[@jonnelson9760]

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.

[@markerena2274]

@@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

[@markerena2274]

@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

[@0xPulcra]

Why is the assumption of an ether so unsatisfactory? To posit a physical substance through which the phenomenon we call "light" propagates, concomittantly length contraction as a physical effect of matter (a complex emergent form out of ether) through such a medium, space-time metrics as a geometrical *description* of the structure of this substance (and the variability of the physically grounded relativity of time and length given such a structure follows without the obscurantism of GR) and "gravitational waves" as longitudinal coarse disturbances of this... is to practice real physics again... as Tesla of course insisted over and over should be done...

[@delq]

keep them coming !!! the relative nature of space and time, especially space was bugging me out for a while, i am gonna delve into this deeply soon !

[@manipulativer]

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

[@nsacockroach4099]

Now the next question is, since we can define an absolute frame of reference that however can't be empirically measured: What does this tell us about the nature of space and time? You can define a set of epsilons for all reference frames that give absolute simultaneity. But this set itself is arbitrary and you can find a set for any convention of global simultaneity. It is thereby arbitrary. Is there a global frame in some meaningful way or does the story go even deeper? I think that the lesson of all of this is, that simultaneity isn't actually a meaningful physical concept but a coordinate convention for a physical description. It's basically one of may stories you can tell about the same physical process happening anywhere at any time. But the actual physics is just agnostic to any human notion of simultaneity.

[@timjohnson3913]

Enter Mach’s Principle

[@nsacockroach4099]

@@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.

[@timjohnson3913]

@@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.

[@nsacockroach4099]

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

[@paulthomas963]

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

[@Mr_Kyle_]

Now THIS is what I'm talking about! I saw that Veritasium episode and I've been binge deep diving into all things space time trying to deepen my unanswered questions and my own theories - and this channel is like a god send for where my mind has been going! One million thank yous! 🙏

[@gbear1005]

The one way speed CAN be measured one way if the light itself carries information about itself ... its also a small problem that the speed of light slows over time.

[@nemvus_]

Excellent video. This is as far as I was able to dig into things too. I was talking to someone who goes by TorchFire on PBS SpaceTime's discord channel, and he first let me know that whether something like modern Lorentz' theory or Einstein's Relativity is right... all comes down to the one-way speed of light, which we don't know how to measure. I remain optimistic that we will be able to measure it in the future, but my intuition actually tells me that we don't necessarily need to measure it, to know absolute space and time and simultaneity still exist. So far I've gotten as far as learning that LET and GR are "equivalent" theories -- but that isn't enough for me. I am very curious and excited to hear what you come up with, and if you manage to resolve this.

[@mymyscellany]

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

[@nemvus_]

@@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.

[@timjohnson3913]

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.

[@johannzdebor5615]

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

[@YeahBoy1019]

Been loving this series! As someone who’s always loved physics I’ve been really curious about your final conclusion/proposition, since as far as I can tell you might be proposing some kind of “aether”. I could be wrong of course. I appreciate the amount of ground work that needs to be layed out before you can even begin to give us your idea, and I look forward to the next installment!

[@comradecapybara]

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.

[@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286]

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.

[@Swiffah145]

Nice video - I agree that standard physics curricula don’t discuss non-Lorentzian coordinate systems enough. Looking forward to next video’s discussion of Bell’s “How to teach special relativity”. In the meantime, I want to think more about how mechanically shrinking rods and slowing clocks interact with coordinate systems. An observer with non-Lorentz coordinates will generally interpret their own clocks to slow and rods to (direction-dependently) shrink, right?

[@challox3840]

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.

[@dialectphilosophy]

@@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.

[@Swiffah145]

@@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.

[@challox3840]

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

[@lowspeed2000]

What about this way to check it: 2 clocks start at a specific location, and they go the opposite way at an exact speed. 1 shoots a light beam to the other, the other has both a mirror and a sensor, as soon as the sensor receive the light the time records and another beam is sent to the other clock. Both the lights should now be sync. If one way is slower, they will lose sync. The big problem is compensating for the latency of the sensors.

[@new-knowledge8040]

Okay, let's say we a single pi meson that decays and splits into two photons that depart in oppsite directions. How, and why, would these photons do so at different speeds?

[@peterpalmadesso3706]

Maxwell seems to have derived the speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum at 300,000 km/s without using any synchronized clocks if I understand correctly. Wouldn't that tend to suggest epsilon at 1/2 is probably real and not arbitrary?

[@cykkm]

Very interesting, that must be a fascinating exercise in reformulating the SR! I'm looking forward indeed to the full 4D work-up of the formalism. I didn't have much time except to do some quick BoE, but my feelings from how the equations transform are (1) that you probably can end up with a consistent definition, including electrodynamics; (2) the ε is more constrained in the full 4D, considering arbitrary relative directions and velocities of observers; (3) the ε transforms like a (2,0) tensor, and (4) it's defined up to a gauge, and there is no physically meaning way to fix this gauge without breaking relativity, i.e. doesn't have a physical meaning; the fix is by agreement of the observers-which tells that it's an equivalent reformulation of SR, if only with the condition of the constancy of _c_ relaxed to the 2-way constancy. It's a bit mindboggling to work with velocity in this formalism; the usual relativistic convention of the magnitude of _v_ measured as a fraction of _c_ no longer works. I've only played with this formalism for literally two hours that I had available; I may well have missed something. It's intriguing to see how the whole thing works out! I'd work toward cancelling the ε in the end: this would send us back to the standard SR but the relaxation of the isotropy condition. That would be fantastic. Otherwise, we'd be just trading one unobservable for another, which would be, I believe, less exciting. BTW, did anyone ever publish a geometric description of this formalism? I'd be surprised if not, but I couldn't find one from a cursory search. But you must have searched the literature thoroughly. I'd really appreciate seeing a reference in case you happened to have found one!

[@dialectphilosophy]

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 🤷‍♂️

[@moneyheist_-]

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

[@ItsaDigitalHamster]

I wonder how these ideas can be applied to general relativity?

[@DR_1_1]

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!

[@rwmcgwier]

It is wonderful to have the true logic and underlying mathematical consequences of the assumptions made by Einstein and taken as fact by others called into consideration.

[@jp-hh9xq]

Man you got one of the best channels on the internet.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

Maybe im off base here, but choosing an epsilon value that happens to "work" for observers seems way more contrived and overly complicated than light travelling the same speed in every direction. What mechanism could be in place to make that occur in nature?

[@ChosunOne]

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.

[@Elrog3]

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.

[@Elrog3]

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

[@audiodead7302]

@@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.

[@alexalford7874]

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

[@StatsScott]

A good, much more thorough explanation of this assumption than I’ve seen elsewhere. But while the math may work out for alternative choices of epsilon, it does seem like if there is a value other than 1/2, there should be some expectation on the part of the folks proposing that value to justify it. While we may not be able to prove that the one way speed of light is the same in all directions, Occam’s razor would suggest that we should assume that it is, unless there is some evidence that it is not. Specially, why would the one way speed be faster in one direction than another? Back at the turn of the previous century that was the idea of Michelson and Morley’s experiment to try to find the aether and whether the Earth was moving through it in some way. But that isn’t what the experiment found. So in the absence of definitive proof that the one way speed is the same in all directions, doesn’t it make sense to assume that it is, barring some indication hinting that there is some privileged direction that goes faster than the other way? I guess the underlying issue is that I am assuming that a given value of epsilon is based on the actual (possibly unknowable) one way speed of light whereas it seems the argument is that it is just a convention so we can choose any value we want to force simultaneity agreement across different frames. But while simultaneity might be nice, I feel we should still tie the value to some sort of real world observation. Will await future videos to see where this alternative value of epsilon idea takes us.

[@darrennew8211]

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.

[@alexjohnward]

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

[@juliavixen176]

​@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.

[@StatsScott]

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.

[@darrennew8211]

@@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.

[@andymcphee]

Since Einstein’s relativity is the simpler of two models, it’s the model we all use. You could argue that it’s the right one citing Occam’s razor, or you could take Newton’s position that anything untestable isn’t worth arguing over.

[@bangyahead1]

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"

[@JanPBtest]

Also (sorry to be so piecemeal) clock synchronisation is actually NOT needed to specify Lorentz geometry (i.e., to specify special relativity). This is a super common misconception. It's like saying that in order to specify Euclidean geometry, one needs a coordinate system. The "telephone book" by Misner-Thorne-Wheeler describes in detail how to specify Lorentz geometry without ever synchronising the clocks, all one needs is that the clocks are the same in construction (plus a bunch of rulers). Then one does an experiment (which in principle can be done somewhere in the outer space) in which those clocks move and become momentarily adjacent in a certain way. Then _if_ the readings of those (unsynchronised) clocks satisfy certain equation, _then_ spacetime must be Lorentzian.

[@EarlWallaceNYC]

Cool discussion. Fifty years ago, when I read Einstein's paper I wondered why he was obsessed with simultaneity, now I understand why. Is there any evidence that Ɛ ≠ ½ ? I still don't "buy" this Reichenbach thing. Emotionally, I'm standing with Daric on "beauty" and "truth".

[@zachend2750]

I really love these. I took the PBS survey and I suggested your channel to them. Makes me wonder if quantum entanglement can be used as a bool for measuring light

[@Knardsh]

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

[@omargoodman2999]

Interesting idea. It also occurs to me that _epsilon_ need not even be the same for one given observer. It can evolve over time such that, on the spacetime diagram, the path of light would be _curved_ rather than straight. What if it functioned according to a *limit,* approaching 0 or 1 the further the light travels but never _quite_ reaching it? Then it could follow something like a hyperbolic path on a Space Time Diagram (note to self: do *NOT* try to abreviate Space Time Diagram... _always_ spell the whole thing out!). What if the speed of causality (let's be frank here, we're talking about propogation of causality/information, not *just* "light") were _actually_ approx. ~6e8 m/s, but only in one direction. On the return trip, it may very well be _almost_ instant. And the further it goes, the closer to instant it is. Or perhaps the other way around; the trip out is "nearly" instant, but the return trip is at ~6e8 m/s, and the further it travels the closer to "instant" the trip becomes, but correspondingly the return reflection is a *tiny* bit longer.

[@ChuckCreagerJr]

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.

[@marchidan21]

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

[@ChuckCreagerJr]

@@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.

[@marchidan21]

@@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.

[@GorjeCeleb]

Hi Dialect, I think it would be amazing to see a video about Gödel's Metric, I loved the video about the incompleteness theorem and Einstein Relativity. Gödel's attempt to use relativity to support his platonic idea that time is an illusion is very interesting. Time as an elusion may even have implications in the twin paradox and other problems in relativity!

[@tinkeringtim7999]

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

[@jameson44k]

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

[@tinkeringtim7999]

@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)."

[@account1307]

Summary: For any set of observers you can choose any set of epsilon values you wish, and this includes a set of epsilon values in which there is an absolute notion of simultaneity This means that the relativity of simultaneity is simply not a logical consequence of the observed invariance of the two way speed of light together with the principle of relativity It means that whether or not simultaneity is relative is actually under-determined by the observed facts. If you set epsilon = 1/2 for all observers, then you recover standard SR, but for any set of observers you are free to choose any set of epsilon values you wish! Let (A) The two-way speed of light = c, and let (B) The laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame Then the statement (A) ^ (B) --> There is no absolute simultaneity Is, simply, logically false, and Dialect proves this mathematically using Reichenbach's epsilon numbers.. Absolutely mind-blowing

[@ChuckCreagerJr]

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.

[@JuliusBrainz]

I think most people will agree that our goal here is to develop a mathematically consistent theory that agrees with observations as much as possible. Both aspects have different "metrics" describing their effectiveness in the problem they are designed to solve. From the theoretical side, when compared to an alternative, extra points are given if the mathematical model is self-consistent, rests upon fewer assumptions, and admits better mapping to the basic concepts of our reality. From the experimental side, the model should provide a way to model an experimental setting and should agree with as many observations and experiments as possible. The paper that you mentioned claims that the concept of absolute simultaneity can be obtained, so I understand that implementation is absolute simultaneity is just an alternative, not something more fundamental. To me, saying that in GR absolute space and time are better is like saying that a flat map is better. Surely, initially, it looks more intuitive, but in practice working with flat maps is not easier. In the case of the map of the Earth, the continents are deformed, and the calculation of distances is involved. Now what would be interesting is to apply your version of GR to the standard tests of GR, i.e. how would you calculate various things, how would you model an experimental setting etc. This is important, because even if you have a conceptually easier theory, if calculations and their interpretation become less tractable, then the understanding of the theory in your particular setting will be worse, not better. We have to be able to study everything, not just bouncing signals, but also orbits, light bending, gravitational redshift, gravitational lensing, universe expansion etc. And do it not in terms of images or videos, but equations.

[@TheOneMaddin]

Yes, everything is coming together! I can't wait for the next one. Honestly, this means we can have absolute motion and absolute rest. We can have ether, and we are living inside of it -- i.e. ether = spacetime. Time dilation and length contraction ARE observer effects (like centrifugal force). Points in space have meaning and fields can be thought of as a continuum of coupled (quantum) harmonic oscillators, one per point im space. When spacetime curves it ACTUALLY curves into something (inside the bulk, which is Euclidean). More precisely, we are excitations on a 4-dimensional topological defect in a higher dimensional bulk. Branes make sense.

[@gaving9463]

can you break this down

[@PrivateSi]

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?

[@comradecapybara]

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

[@АндрейМирон-х2н]

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.

[@comradecapybara]

@@АндрейМирон-х2н he's planning to cover more cases in other videos

[@deathchilde]

I actually commented on veritasium on this. We're all aware of quantum entanglement. Not only can we use this for a synchronized timer but even for instantaneous communication and much more. We just need to entangle way lot more than 1 or 2 particles, then formulate a way to use them as binary

[@prasoon2232]

One of the postulates of Special Relativity is that the laws of Physics are same in All inertial Frames of Reference. Choosing a value of epsilon is a law of Physics itself so it must be same in All inertial frames of Reference.

[@JosephLMcCord]

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

[@JohnLee-bf2ux]

Correct me if I am wrong but this implies that, jumping large distances via worm holes or higher spatial dimensions to shorten the absolute time taken for interstellar journey which would take too long via light speed, does not implicate causality violation just as gravity bending space time and splitting light to arrive from different paths with different time duration does not break causality.

[@stewiesaidthat]

You can't break causality. Its instantaneous. It's like a blind man not understanding the existence of electromagnetic waves and believing his buddy can 'see' into the future.

[@JohnLee-bf2ux]

Yes causality is never broken even if you do a hyperspace jump. And causality does not exist for part of the universe expanded beyond the particle event horizon.

[@ZMacZ]

The fact that most of relativity pans out does not exclude the possibility of absoluteness. The problem with finding absolutes is that we can only measure in relation to => relativity. Only if you find an absolute relation, all other derived relations become absolutes.

[@td5786]

Very interesting, but you can't keep not addressing the Michelson-Morley experiment. It has to be your next video, because it is the main reason ether was ditched, as no ether theory could explain it in a satisfactory manner. You have to acknowledge this experimental result if you're serious about your work.

[@paulthomas963]

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.

[@td5786]

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

[@theoneandonly-lu5cf]

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.

[@louieburnham8090]

Youre not paying attention

[@td5786]

@@louieburnham8090 Youre not helpful

[@chrisbarrington108]

Thank you for your presentation... Loved it! Pushed me out of the box a bit! A question though... Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but... If c (measured one way from A to B) was not constant for all inertial frames then surely the permittivity and permeability of free space would change (as said also by @FunkyDexter below), but... the electrical properties of atoms, including the coulomb force, and hence the size of atoms, would essentially be different at opposite times in the year. The wave equation, arises quite naturally from Maxwell's equations, using electrical properties only without any discussion of how c is measured... This difference in the electrical properties while small, would be quite measurable. Maybe Einstein's assumption is right because we haven't found any 'seasonal variation' in the electrical properties of matter. Just a thought amongst many excellent discussion points

[@User-jr7vf]

You're absolutely right.

[@jmodified]

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.

[@chrisbarrington108]

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.

[@HaveANceDay]

I have one question: Can this epsilon choice be incorporated in the metric tensor? In such a way that we can do mathematics with it easier? Does the tensor approach still make sense?

[@challox3840]

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

[@ScienceClicEN]

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.

[@ivoryas1696]

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

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

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.

[@balabuyew]

This viewpoint is awesome. The question is, why it's not a mainstream currently?

[@autismuskaefer]

I find it really hard to understand the Doppler caused red/blueshift of light if you assume that old interpretation. And in the model you showed us it makes perfect sense.

[@nathanapfel5989]

Very cool video. 2 thoughts: 1) If you go through the math, an anisotropic speed of light really messes up Maxwell’s equations (part of the inspiration for special relativity in the first place). Anisotropic wave equations are different than isotropic ones (e.g., the tensions of a string appears higher when you’re moving with respect to it), and Maxwell’s equations are sensitive to this. You’d get qualitatively different E&M if there were some preferred speed of light reference frame. 2) Not my own thought, but people have pointed out on the veritasium video that if you look out into space, the age of the universe seems to be quite isotropic (‘generation 1 2 and 3’ stars all seem about the same distance away in every direction). We’d have to assume galaxies in one direction were just further away than those in the other to get this to agree with different speeds of light. I really hope you address some of these concerns in your next video! It would be cool to get back absolute time; that would make all the Bell inequality stuff much easier to explain.

[@Ultiminati]

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

[@nickr7437]

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.

[@worldhaseverything]

Is ε depends on other ε? Because we can choose ε any that we want but in reality they have to dependant on something's or they are random, I'm excited for next video

[@mariosmourelatos9533]

These videos are the best thing I have seen on youtube since start thanks! It looks like you build on top of Lorentz ether theory instead of SR. Which I personally like as It looks like Lorentz's ether theory is as powerful as SR. The scientific community has favoured SR as simpler because it doesn't require ether but when you try to explain acceleration or tweens paradox without it, it gets very complex and weird. In total it looks like Lorentz ether theory is simpler so why not this is the one that is closer to reality.

[@PinkOpals]

This one way problem can be solved by triangulation. Set up 2 clocks with detectors, then synchronize them buy a third party triangulated at an exact equal distance. Easily done! Launch from the points of the clock at a coordinated Time to take your measurement. One light hour apart should be more than sufficient. Then you'll learn your two-way measurements have always been accurate...

[@amirleshem6720]

Assuming the electromagnetic field is a stationary field we move relatively to it, wouldn't it be true that we then should measure the redshift effect in CMB in one direction, while in the other direction blue shift? Then we will expect to see an un-isotropic CMB, which is not the case. All observations until now show that CMB is isotropic.

[@scientialiberat]

What a nice video! Physics do need more questioning these days! The "choosing" of ε really restores sense in the multiple distortions that we have to deal with because they all fall into one discrepancy, the value of ε itsellf for each observer. But, in favor of Einstein's view, an ε choosed to 1/2 goes along with the assumption that the medium between both points A and B doesn't change and there's no concrete motive to assume that the first trip is different from the second.

[@antonystringfellow5152]

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.

[@scientialiberat]

@@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.

[@juliavixen176]

​@@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.

[@MurdermiesteR]

I think the speed of light is the rate of conductivity of the unstudied layer of reality that it moves through. Light is sound in a medium we refuse to investigate.

[@Fixundfertig1]

I've seen this video several times a day everyday the last ten days.

[@AtHomeTacticalDefense]

How can light travel at light speed, if light speed requires an infinite amount of energy to achieve?

[@klaviantsigetur3027]

In my opinion prof.Konstantin Meyl gives so far the best explanation for the speed of light in his Theory of Objectivity. Speed of light changes, but due to electromagnetic field dependent length contraction, we cannot perceive it (because we measure in meters per second and meter changes!), so therefore speed of light is constant of MEASUREMENT, but not constant of nature. Similarly, time is absolute, but since all our time measuring devices depend on their own physical dimension (even atomic clock), they will measure time dilation with changing electromagnetic field, even though there is none. In other words no observer based theory can really tell us how universe works, only non-observer based theory can.

[@mohsendjalalian6808]

I just want to add: Speed of light constant because have a independent Travelling Engine which very much depends on quantum field (Medium). And for experiment I think if you have two clock at source and destination having clocked by clocking device half way perhaps and connected by equally two connections in length. This way they can be synchronise equally. Must consider delays in initiation and absorption for a short distances.

[@whiteeye3453]

Speed of light is not constant

[@eddwado]

love ur vids man, always good production and explanations.

[@GAMEDATA1010]

If the speed of light could vary between directions then would that mean in a spherical black hole information could escape or the black hole be non spherical (by black hole I mean the event horizon)

[@JubilantJerry]

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.

[@alexjohnward]

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

[@JubilantJerry]

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

[@alexjohnward]

@@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

[@philoso377]

Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox. Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.

[@l.clevelandmajor9931]

One of the best explanations of the problems with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. You showed that even he could not be certain that his equations were accurate. It is known that near a Black Hole, light is unable to escape from any point below the event horizon, thus in that case light speed is essentially zero! It is said that time itself is affected in the vicinity of a Black Hole. Even so, we cannot really know any of these things, simply because they cannot actually be observed or even measured. Mathematics is just that, a series of equations that seem to describe something, but what is it that these equations actually say? Again, if the drescribed thing cannot be observed or measured, then the mathematics thought to be the best description is really nothing at all! Physics assigns "c" to the description of light speed, meaning that the speed of light is constant, (hence the letter "c"). But if it has never really been measured linearly, it may actually vary in speed. It has been said that nothing can travel faster than light, but if light speed is not constant, that opens up heretofore possibilities no one thought could actually be true. The Universe itself is actually infinite, meaning there is no edge, like many physicists claim. Even if matter itself has an edge, which to me is highly improbable, there is still the space beyond it, which in itself must be considered to be part of the Universe! If that comes to an edge, to say that there is a edge still means there is something beyond that, which also must be part of the Universe; and so on and on forever! Why am I mentioning this here? Because it is closely related to the subject of the Speed of Light! Light uninhibited can travel forever, and that means it will never end it's journey through the infinite Universe. There is no real edge of the Universe if you think clearly about it! And rather than be frightened of that, you should realize what it really means; that possibilities abound for those willing to see them, and possibly act upon!

[@peanutnutter1]

Great episode! This has bugged me for years. If you were moving forward and projecting light forward, in order for 2 way iso speed to be true and not have light travel faster than the speed of causality, spacetime would need to bend on the way out, and bend the other way on the way back.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

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?

[@ghosttwo2]

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.

[@peanutnutter1]

@@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.

[@darrennew8211]

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

[@lowersaxon]

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

[@telotawa]

hey, a while back when watching veritasium's video on this concept, I figured that this can be represented as a conservative vector field length of a curve is ∫ √dS ⋅ dS with einstein synchronization, time for light to traverse a curve is c * ∫ √(dS ⋅ dS) if there's some offset to the one way speed of light ∫F⋅dS, then it's c * ∫ √(dS ⋅ dS) + k * ∫F⋅dS and so since it's gotta be the same as if it were c all the way around for a closed loop, that ∫F⋅dS = 0, and then get Stokes' theorem'd and then ∇xF = 0 so then there's an arbitrary constant k and a conservative vector field F in my head, I called variances in this field "speed bumps for light", going up the hill it's slower, going down the hill it's faster, and in any closed loop you can think of, it cancels out, because F has no curl in retrospect, this lines up quite well with light traveling through an ether!

[@dialectphilosophy]

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?

[@telotawa]

@@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

[@Epursimov]

Thanks, Dialect. This video is awesome (and the pieces of the puzzle are actually falling in place). This approach explains space and time in a less convoluted form than the usual "relative" way (and, BTW, finally removes the "paradox" from the "twins paradox"). I'm looking forward for the next videos to see how time delation, length contraction... concepts are transformed.

[@christiano9693]

In this interpretation time is just interactions and not that frozen fourth dimensional sausage universe construction

[@pacolibre5411]

I’m surprised that neither this video, nor the Veretassium video mentioned Maxwell’s equations, given that you can derive the speed of light from electric and magnetic field strengths, without any reference to “one” or “two” way.

[@leonlee8524]

You are the Batman of the KZbin physics Justice League. I'm not kidding.

[@luciengrondin5802]

What about Maxwell's equations, though? Don't they have a unique invariance group, the Lorentz transformations, which correspond only to epsilon=1/2?

[@TheDummbob]

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

[@viperking6573]

Damn this is higher than the hype for the avengers movies 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@angeldude101]

It's amazing what you can do when choose a basis and stick with it. Of course measuring everything from a single reference frame will make events seem absolute, and even if you aren't in that frame yourself, it's not hard (at least with the right tools) to convert your measurements to the privileged reference frame. The only real problem with this take is that there's no way to single out one reference frame as naturally preferred. Each person that assumes their reference frame is privileged will calculate different epsilon values for each of the other observers, since those epsilon values depend only on on the relative velocities. I'd be somewhat surprised if epsilon wasn't directly related to the gamma value used to change reference frames. And of course rotational symmetry would suffer without epsilon ½, but that's just a reasonable choice, one that "makes sense" even if we can't prove it. Huge props to Einstein for explicitly stating that an isotropic speed of light was an assumption he was making, rather than not even noticing it.

[@dialectphilosophy]

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.

[@angeldude101]

@@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.

[@alexdevisscher6784]

@@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.

[@HopkinsViorel]

@@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?

[@АндрейМирон-х2н]

​​​​@@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.

[@phenom568]

So isn't it possible that the outgoing speed of light is slightly faster than the incoming because the incoming had to hit the mirror and turn around? So in this case the 2 way test is actually slowing down the speed of light.

[@TheOtherSteel]

Do not use a second clock, removing the synchronization issue. Set up laser A, fire it at detector 1, which is one light minute away. Detector 1 then fires laser B at detector 2, which is next to laser A. Under standard SR, this should take 2 minutes, plus a tiny delay to register the arrival of laser A at detector 1 and then fire laser B. If SR doesn't work that way, the total time will be different. I'll bet that SR works in the standard time. Edit -- The reason the time would be different if standard SR is wrong is that there are only two one-way outbound trips, there is no "return trip" to balance out the total time as recorded in a two-way trip.

[@kevconn441]

I can't quite put my finger on it but something doesn't seem right here. Aren't you just replacing the relativity of space and time with the relativity of epsilon? What I'm trying to say, badly, is something like ..if different observers use different epsilon, aren't they just using another way of demonstrating that Einstein is correct? Isn't it the obvious choice to use 1/2? Leaves the obvious question.. what mechanism changes the light speed between clocks? Another thought.. if you stand on a known point on the Earth and look at your GPS, if the GPS readout is correct then haven't you directly measured the one way speed of light?

[@naromsky]

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.]

[@kevconn441]

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

[@OneLine122]

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.

[@timjohnson3913]

“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).

[@kevconn441]

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

[@vaakdemandante8772]

Yeah, but then again, what do we GAIN by assuming epsilon can be different for different observers? We get seemingly static Universe but for the cost of much more complicated maths. There does not seem to be any more practical positive consequences of not choosing an epsilon = 1/2. So why do it? A static Universe is not necessarily better than a relative one if we only get more complex maths but no practical benefits in other areas. It can very well be that the Universe can be described by both static and relative approach and if they are equivalent then we should choose the simpler one, if for no benefit other than the simplicity alone. It is somewhat obvious that in a global reference frame all other frames will be tied to it, but that isn't really helpful because how do you define this global frame? I just don't see any pros, to the obvious cons of such a 'static Universe' narrative.

[@pavlo2692]

I think the end of the video hints that there IS, in fact, another benefit of adopting such approach, which will be discussed in the next video. So let's see :)

[@timjohnson3913]

Pretty difficult to rule out any pros of this line of thinking at this point.

[@RandomGuyOnYoutube601]

That was great! Of course the question is do we get something new out of this approach or is it just an equivalent description of reality? My money would be on the latter...

[@JubilantJerry]

My belief is that using epsilon != 0.5 is basically the same as assuming some weird skewed spacetime coordinates represent the absolute truth instead of the usual Minkowski coordinates. Then you have a skewed metric tensor and you simply use general relativity for all your measurements, while ignoring your intuition about distances and times.

[@dustysoodak]

The other situation (besides FTL signals) that lets you define a rest frame is if your space has an outer edge or loops back on itself (the rest frame will be the one where the loop distance us the longest).

[@happmacdonald]

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?

[@Virtueman1]

Extremely interesting. I'm curious: If this was submitted to a journal for peer review - how would it be received?

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

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

[@riverchess-so7pr]

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

[@Virtueman1]

@@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.