🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@3ammo Another very relevant quote from that wikipedia article which basically repeats what I keep telling you:

"Using generalizations of Lorentz transformations with anisotropic one-way speeds, Zhang and Anderson pointed out that all events and experimental results compatible with the Lorentz transformation and the isotropic one-way speed of light must also be compatible with transformations preserving two-way light speed constancy and isotropy, while allowing anisotropic one-way speeds."

@3ammo By the way on the wikipedia page on this topic which i already linked there is a section that shows the lorentz transformation generalized for asymetric c and should become immediately obvious why it would result in the same observed laws of physics as we would expect and see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#Generalizations_of_Lorentz_transformations_with_anisotropic_one-way_speeds

@3ammo No you dont... no matter what theory you have that explains why the light is asymmetric doesnt change the fact that symmetry of space will always be observed. Any theoretical experiment that can be verified experimentally, if you arbitrarily change light to be asymetric without any framework, it can be at random, ijust needs to preserve two-way consistency, if you do this the experimental nad theoretical results will **always** be the same as when the light is symmetric.

Therefore you do NOT need a theory to explain why the light is asymmetric in order to keep the symmetry of the observed space to be the same, the symmetry of the observed space is guaranteed to be preserved so long as the two-way speed of light is preserved. This is the very reason it is untestable in the first place.

@3ammo Agreed, you will certainly learn from that process and it might connect the dots for you as to why an asymetric speed of light would be impossible to test and would in no way change the observed universe

@seroom

See my other link where it explicitly states one-way speed of light has not been tested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

@Science

@seroom

I am not mistaken, this is well established cannon in the scientific community regarding the speed of light, this isnt something I made up. There is a whole wikipedia article on it. To quote the wikipedia article linked below:

When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed (or "two-way" speed of light) from the source to the detector and back again. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame is the basis of his special theory of relativity, although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

@3ammo By the way the above quote from wikipedia reinforces/agrees with what ive been saying, that the one-way speed of light as a constant is a mere convention and not a postulate or theory about any reality, as one-way speed of light is not measurable.

@Science

@3ammo As I already said even if light is asymmetric it doesn't break the isotropy or homogeneity of space anyway necessarily. So even if we agree that that **theory** is true and extends to light symmetry (which is nothing more than an untestable hypothesis) it still doesn't show light must be symmetric.

@3ammo You could just accept it due to the fact that it is accepted by the body of scientists as true who have already done that work. Though I do encourage you to do the exercise for your own knowledge.

@3ammo My point is you can literally make up any theory no matter how nonsensical and so long as that theory only has the result of effecting the one way value of c you can not disprove it no more than you can prove c to be symetrical.

I could for example say "Well space just happens to be asymetric by its very nature, there is in fact a special orientation and space itself is deformed in such a way to give these results" If i say that it wouldnt disagree with any evidence we have and is just as plausible as saying space-time is inherently symetric.

take a step back and look at the already existing asymmetry we see in special relativity. If i am on a ship moving away from some other ship, I will always see the clock on the other ship move more slowly than mine. This is true no matter which ship did the accelerating that caused the movement. So from my perspective on the ship it would appear (incorrectly) as if i am in a special frame of reference and/or that there is some prefered orientation to the ship. But we also know the same would be viewed from any other frame of reference and that round-trip the symmetries resolve and we only have a one-way paradox (not unlike our current discussion). The difference is in this case we can actually see an asymmetry, in the case of light that is hidden from us. Its only because the asymmetry resolves itself on round trip that we consider the paradox solved, because it effectively produces consistent results that can be tested.

So why does one asymmetry bother you anymore than the other? There is no framework to suggest to you light has symmetry anymore than there is a framework to tell you it is asymmetric.. so you have no reason to prefer symmetry

@3ammo and no, gravity wouldn't change. A lorentz transformation modified so c is asymmetrical would result in the same experimental results as a symmetric c.. the math would be needlessly more complex, but the final testable results would be the same.

If this were true than the asymetry would be testable, which it is not. All your doing is obscuring it in more complex situations and hope something will work out and change the results.. yet it never does if you do the math.

@3ammo

> qoto.org/@3ammo/105963064680177147, the "isotropy" of the speed of light is also directly related to our notions of space symmetry (among other things). This a statement about the world.

two problems with this.

1. space symmetry holds true for many things, but none of them in any way rely on a symmetry of speed of light. If light is antisymmetric then space can still be isotropic in all the ways we have observed it to be. you are referring to the cosmological principle and all it states is "When viewed at a large enough scale the universe will look the same to all observers"... this principle holds true even if c is asymmetric.

2. we never defined how c is asymmetric, nor did I state it is just some arbitrary direction in space, the asymmetry could arise through all sorts of rules (none of which is testable mind you). For example it could be that light travels faster in the direction you are moving than the opposite. In relativity fashion therefore the direction of the asymmetry is opposite for each of the observers in a clock synchronization experiment, yet due to the reasons mentioned before once this is resolved by a full round trip to compare clocks the asymmetry cancels out and you get what looks like symmetric results. In fact this example is very much in line with what we see with time dilation and special relativity how the act of making a round trip resolves the twin paradox as the acceleration to reverse direction resolves the paradox.

The point your missing (I think) and that is so important to this is that if an asymmetry exists it can not be distinguished from a symmetry in part to the impossibility of measuring light one-way. It is of a similar nature as trying to know two complimentary properties in QM, not only is it impossible, that impossibility is fundamental.

@trinsec agreed

@3ammo well no if we do it my way conventions are things we just do to make the math easier but doesnt reflect reality in any way, like "conventional current" in electronics... postulates are assumptions made with or without evidence, about how the world works and used to derrive equations based on that assumption... axioms are assertions of any type assumed to be true... so a postulate and a convention would be the two types of axioms.

@3ammo alright fair, just a difference in definition then.to me the definition of a postulate tends to suggest what is.. the way you are using the term postulate sounds more like an axiom to me.

@3ammo I'm not sure if its a philosophy difference so much as a definition one.. though if we agree on most of what I said its hard for me to see how your perspective is different at all. You want to call it a postulate, but if your definition of postulate is the same as mine im not sure how if we agree on everything else.

@3ammo I know, just saying because im not sure it makes what you say relevant to the topic if we both agree what I said to be true.. my two assertions are threfore valid.. 1) you can only measure light 2-way 2) the speed of light being instantaneously constant is a convention and not an assertion as to how it is in real life.

@trinsec hahaha well all of his characters are fun and priceless really.