From original post:...
####################
"It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
#############
From original post:...
####################
"It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
#############
Does this help?
https://www.academia.edu/23386807/The_core_mathematical_error_of_Einsteins_Special_Relativity_Theory
From original post:
####################
"It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.
Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY). "
#############
Specifically what are the false assumptions and can they be shown to be contradictory through a stepped reasoning process?
If it is at all possible.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC-3, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
From original post:
####################
"It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.
Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY). "
#############
Specifically what are the false assumptions and can they be shown to be contradictory through a stepped reasoning process?The false assumptions are in plain sight. That's why I wrote four quotes of the 1905 paper in the OP.
If it is at all possible.
Read them and reason along with this additional quote:
Quote 5, from "§1. Definition of Simultaneity": *************************************************
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events.
If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B.
But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB - tA = t'A - tB
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following
relations are universally valid:—
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
*************************************************
TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE GOBBLEDYGOOK:
1) At arbitrary points A and B of a 3D space, there are two observers (oA and oB) who have mechanical clocks that mark time by the
position of the hands (toA, which marks A time, and toB, which marks B time).
2) Clocks toA and toB are running free, and it's not known if they are synchronized. Light has to be used for this process.
3) There is a radial distance |A - B| = |B - A| between both points, which are covered in a time t1 = |A - B|/c, and in a
time t2 = |B - A|/c.
To simplify, let's call BA = |A - B| = |B - A| as the radial distance between A(x,y,z) and B(x,y,z).
4) Einstein define BY FORCE that COMMON TIME FOR A AND B is established by making t1 = t2. In his words, he called
clocks toA and toB as being SYNCHRONIZED if they verify t1 = t2.
As there is no way to measure OWLS, even in a thought experiment, Einstein resorted to the tricky TWLS, assuming light speed isotropy.
The sequence of events is as follows:
1) When toA = tA, a ray of light departs from A toward B.
2) When toB = tB, the ray of light reaches B position (radial travel) and bounces back toward A.
3) When toA = t'A, the reflected ray of light reaches A.
That t1 = t2 means that tB - tA = t'A - tB. This is enough proof, for Einstein, that clocks toA and toB are synchronized.
FALLACY 1: Isotropy of the speed of light is INSERTED AS A FACT, not even as a CONJECTURE.
FALLACY 2: There is NO MEANS by which the mark toB = tB be known. To happen this IMPORTANT EVENT, digital communications
(not even dreamed by Einstein) should have been used, so the observer oB could have sent his reading toB = tB towards oA.
By using the TWLS conjecture, he was fallacious by assuming that tA + t'A = 2 tB. If the arbitrary value tA = 0, then
tB = t'A/2 , which is A FALSE ASSERTION to declare synchronism between toA and toB clocks.
FALLACY 3: Einstein didn't put limits to BA = |A - B| = |B - A|. What's the value of such distance? 1 mm, 1 m, 1 Km, 100 million Km?
How could he possibly know that the innocent ray of light behave isotropically in quantum or cosmological distances?
FALLACY 4: Which is the "common time" that he forgot to declare rigurously? What is SIMULTANEITY?
Einstein finish "§1. Definition of Simultaneity" with the following ARROGANT, FULL OF FALLACIES COMMENT:
"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments WE HAVE SETTLED
WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY synchronous stationary clocks located at different
places, and have EVIDENTLY OBTAINED A DEFINITION of “SIMULTANEOUS,” or “SYNCHRONOUS,” and of “TIME.” The “TIME” of an event is that which is given
SIMULTANEOUSLY with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and INDEED synchronous for all time determinations, with a SPECIFIED stationary clock."
---------------------
So, if you put two clocks 300,000,000 Km apart, and tB = t'A/2 = 1,000 sec THEN toA and toB are in sync?
And the events involved are called simultaneous, by using the hands of mechanical clocks?
And if BA = 3 nm, and tB = t'A/2 = 0.01 femtoseconds, THEN toA and toB are in sync? But if at such lengthsThe mechanical details do not matter in a thought experiment.
mechanical clocks can't exist!
And how possibly he could talk about simultaneity and time, if he DIDN'T KNOW THAT SUCH TIME HAD EXISTENCE IN THAT EPOCH.
CONCLUSION: The fallacious, deceiving narrative of the 1905 paper FAILS to have ANY SENSE in upper and lower limits of time
and length.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:23:06 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:<snip>
As there is no way to measure OWLS, even in a thought experiment, Einstein resorted to the tricky TWLS, assuming
light speed isotropy.
In a thought experiment, record the time it takes for light to pass A and then pass B. I never understood why OWLS cannot be measured
and not measured in a thoughtless experiment.
That t1 = t2 means that tB - tA = t'A - tB. This is enough proof, for Einstein, that clocks toA and toB are synchronized.
FALLACY 1: Isotropy of the speed of light is INSERTED AS A FACT, not even as a CONJECTURE.
What do you mean?
FALLACY 2: There is NO MEANS by which the mark toB = tB be known.
Data recorders using the synchronized clocks can be compared after the experiment. There were not videocameras in his day.
FALLACY 3: Einstein didn't put limits to BA = |A - B| = |B - A|. What's the value of such distance? 1 mm, 1 m, 1 Km, 100 million Km?
How could he possibly know that the innocent ray of light behave isotropically in quantum or cosmological distances?
This is a false objection to the thought experiment: this experiment takes place in empty space.
FALLACY 4: Which is the "common time" that he forgot to declare rigurously? What is SIMULTANEITY?
Einstein finish "§1. Definition of Simultaneity" with the following ARROGANT, FULL OF FALLACIES COMMENT:
So, if you put two clocks 300,000,000 Km apart, and tB = t'A/2 = 1,000 sec THEN toA and toB are in sync?
And the events involved are called simultaneous, by using the hands of mechanical clocks?
I see what he is doing, imagining information is limited by the speed of light. I believe it is not. Real time information is, but forensics
are not. If no-one sees the difference between the two I cannot help it.
The mechanical details do not matter in a thought experiment.
The "Einstein's crap" has been correct since 1905, and only
stupid idiots can think that they can find inconsistencies
in what has been scrutinised by physicists for 180 years,
and which is known to be mathematically consistent.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip Paul's parroting Einstein crap. Not a fucking new idea in 118 years>
This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.
EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:
Richard haven't even got the number of clocks correct!
Hard to count to two, Richard? :-D
I didn't expect anything reasonable from a die hard relativist, who's a dyslexic cretin.
Not for nothing I introduced notation to CLARIFY the dark, deceiving and fallacious paper that you worship.
There are THREE CLOCKS, imbecile!
In Einstein's words, QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the TWO ENDS A and B of the rod,
CLOCKS ARE PLACED which SYNCHRONIZE WITH THE CLOCKS OF THE STATIONARY SYSTEM, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary system”
at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
<snip utter nonsense>--
It's all the same infinitely strange, and in a well-constituted world we should still ask ourselves questions: "Why doesn't Hachel understand
this notion?"
Richard Hachel wrote:
"In the same inertial system, all watches have the same bathmotropy".
"In the same inertial system, all watches have the same chronotropy".
They say they don't understand me...
And I am told:
"all clocks are synchronous in the stationary system".
Here, it's me who doesn't understand anything.
No more than dehydrated water, a round square, a scarlet-white tint".
I find it sad to teach relativistic physics, a science of remarkable
beauty, with such abstract notions.
https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
Maybe if you learned relativistic physics, you could teach it one day.
I notice that very often people who post don't even understand the theory that they themselves are advocating, let alone what I am saying.
They just read a couple of things, and since they see that I don't explain things the way they do, or worse that others say "it's not good", they insult me like you do in calling me a moron and ignoramus who should "learn SR".
It's been years that I repeat that the problem is not scientific, I think that people who would are all gifted enough to understand what I say (it
is very clear in many of my writings).
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard P. Feynman
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard P. Feynman
Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.
Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.
I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.
"If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."
- Richard P. Feynman
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:56:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard P. Feynman
Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.
Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.
I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.
Obviously, you are not qualified to critisize Feynman is any way shape or form. He was so far above you (and me) when it comes to physics that you have no hope of ever negating a single thing that he said.
"If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."
- Richard P. Feynman
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:56:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard P. Feynman
Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.
Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.
I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.Obviously, you are not qualified to critisize Feynman is any way shape or form. He was so far above you (and me) when it comes to physics that you have no hope of ever negating a single thing that he said.
"If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."
- Richard P. Feynman
- Richard P. FeynmanFeynman, the "virtual photon" cretin. He had no shame, and he did crap on everyone and everything around him.
Kind of Michio Kaku, but with some charisma.
Den 15.04.2023 05:09, skrev Richard Hertz:
See also:
https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
The initial error lies in Einstein's derivation of the relativity of
simultaneity (Ros). The rest of the paper is consistent with the RoS
and cannot be criticised if the latter is accepted.
I wont describe the error in full because I am writing an article on it
myself but I will give you a clue. In his paper, Einstein stated "let a
ray of light pass from (moving clock) A to B (and from B to A)".
Which part of Einstein's paper are you referring to, specifically?
He did not specify particular sources of that light.
If you refer to the moving rod argument on p. 42 (Dover ed.), then the
source does not matter because according to his Principle 2 (p. 41), the light ray's propagation does not depend on the motion of the source. So
you can assume the light signals the rod observer on p. 42 uses
originated either by a source at rest in the "stationary" systemor not.
It doesn't matter.
His whole argument collapses into a logical impossibility if the
sources used throughout are attached to the rod connecting clocks A and
B.
It makes no difference. If it makes you feel better, just assume the
light source was at rest in the "stationary" system.
(Hint: according to P2, their light will still move at c in the
stationary frame...and of course, the moving rod's length is of no
concern).
The RoS is nonsense...and therefore so is the whole of SR...
No, you simply never understood it. This is a very subtle point. I'll
give you another example of such subtlety: on p. 40 Einstein states the synchronisation condition to hold in the "stationary" system:
tB - tA = t'A - tB. And then he also says a few paragraphs later that
we further assume that the quotient 2AB/(t'A - tA) equals c.
Den 15.04.2023 23:48, skrev Richard Hertz:
There is no reference to any _physical_ clock in the stationary system,
the only point with the quoted statement is the last sentence:
"These clocks [A and B] are therefore synchronous in the stationary
system."
The only clock indications mentioned in §2 are tA, tB and tA',
all indications on A and B. There are no other physical clocks in
Einstein's scenario in §2.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
The initial error lies in Einstein's derivation of the relativity of
simultaneity (Ros). The rest of the paper is consistent with the RoS
and cannot be criticised if the latter is accepted.
I wont describe the error in full because I am writing an article on it >> myself but I will give you a clue. In his paper, Einstein stated "let a >> ray of light pass from (moving clock) A to B (and from B to A)".
Which part of Einstein's paper are you referring to, specifically?
He did not specify particular sources of that light.
If you refer to the moving rod argument on p. 42 (Dover ed.), then the source does not matter because according to his Principle 2 (p. 41), the light ray's propagation does not depend on the motion of the source. So you can assume the light signals the rod observer on p. 42 uses
originated either by a source at rest in the "stationary" systemor not.
It doesn't matter.
His whole argument collapses into a logical impossibility if the
sources used throughout are attached to the rod connecting clocks A and >> B.
It makes no difference. If it makes you feel better, just assume the
light source was at rest in the "stationary" system.
(Hint: according to P2, their light will still move at c in the
stationary frame...and of course, the moving rod's length is of no
concern).
The RoS is nonsense...and therefore so is the whole of SR...
No, you simply never understood it. This is a very subtle point. I'll
give you another example of such subtlety: on p. 40 Einstein states the synchronisation condition to hold in the "stationary" system:
tB - tA = t'A - tB. And then he also says a few paragraphs later that
we further assume that the quotient 2AB/(t'A - tA) equals c.
This will be too hard for you.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Step 1 involves esynching the stationary clocks (C) with stationary
sources and matching the moving clock (A and B) readings and rates with
the stationary ones (presumably by passing them backwards and forwards several times and adjusting their readings when adjacent)
Step 2. A and B are set in motion and light signals are sent between
them in opposite directions.
Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch in
the moving system (because they have violated P2).
However, if the light sources that send light signals between the moving clock are attached to the moving system,
their emitted light is still
deemed to move at c in the stationary system and Einstein's above claim remains intact. However, it is now obvious from symmetry that the two
OWLS measurements should be identical.
You will say "So what?"
.....and I will tell you what...but note, this is copywrited.
At step3, Einstein's calculations necessarily imply that the readings of
all the stationary clocks advance by different NUMBERS during the
opposite transits of light signals between A and B, the readings of which will therefore so do the same.
However, when considered from the moving frame, it obvious from symmetry
and in accord with Einstein, that the individual readings of both A and B must and will advance by the SAME number during those opposite transits irrespective of how they are synched.
So according to Einstein, the reading of clock A will advance by
DIFFERENT numbers during the opposite transits ...but also according to Einstein that same reading will advance by the SAME numbers.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:
It obviously WAS too hard for you.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch
in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
before it got important).
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:
It obviously WAS too hard for you.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch
in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it before it got important).
That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you have read and understood it.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:43:21 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.04.2023 23:48, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>
<snip Paul's parroting Einstein crap. Not a fucking new idea in 118 years>
<snip more Einstein crap from an apologist, except this pearl>
The "Einstein's crap" has been correct since 1905, and only
stupid idiots can think that they can find inconsistencies
in what has been scrutinised by physicists for 180 years,
and which is known to be mathematically consistent.
As a good relativist, you fail even in basic math: 1905 + 180 = 2085 (unless you're predicting that this shit will last till then).
The Bible, the Talmud and the Coran have been scrutinized by hundred thousand religious people and theologists. And
this for hundred of years.
And everyone, in his religious domain, have found each of them religiously consistent, and even found encoded messages.
And the scrutiny continue, as of today.
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
Le 15/04/2023 à 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod,
clocks
are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
system, that
is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the
“time of the
stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These
clocks are
therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
Important point:
The moving clocks A and B are synchronous in the stationary system.
________________________
Paul, my friend, I don't understand that term.
Are you there Paul?
What do you mean when you say: "all clocks are synchronous in the
stationary system"?
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:
It obviously WAS too hard for you.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch
in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I describedThat is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you have read and understood it.
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it before it got important).
Den 16.04.2023 01:16, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 15/04/2023 à 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, >>> clocks
are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
system, that
is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the
“time of the
stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These
clocks are
therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
Important point:
The moving clocks A and B are synchronous in the stationary system.
________________________
Paul, my friend, I don't understand that term.
Are you there Paul?
What do you mean when you say: "all clocks are synchronous in the stationary system"?
Let's take a concrete example from the real world:
UTC clocks on the geoid are synchronous in the non rotating
Earth centred frame of reference. (Often called the ECI-frame
- Earth Centred Inertial frame,even if it isn't really inertial.)
Imagine a hollow Earth. If a spherical EM-pulse was emitted
from the centre, all the UTC-clocks would show the same
when they were hit by the wavefront. That's because
the speed of light is isotropic c in the ECI- frame.
Imagine a rod at equator, oriented east-west.
Two UTC-clocks are placed at its ends, clock B at the eastern
end, and clock A on the western end.
Let the length of the rod be rAB.
The rod is moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s eastwards
measured in the ECI-frame.
To see if A and B are synchronous in the ground frame,
let a light pulse be emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
Let the pulse be reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
and reach clock A when it shows tA'.
We can now use Einstein's equations in §2 of "Electrodynamics".
https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
Equations (3) and (4)
tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B
tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) transit time B->A
Since tAB > tBA we can conclude:
The two UTC clocks are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
Let's look at concrete numbers.
#1: rAB = 1 metre, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s
tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 3.33564613 ns
tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 3.33563578 ns
tAB-tBA = 1.035e-14
The difference is hardly measurable.
#2: rAB = 100 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s
tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 333.564613 μs
tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 333.563578 μs
tAB-tBA = 1.035 ns
Should be measurable.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
before it got important).
That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you
have read and understood it.
It is the RoS derivation. I simply quoted how Einstein defined it. Your description OTOH is complete poetry, ignoring all the details in
Einstein's argument. My first recommendation to you is to stop using
your private undefined terms. If you want to debate Einstein's paper,
stick to the terminology used there or define your terms.
So for now, you have nothing to show except poetry.
UTC clocks on the geoid are synchronous in the non rotating Earth
centred frame of reference. (Often called the ECI-frame - Earth Centred Inertial frame,even if it isn't really inertial.)
Imagine a hollow Earth. If a spherical EM-pulse was emitted from the
centre, all the UTC-clocks would show the same when they were hit by the wavefront. That's because the speed of light is isotropic c in the ECI- frame.
Imagine a rod at equator, oriented east-west.
Two UTC-clocks are placed at its ends, clock B at the eastern end, and
clock A on the western end.
Let the length of the rod be rAB.
The rod is moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s eastwards measured in the ECI-frame.
To see if A and B are synchronous in the ground frame,
let a light pulse be emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
Let the pulse be reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
and reach clock A when it shows tA'.
We can now use Einstein's equations in §2 of "Electrodynamics".
https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf Equations (3) and (4)
tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v)
transit time B->A
Since tAB > tBA we can conclude:
The two UTC clocks are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.
They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory),
and buried/erased
any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.
Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.
Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
before it got important).
That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you
have read and understood it.
It is the RoS derivation. I simply quoted how Einstein defined it. Your description OTOH is complete poetry, ignoring all the details in Einstein's argument. My first recommendation to you is to stop using
your private undefined terms. If you want to debate Einstein's paper, stick to the terminology used there or define your terms.
So for now, you have nothing to show except poetry.
You know nothing about physics or relativity.
The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light speeds
in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections.
Rather than
accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein simply
redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to work..
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
<snip>
I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give a shit about SR:
1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/
2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than 5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.
3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in this article:
https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/
The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):
N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y + 5E+14
The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.
If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.
It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics. https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819
4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79% (33,750) of this total since 1990.
Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers are:
849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted since 1990.
(See Figure 6) https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819
**************************************************************
Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write again your question:
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in SR. Now GR is the trend.
And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.
They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.
Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.
Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.
The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.
Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).
With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.
Here, read it and question it:
Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak
And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.
SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
and is proven to be mathematical consistent.
You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.
Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
<snip>
I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give a shit about SR:
1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/
2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than 5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.
3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in this article:
https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/
The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):
N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y + 5E+14
The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.
If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.
It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics.
https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819
4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79% (33,750) of this total since 1990.
Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers are:
849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted since 1990.
(See Figure 6) https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819
**************************************************************
Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write again your question:
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in SR. Now GR is the trend.
And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.
They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.
Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.
Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.
The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.
Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).
With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.
Here, read it and question it:
Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak
And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.
Why use so many words when your answer to my question:
"Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"
is simply "yes"?
SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
and is proven to be mathematical consistent.
You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no
Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
<snip>
I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give
a shit about SR:
1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/
2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than
5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.
3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in
this article:
https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/
The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):
N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y
+ 5E+14
The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of >> 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.
If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value
in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.
It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics. >> https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819
4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79%
(33,750) of this total since 1990.
Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers
are:
849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted >> since 1990.
(See Figure 6)
https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819
**************************************************************
Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write
again your question:
Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?
Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE
HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in
SR. Now GR is the trend.
And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were
ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.
They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity.
They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905
manifesto.
Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's
relativity.
Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when
WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919
and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several >> years after 1919.
The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only
sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.
Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old
menace, still in force).
With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT >> SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.
Here, read it and question it:
Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak
And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY.
A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.
Why use so many words when your answer to my question:
"Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"
is simply "yes"?
SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
and is proven to be mathematical consistent.
You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.
Le 18/04/2023 à 13:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
[the usual idiocies]
Why use so many words when your answer to my question:
"Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"
is simply "yes"?
SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
and is proven to be mathematical consistent.
You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.
It is not difficult to answer this question.
Einstein's SR is not consistent, and it is ugly.
Hachel's SR is coherent and beautiful.
There is no need for a photograph to give the winner.
The problem is purely human.
If you want to drive an eisnteinian crazy, ask him how to find that four times nine is seven point two.
This is however what he does when he says that the contraction of
distances is 12*0.6 and that he is not able to understand that the
distance traveled in his frame of reference is his proper time multiplied
by the apparent speed of the object.
It's all a filthy, crying antics, with the added bonus of the
extraordinary hatred of the monkeys against the guy who is smarter than them.
This goes as far as breaking internet service providers to death threats.
The question is: But what happened?
R.H.
PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:
+ 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.
Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).
And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.
But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.
So, don't bother to reply.
Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:
PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:
+ 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.
Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).
And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.
But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.
So, don't bother to reply.
I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
demonstration of realistic thinking.
This is what I have learned:
"If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
OF SYNCHRONISM."
So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
it must corrected by:
[v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm
Or have I missed something?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
You know nothing about physics or relativity.
Oh yes, I do. You simply have no idea.
The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light
speeds in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections.
No. This is false. Read Einstein's paper with more care next time.
Rather than accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein
simply redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to
work..
Nope. You've just fallen into The Standard Crank Trap. There is much
more to it than that. This trap BTW is very common in this business,
you are by far not the first victim of it.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's
manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.
They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.
Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.
Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to
1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom
in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and
several years after 1919.
The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto
not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.
Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years
old menace, still in force).
With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper,
INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.
Here, read it and question it:
Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just
stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak
And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:13:55 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
You know nothing about physics or relativity.Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
Oh yes, I do. You simply have no idea.
The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light
speeds in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections.
No. This is false. Read Einstein's paper with more care next time.
I don't need to. Einstein's RoS is obvious. It is also obviously wrong.
Rather than accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein
simply redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to
work..
Nope. You've just fallen into The Standard Crank Trap. There is much
more to it than that. This trap BTW is very common in this business,
you are by far not the first victim of it.
What does an ignorant fool gain by calling an expert a 'Crank'? Does it
make him feel better"
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:51:10 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's
manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.
They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.
Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.
Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to
1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom
in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.
The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.
Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years
old menace, still in force).
With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.
Here, read it and question it:
Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak
And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.Richard, what you say is perfectly correct but you have to be careful.
The whole of SR is a beautifully consistent concoction based on
Einstein's unproven second postulate.
Once that is accepted, the RoS
appears reasonable and everything else flows from that.
The one way speed of light emitted by a moving source has never been directly measured and until it is, Einstein will surely reign. However,
as I pointed out, the RoS leads to a logical contradiction and is
therefore wrong....and so is everything that follows.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:
It obviously WAS too hard for you.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when youStep 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
before it got important).
have read and understood it.
You misunderstood the concept of synchronisation of clocks when you said there was circularity due to disregarding the type of the emitter used (moving vs. stationary). I simply pointed out this was incorrect.
BTW, you don't get to call when I (or anybody) "comes back". If you want
that kind of forum, open a private one which you can moderate.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:
It obviously WAS too hard for you.
Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when youStep 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).
No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
before it got important).
have read and understood it.
You misunderstood the concept of synchronisation of clocks when you said there was circularity due to disregarding the type of the emitter used (moving vs. stationary). I simply pointed out this was incorrect.You would say it is incorrect just on principle. You really haven't the faintest idea of what we are discussing.
BTW, you don't get to call when I (or anybody) "comes back". If you want that kind of forum, open a private one which you can moderate.....comes back to my posts...
I dont have time to argue with non scientists.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:
PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:
+ 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.
Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).
And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.
But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain. >>>
So, don't bother to reply.
I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
demonstration of realistic thinking.
This is what I have learned:
"If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
OF SYNCHRONISM."
So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
it must corrected by:
[v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm
Or have I missed something?
In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with
your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A
I assume, also, that time tA = UTC - 3 was the accepted synchronous time being at A.
If you travel eastward for 1 hour, your clock SHOULD BE ADJUSTED to show tB = UTC - 2. Your speed v is irrelevant,
as you also disclosed the time that you invested in such travel.
A different thing is, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR CLOCK SYCHRONIZED WITH tA = UTC - 3, that your clock (giving tB)
be constantly adjusted to be in sync with tA (UTC sync), by adding a difference Δt to tB:
BA = v (tB - tA) = ΔtB
Δt = 86,400 v (tB - tA)/6713Km = 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec
Once v ΔtB = 6,713 Km, you have gone around the Earth, at the ground level in the equator, so you have to resync tB = tA,
and add one day to your general time counter.
If you moved v ΔtB/24 = 279.7083 Km, your moving clock SHOULD SHOW tA + 1Hr = UTC - 2.
For any time ΔtB, your clock should show tB = tA + 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec, to be in sync with UTC(tA).
Sec(1 day)/perimeter_at_equator = 0.01287055 sec/m
NOW, you want to be sure that people at A know your instantaneous UTC synchronized time tB.
You have to invest an additional time t+ = v/c ΔtB to communicate (1-way) your UTC synchronized time tB to the A side.
You'll notice that A and B sides of this problem can't solve the verification, in real time, about how well sychronized are their clocks.
There always will be a time window of uncertainty not lower than t+ = v/c ΔtB on the A side, EVEN WHEN A CORRECTION FOR
SIMULTANEITY t+ = v/c ΔtB BE ADDED TO THE CLOCKS IN THE A SIDE.
As you can see, this problem has more than one level of complexity.
But Einstein just ignored all this shit, because he was a fucking cretin and deceiver.
WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
for better purposes.
*******************************************************************
The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:
Quote Einstein 1905:
QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
[NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”
QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
that it differs from l.
Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.
QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
***** END OF QUOTING ******
REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS
Let's describe the whole scenario:
1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmA.
3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.
This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.
EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:
When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.
If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).
When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.
It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)
This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.
Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.
REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2
1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position.
I register a time tmA = tA
2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c
The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time
tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c
The elapsed time of the roundtrip is
Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c
PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN
The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:
1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA
2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB
tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)
3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:
t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)
The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES
(by CALCULATION) is
Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]
A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.
Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.
He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.
The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).
But my position on this relativity is simple:
1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT,
without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the 1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused
on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal
of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.
My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.
RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.
****************************************
It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.
Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).
This will continue.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.
Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:
PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:
+ 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.
Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).
And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.
But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.
So, don't bother to reply.
I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
demonstration of realistic thinking.
This is what I have learned:
"If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
OF SYNCHRONISM."
So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
it must corrected by:
[v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm
Or have I missed something?
In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with"My example" was YOUR example and thus utter nonsense.
your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A
I said:
"I am on the equator and my clock is showing UTC"
You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
nonsense I have ever read!
But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
____________________
Richard Hertz wrote:
"PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are,
by using UTC in a discussion of SR."
(You can snip the rest, you won't understand it.)
The point is that according to SR, UTC (and TAI) clocks
are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred frame (ECI),
but they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
This can be and is measured.
I showed the calculation for two stationary UTC clocks at
the ground at equator, oriented east-west, separated by 100 km.
The ground frame is moving at v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI-frame,
where the speed of light is c.
A light pulse is emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
The pulse is reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
and reach clock A when it shows tA'. https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
Equations (3) and (4)
tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B
tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) transit time B->A
rAB = 100 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s
tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 333.564613 μs
tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 333.563578 μs
tAB-tBA = 1.035 ns
That is, the difference between the transit time
of the light forth and back is δt = 1.035 ns
So according to SR, the UTC clocks are NOT synchronous
in the ground frame.
This phenomenon is often called the "Sagnac effect".
I will show you why:
If you send light in both direction around the Earth,
the difference in transit time for the two directions will be:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
equation (8)
∆t = 4πrv/c²⋅√(1−v^/c²)
r = 6378 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s
∆t = 0.41476 μs
The circumference of the Earth is 2πr = 40074 km
δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
_________________
I will leave the rest as it is.
I assume, also, that time tA = UTC - 3 was the accepted synchronous time being at A.
If you travel eastward for 1 hour, your clock SHOULD BE ADJUSTED to show tB = UTC - 2. Your speed v is irrelevant,
as you also disclosed the time that you invested in such travel.
A different thing is, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR CLOCK SYCHRONIZED WITH tA = UTC - 3, that your clock (giving tB)
be constantly adjusted to be in sync with tA (UTC sync), by adding a difference Δt to tB:
BA = v (tB - tA) = ΔtB
Δt = 86,400 v (tB - tA)/6713Km = 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec
Once v ΔtB = 6,713 Km, you have gone around the Earth, at the ground level in the equator, so you have to resync tB = tA,
and add one day to your general time counter.
If you moved v ΔtB/24 = 279.7083 Km, your moving clock SHOULD SHOW tA + 1Hr = UTC - 2.
For any time ΔtB, your clock should show tB = tA + 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec, to be in sync with UTC(tA).
Sec(1 day)/perimeter_at_equator = 0.01287055 sec/m
NOW, you want to be sure that people at A know your instantaneous UTC synchronized time tB.
You have to invest an additional time t+ = v/c ΔtB to communicate (1-way) your UTC synchronized time tB to the A side.
You'll notice that A and B sides of this problem can't solve the verification, in real time, about how well sychronized are their clocks.
There always will be a time window of uncertainty not lower than t+ = v/c ΔtB on the A side, EVEN WHEN A CORRECTION FOR
SIMULTANEITY t+ = v/c ΔtB BE ADDED TO THE CLOCKS IN THE A SIDE.
As you can see, this problem has more than one level of complexity.
But Einstein just ignored all this shit, because he was a fucking cretin and deceiver.
Amazing, isn't it? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no
Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:
PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:
+ 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.
Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).
And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.
But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.
So, don't bother to reply.
I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
demonstration of realistic thinking.
This is what I have learned:
"If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
OF SYNCHRONISM."
So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
it must corrected by:
[v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm
Or have I missed something?
In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with"My example" was YOUR example and thus utter nonsense.
your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A
I said:
"I am on the equator and my clock is showing UTC"
You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
nonsense I have ever read!
But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
____________________
Richard Hertz wrote:
"PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are,
by using UTC in a discussion of SR."
(You can snip the rest, you won't understand it.)
The point is that according to SR, UTC (and TAI) clocks
are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred frame (ECI),
but they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
This can be and is measured.
I showed the calculation for two stationary UTC clocks at
the ground at equator, oriented east-west, separated by 100 km.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This is what I have learned:
"If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
OF SYNCHRONISM."
So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
it must corrected by:
[v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm
Or have I missed something?
The UTC of any given region is given as: UTC ± hh:mm
On 4/19/2023 6:54 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Yes you have. It seems that Richard has been taking stupidity lessonsThis is what I have learned:
"If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
OF SYNCHRONISM."
So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
it must corrected by:
[v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm
Or have I missed something?
from our Polish janitor.
The UTC of any given region is given as: UTC ± hh:mmHahahahahaha!!! It does appear Dick Hurts did take stupidity lessons
from the Polish janitor! He appears to think that the position and/or rotation of earth creates time or something.
Hint: There is one, and only one, UTC time.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who
disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.
As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false
claims.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.
As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false claims.
Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks which
are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in any other. He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
differ from c. That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental error lies.
--
-- lover of truth
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.
As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false claims.
Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks which
are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in any other. He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
differ from c.
That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental
error lies.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
nonsense I have ever read!
But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
____________________
Definitely, you are too much infected with the Einstein virus, for which there is no and will not be any cure.
You just DON'T REASON. Your mind is full of relativity shit, so there is not even a couple of neurons available for alternative thoughts.
I insist, yet, with elementary concepts THAT RULE the modern world.
1) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), international basis of civil and scientific time, which was introduced on January 1, 1960.
The unit of UTC is the second.
In 1967, a committee at the United Nations officially adopted UTC as a standard that's more accurate than GMT for setting clocks.
UTC incorporates measurements of the Earth's rotation as well as averaged readings from around 400 atomic clocks around the world,
task being in charge of BIPM.
UTC replaced the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) as the world standard of time on January 1, 1972. For 50 years now, UTC has been the
standard that is used to set all time zones around the globe.
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity
IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each) that are used to
tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator),
which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.would
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth'srotation),
the motion on the meridian that contains the length BAB (east side),
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
nonsense I have ever read!
But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
____________________
Definitely, you are too much infected with the Einstein virus, for which there is no and will not be any cure.
You just DON'T REASON. Your mind is full of relativity shit, so there is not even a couple of neurons available for alternative thoughts.
I insist, yet, with elementary concepts THAT RULE the modern world.
You have in several postings demonstrated that you
don't know what UTC is, and now you think you can remedy
that by looking it up and quoting.
If you now really have learned what UTC is, you MUST know
that what you have written in your previous postings is nonsense.
1) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), international basis of civil and scientific time, which was introduced on January 1, 1960.
The unit of UTC is the second.
In 1967, a committee at the United Nations officially adopted UTC as a standard that's more accurate than GMT for setting clocks.
UTC incorporates measurements of the Earth's rotation as well as averaged readings from around 400 atomic clocks around the world,
task being in charge of BIPM.
UTC replaced the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) as the world standard of time on January 1, 1972. For 50 years now, UTC has been the
standard that is used to set all time zones around the globe.
Yes, I know what UTC is, and if you now have learned it,
you will know the following:
There are a number of clocks showing UTC in the world, and all
these clocks will at any time always show the exactly the same
(observed in the ECI-frame). If the clocks are precise, there
will never be any need to adjust them (except for leap seconds).
I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
distance between them is 100 km.
Note this:
The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.
But here is what you had to say about the UTC-clocks.
Richard Hertz wrote:
A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity
IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each) that are used to
tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.
There are 24 time Zones, but only one UTC.
The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone
they may be in is irrelevant.
You do not USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (time zones) to tell UTC time.
Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.
"UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D
Each segment (Time Zone) is 1,667.9 km/h ??
The ground at equator is moving with this speed in
the ECI frame, and so are the clocks A and B.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that lightwould
cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
Not quite.
Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms
The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)
Which means that light moving eastwards will cover
the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
longer time than the light moving westwards.
Since the transit time of the light between A and B is
different in the two directions, the two UTC clocks
are not synchronous in the ground frame.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth'srotation),
the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) toB (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
(observed in the ECI frame).
____________________________________
Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?
Do you now know that you do not have to adjust a UTC clock because
the Earth is rotating?
You will snip this, won't you? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no
WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
for better purposes.
*******************************************************************
The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:
Quote Einstein 1905:
QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
[NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”
QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
that it differs from l.
Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.
QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of theAvoiding ad hominem criticism of Einstein, since I would instead focus on the alleged science, I should say the extreme failures in the most elementary logic committed by Einstein and the relativists invalidate the theory entirely. If Einstein were to
stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
***** END OF QUOTING ******
REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS
Let's describe the whole scenario:
1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmA.
3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.
This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.
EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:
When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.
If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).
When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.
It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)
This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.
Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.
REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2
1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position.
I register a time tmA = tA
2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c
The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time
tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c
The elapsed time of the roundtrip is
Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c
PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN
The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:
1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA
2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB
tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)
3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:
t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)
The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES
(by CALCULATION) is
Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]
A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.
Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.
He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.
The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).
But my position on this relativity is simple:
1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT,
without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the 1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused
on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal
of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.
My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.
RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.
****************************************
It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.
Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).
This will continue.
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
for better purposes.
*******************************************************************
The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:
Quote Einstein 1905:
QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
[NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”
QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
that it differs from l.
Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words,
that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.
give a clear and forthright exposition of his argumentation, it would have been more readily seen for the nonsense it is. We can know that a concept is illogical a priori without any need to scrutinize it. Time dilation and length contraction are plainQUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks
are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that
is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are
therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
***** END OF QUOTING ******
REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS
Let's describe the whole scenario:
1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmA.
3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.
This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.
EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:
When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.
If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).
When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.
It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)
This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.
Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote
in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW
AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.
REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2
1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position.
I register a time tmA = tA
2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c
The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time
tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c
The elapsed time of the roundtrip is
Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c
PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN
The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:
1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA
2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB
tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)
3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:
t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)
The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES
(by CALCULATION) is
Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]
A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.
Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.
He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he
introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.
The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of
the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).
But my position on this relativity is simple:
1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT,
without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the 1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.
My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.
RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.
****************************************
It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.
Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).
This will continue.Avoiding ad hominem criticism of Einstein, since I would instead focus on the alleged science, I should say the extreme failures in the most elementary logic committed by Einstein and the relativists invalidate the theory entirely. If Einstein were to
You say you accept the second postulate. Einstein’s description of his “second postulate”: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” [Einstein’s1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. That means it rejects Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source. This is also a corollary of Newton's First Law of Motion. How could you accept that? Clearly, you do
Yes, Lorentz transforms are without physical meaning. Since Poincare did not have an ether, his Lorentz transforms do not account for the lack of ether wind. As Curt Renshaw and others have pointed out, Einstein discarded the ether yet kept thetransforms when there was no longer any need for them. They were originally meant to save the ether from the null result.
Yet Einstein said he didn't know about the MMX in 1905 (a lie because he read a lengthy 1890's paper discussing it at length). He wanted to keep the equations "invariant." What is meant by the invariance of the Maxwell equations? It means the equationsare kept the same while augmenting them with other equations, the Lorentz transformations. Without an ether, what use can they have? They become necessary when Galileo's shared velocity is denied and when they are needed to negate additive velocity
Yes, Einstein asserts what he wants to conclude.lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas” Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that “racism” is a key term. If his definition wobbles,
All of relativity is incoherent gobbledygook.
Is relativity multicultural science? Einstein's definition of simultaneity reminds me of Ibram Kendi's definition of racism. Both use circular reasoning. ["Here is Kendi’s definition of “racism” in writing: “A collection of racist policies that
Relativity is a fairy tale.
Paul Alsing is funny because Richard Feynman said if you understand something, you can explain it to the average person.
Poor Paul Andersen and his arguments from "authority." There have been thousands of excellent scientists who have totally refuted relativity. For example, those 1,000's listed by G. O. Mueller.
All that's needed to refute relativity is to think for a minute!
Einstein assumed the Lorentz transformations and concluded the relativity of simultaneity. Otherwise, his train & lightning thought experiment makes no sense.
The trouble with most critics of relativity is that they accept any of it.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?
What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?
Inertial reference frame?
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?
What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?Einstein called this the stationary frame...
Inertial reference frame?
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:31:10 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?
What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?Einstein called this the stationary frame...
Inertial reference frame?
No, he didn't, asshole. Crawl back to under the rock that you came from.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with
respect to B.
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame...
pretty simple, eh?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with
respect to B.
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
object in the universe is in every frame.
You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.
--
-- lover of truth
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Is this correct?
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Is this correct?Wrong!!!
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
for better purposes.
*******************************************************************
The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN
WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:
Quote Einstein 1905:
QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system
and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what
points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are
located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
[NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in
this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”
QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
that it differs from l.
Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words,
that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.
digressions.QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks
are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that
is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are
therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"
***** END OF QUOTING ******
REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS
Let's describe the whole scenario:
1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmA.
3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.
This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.
EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:
When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only
ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.
If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).
When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.
It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)
This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.
Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote
in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW
AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.
REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2
1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position. I register a time tmA = tA
2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming
from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c
The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time
tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c
The elapsed time of the roundtrip is
Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c
PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN
The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length
rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:
1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA
2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB
tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)
3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:
t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)
The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES (by CALCULATION) is
Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]
A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.
Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.
He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he
introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.
The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of
the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).
But my position on this relativity is simple:
1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT, without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the
1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.
My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.
RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.
****************************************
It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and
to give a clear and forthright exposition of his argumentation, it would have been more readily seen for the nonsense it is. We can know that a concept is illogical a priori without any need to scrutinize it. Time dilation and length contraction areAlso, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).
This will continue.Avoiding ad hominem criticism of Einstein, since I would instead focus on the alleged science, I should say the extreme failures in the most elementary logic committed by Einstein and the relativists invalidate the theory entirely. If Einstein were
1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. That means it rejects Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source. This is also a corollary of Newton's First Law of Motion. How could you accept that? Clearly, you doYou say you accept the second postulate. Einstein’s description of his “second postulate”: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” [Einstein’s
transforms when there was no longer any need for them. They were originally meant to save the ether from the null result.Yes, Lorentz transforms are without physical meaning. Since Poincare did not have an ether, his Lorentz transforms do not account for the lack of ether wind. As Curt Renshaw and others have pointed out, Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the
equations are kept the same while augmenting them with other equations, the Lorentz transformations. Without an ether, what use can they have? They become necessary when Galileo's shared velocity is denied and when they are needed to negate additiveYet Einstein said he didn't know about the MMX in 1905 (a lie because he read a lengthy 1890's paper discussing it at length). He wanted to keep the equations "invariant." What is meant by the invariance of the Maxwell equations? It means the
that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas” Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that “racism” is a key term. If his definitionYes, Einstein asserts what he wants to conclude.
All of relativity is incoherent gobbledygook.
Is relativity multicultural science? Einstein's definition of simultaneity reminds me of Ibram Kendi's definition of racism. Both use circular reasoning. ["Here is Kendi’s definition of “racism” in writing: “A collection of racist policies
You said: "1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely. " Then you reject Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source.Relativity is a fairy tale.
Paul Alsing is funny because Richard Feynman said if you understand something, you can explain it to the average person.
Poor Paul Andersen and his arguments from "authority." There have been thousands of excellent scientists who have totally refuted relativity. For example, those 1,000's listed by G. O. Mueller.
All that's needed to refute relativity is to think for a minute!
Einstein assumed the Lorentz transformations and concluded the relativity of simultaneity. Otherwise, his train & lightning thought experiment makes no sense.
The trouble with most critics of relativity is that they accept any of it.I conside that this post is very interesting and contain deep thoughts about the development of the timeline that connects
(1887) MMX, (1892) FitzGerald proposal that Lorentz kept developing, (1904) Lorentz final work over FitzGerald proposal,
(1905) Poincaré etherless reformulation, (1905) Einstein's plagiarism (80% Lorentz, 15% Poincaré and 5% Einstein's worthless
gobbledygook.
In the above timeline, I found highly reasonable your comment about the lack of any need, after Poincaré (a mathematical work),
to keep using Lorentz transforms in an etherless context.
But the timeline didn't include the foundational work of 1887 Voigt, just months before MMX and not connected with it.
Voigt, of whom 1908 Minkowski named as the real father of relativity, which I consider was not his objective at all, proposed
something very simple, which Einstein HAD to have known (same notation):
** Which is the transformation that makes every linear transformation of new dimensions (ξ,η,ζ,τ)
ξ = f₁(x,y,z,t)
η = f₂(x,y,z,t)
ζ = f₃(x,y,z,t)
τ = f(x,y,z,t)
that the 3D general wave equation is INVARIANT (and Voigt did this because galilean transform failed in its transform).
With 19 free parameters, Voigt found that the INVARIANCE required a transform factor q² = 1/(1 - χ²/ω²), the famous GAMMA (γ),
PLUS τ = t − χ/ω² (xα₁ + yβ₁ + zγ₁) , the famous LOCAL TIME. Also, he obtained its transforms mantaining t = τ.
Only Einstein found an interesteing way to profit τ ≠ t, something that Lorentz, the year before, DISMISSED AS A COLATERAL ARTIFACT.
Including Voigt in the relativity timeline (1897-1905) highlight the non-physical exploitation of the mathematics that gave τ ≠ t,
being that the prime objective of Lorentz was to obtain ξ (or x') ≠ x, which also was non-physical and NEVER was proven right in
119 years.
While Lorentz just PLANTED Voigt's q (γ) OUT OF THE BLUE, Einstein did mathematic acrobacies to derive simultaneously τ and ξ.
And this "derivation" is so strongly interconnected that, if ξ has been FALSE/UNPROVEN, automathically τ IS FALSE/UNPROVEN.
Consider this in the general picture described in your post.
Also, regarding circular logic like your example of racism, in enters into the realm of the pseudo-logic of sophism, in which Einstein
was an expert as a fallacious deceiver.
Sophism: a clever but false or fallacious argument, used deliberately to deceive.
And, in one of many cases within the 1905 manifesto, the preemptive and subtle assertion that rAB ≠ l AND that it WOULD BE FOUND
that movile clocks LOST its synchronism is a PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PETITIO PRINCIPII.
The whole paper, besides the plagiarism since Point 4 onwards, is just pseudo-physics, based on SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION, not in
real physics. He exploited this fallacy by mathematics.
BUT MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS. ITS JUST A TOOL USED IN PHYSICS, NOT A PHYSICS LAWS GENERATOR PER SE.
You said: "1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely. " Then you reject Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source.the beam's apparent velocity (within the apparatus) is C. Similarly, the way back to the interferometer.
You said: "But the timeline didn't include the foundational work of 1887 Voigt, just months before MMX and not connected with it." & "Voigt did this because galilean transform failed in its transform)."
Michelson already carried out a similar experiment in 1881. Perhaps Voigt was already trying to account for a null result in earlier experiments.
It seems that the MMX is easily explainable utilizing Galilean transformations as follows.
In the MMX, designate one rod, the horizontal rod taken as pointing toward Earth's orbital motion. Because the light beam shares the motion of its source (the Earth), it moves C + 30 km/sec out to the mirror. Since the mirror also moved at 30 km/sec.
For the rod perpendicular to that, the light beam moves at the speed square root of (c^2 + v^2). It moves over a longer distance of a hypotenuse created by the motion of the Earth. The higher speed exactly compensates for the longer distance making itsapparent speed within the apparatus C. Both light beams return to the interferometer at the same time.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1Is this correct?Wrong!!!
-1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:26:56 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
<snip long thread>
You have to understand that I reject einstenian 1905 relativity and that I've been dissecting the 1905 paper, exclusively.
I didn't attempt to go any further than on this "manifesto", what would be to focus on 1908 Minkowski's spacetime.
I intend to display, with utter clarity, every issue of the points 1, 2 and 3, which I consider either fallacious, wrong or just stupid.
Regarding the above, the use of mirrors by Einstein contain a fundamental error of concept when it is about the DOMAIN OF
APPLICABILITY of the Einstein's examples.
That's why I INSIST that what Einstein tried to impose since the start CAN'T BE VALID for distances lower than 1 meter, where
the error in the following formula is about 5 ppm, and increase to 5% in distances of micrometers.
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 11:27:12 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Einstein used "principles" (see section 2):Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1Is this correct?Wrong!!!
-1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
as follows:
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".
The word "velocity" is an error from the translation of the paper. Light (as well as sound) has a speed and not a velocity (which is a vector).
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 11:27:12 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Einstein used "principles" (see section 2):Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1Is this correct?Wrong!!!
-1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
as follows:
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Richard Hertz wrote:
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would >> |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation),
the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
(observed in the ECI frame).
____________________________________
Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?
Paul, I didn't snip anything.Quite.
I remember that we discussed something about this last year.
Now, given what you wrote and the concept of synchronism of clocks on Earth and nearby space, DO YOU WANT
TO DISCUSS SIMULTANEITY IN RELATIVITY, USING UTC?
But THIS UTC: The one that, with a master clock reference centered on 51.4780° N, 0.0015° W (Greenwich Observatory
outside of London), where time for an earthly day is set to start at 00:00 at midnight of any given day, and covers the
globe since this Prime Meridian, in 24 longitudes that define areas from pole to pole, separated 15° each?
Or do you prefer to stick to the 1905 manifesto, so you feel comfortable, and your credence are not shaken?
Den 21.04.2023 00:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:No answer, Richard?
Richard Hertz wrote:
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would
cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation),
the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.
In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
(observed in the ECI frame).
____________________________________
Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?
Paul, I didn't snip anything.Quite.
You have no comments, and don't try to defend your stupidities.
The following has no real content:
About the 1887 MMX, I'm not familiarized with it, to the degree of criticize any aspect, except this funny detail:I should have remembered you told me that before. I think that special relativity is primarily about explaining the MMX and fails to do so. I don't think any sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism is necessary to show that. I think Sagnac merely
MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA. So, the results.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than
a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.
I think that special relativity is primarily about explaining the MMX
and fails to do so.
I don't think any sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism is
necessary to show that.
I think Sagnac merely shows additive velocity as does the MMX.
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
= UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km. Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
https://paulba.no
On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a
Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.
It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer it
does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to the
room can be neglected.
I think that special relativity is primarily about explaining the MMX
and fails to do so.
Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE
than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result:
since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
independent of orientation.
I don't think any sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism is
necessary to show that.
The "that" you refer to is wrong. But I did not need any "sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism" to explain the MMX result using SR.
I think Sagnac merely shows additive velocity as does the MMX.
Then you do not know anything about it. The original Sagnac
interferometer was in glass, and "additive velocity" simply does not
work; look up "Fresnel drag coefficient", which was a pre-SR attempt to understand what was happening in moving optical media. Note that SR completely resolved the issue with its Lorentz composition of
velocities. (The Fresnel drag coefficient is the first term of the
Taylor series for the Lorentz composition of velocities.)
Tom Roberts
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
= UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km. Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame). The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdfNOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a
Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.
It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer it does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to theWhat nonsense. The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light clocks' at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the Earth's absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and
room can be neglected.
was never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
= UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km. Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame). The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdfNOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.
As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the
'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion of the source.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰ And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
= UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdfNOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.
As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motionExample:
of the source.
Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
Get this, Ghehan?
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz
wrote:
MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE
than a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.
It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac
interferometer it does indeed have zero area. That implies its
rotation relative to the room can be neglected.
What nonsense.
The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light
clocks' at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the
Earth's absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer
and was never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally
different.
[...] SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since
the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the
instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
independent of orientation.
Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it.
Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at
rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was
rotated.
The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light.
The experiment was doomed before it even began.
[further nonsense ignored]
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following?
============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
YOU KEEP DOING YOUR SHITTY MATH, BEFORE YOU FORGET EVEN HOW MUCH IS 1+1.
YOU'RE SPIRALING DOWN WITH YOUR DEMENTIA, AND SUCH TRAVEL IS FRACTAL, ENDLESS.
GO BACK TO PROGRAM PICs, AND TRY TO INSERT SOME AI IN THERE. THAT WOULD BE YOUR LIFE ACHIEVEMENT.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was
doomed before it even began.
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
--
Jan
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
--Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?
Jan
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUTNo, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny):
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
--
Jan
Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰ And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
= UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdfNOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.
As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motionExample:
of the source.
Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
Get this, G..
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer
it does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to
the room can be neglected.
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
zero.
The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light clocks'
at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the Earth's
absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and was
never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.
Again, you are wrong. The Sagnac analysis applies to any interferometer
that has counter-propagating beams and is subject to rotation -- it can
be applied to a Michelson interferometer, but since it has zero enclosed
area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
[...] SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the
speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the
instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
independent of orientation.
Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it.
Nonsense. Neither Newton nor Ritz are involved, just the equations and concepts of SR.
Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest
with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was
rotated.
That is an alternate description. Yes, several different theories can
explain the MMX null result. This is actually quite common for a SINGLE experiment. But of all those theories, only SR is consistent with ALL
the experimental evidence (within its domain).
The clearest and most obvious experiments that refute:
* Ritz's theory * Newtonian mechanics * any theory involving
ballistic light * any aether theory in which the aether is dragged
are particle experiments. Apparently you know nothing about them....
The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light.
Sure. It also verified SR equally well. And also an infinite set of
aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. And
also aether theory in which the aether is fully dragged by the earth (or
the lab, or the interferometer, or the air, or ...).
The experiment was doomed before it even began.
Only in your personal fantasy world. In the world we inhabit it was an important and valuable contribution to physics.
[further nonsense ignored]
Tom Roberts
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:27:25 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame...no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
pretty simple, eh?
object in the universe is in every frame.
You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.
--
-- lover of truth
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be
considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Is this correct?
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:03:25 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am
referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks
which are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in
any other.
He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
differ from c.
Not light speeds. Time differences between certain events.
That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental error lies.
It's an assumption(*), not an error.
(*)designed to reproduce Newtonian kinematics as close as possible
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:27:25 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame...no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
pretty simple, eh?
object in the universe is in every frame.
You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.
--
-- lover of truth
Let me try this again:
In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.
Is this correct?
No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.
However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
--
-- lover of truth
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰ And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdfNOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.
As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motionExample:
of the source.
Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
Get this, G..
Rotation is absolute? The Sagnac apparatus will always show interference effects?
If the light source is onboard the apparatus, instead of outside, what happens to the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the 'motion' of the source?
Why does it matter if the light source is inside or outside?
Light does not travel like little billiard balls - it is absorbed and re-emitted each time, at each mirror.
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It does not a
No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.
However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
--
-- lover of truth
Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the
second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.
That is what I mean.
Also,
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system
of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system."
It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was following,
but that method was not followed for some reason.
If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
then what would happen to SRT?
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
--Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?
Jan
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer >>> it does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to
the room can be neglected.
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is zero.
Complete crap again. I suspected you know very little about basic physics..this proves it.
The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light clocks' >> at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the Earth's
absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and was
never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.
Again, you are wrong. The Sagnac analysis applies to any interferometer that has counter-propagating beams and is subject to rotation -- it can
be applied to a Michelson interferometer, but since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
Tommy, your problem is that you are trying to walk before you have learnt
to crawl.
The only feature the Michelson and Sagnac interferometers have in common
is that any fringe displacement is the sole consequence of different
numbers of wavelengths in the two paths.
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely
without the light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."
I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then
being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.What's the difference between this equation and
the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?
The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
(it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:
tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
then tB is the LMT of clock B.
But I see now that I have done you an injustice.I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
Sorry for underestimating you.
- If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
- If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
- If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds
If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
= UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s
Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.
What kind of time is that?AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
- If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds
Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?
Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?
I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.
But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:
LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds
Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.
And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.
Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.
And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.
Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exactSo we are back to UTC!
event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?
But let us use TAI clocks.
Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?
Sure.
We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.
Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.
The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs
The transit time of light from A to B is:
ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
The transit time of light from B to A is:
ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?
which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
-----------
You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
can flee from it again:
Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================
According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdfNOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s
Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3) tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms
Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms
If this is true, then the following must also be true:
ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs
--
Paul
There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.
As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light shouldExample:
travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion
of the source.
Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
Get this, G..
Rotation is absolute? The Sagnac apparatus will always show interference effects?Yep, crank
You claimed that you are taking courses, it is clear that you are lying. Or your native imbecility prevents you from learning anything.I am taking a course.
If the light source is onboard the apparatus, instead of outside, what happens to the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the 'motion' of the source?
Nothing, the principle stands.
Why does it matter if the light source is inside or outside?
It doesn't, imbecile.
Light does not travel like little billiard balls - it is absorbed and re-emitted each time, at each mirror.So?
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It does not a
No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.
However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
--
-- lover of truth
Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source, stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.
That is what I mean.I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying particular
light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter (because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2), he was able to build
a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not valid.
I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical impossibility.
It is complicated.
If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means that
the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
stationary clocks do).
However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.
Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
frame dependent.
Also,
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."
It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was following, but that method was not followed for some reason.
If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line along
then what would happen to SRT?
it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
--
-- lover of truth
Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
distance between them is 100 km.
Note this:
The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.
The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone they may be in
is irrelevant.
"UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D Each segment (Time Zone) is
1,667.9 km/h ??
The ground at equator is moving with this speed in the ECI frame, and so
are the clocks A and B.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that lightwould |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
Not quite.
Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)
Which means that light moving eastwards will cover the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
longer time than the light moving westwards.
Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in the
two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground
frame.
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
the ECI frame).
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It does not a
No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light
be sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did
not matter where they were situated because his postulate stated
that all light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.
I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I
think a visual description of the experiment would have been much
better.
A little vague.
However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
--
-- lover of truth
Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the
second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.
Not sure how this would happen.
Could you explainThat is what I mean.I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out
the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying
particular light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter
(because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2),
he was able to build a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not
valid.
I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical
impossibility. It is complicated.
If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein'sYou wont convince anyone.
calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still
indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means
that the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
stationary clocks do).
However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the
travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would
advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.
Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
frame dependent.
Also,
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to theYes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a
system of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system."
It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was
following,
but that method was not followed for some reason.
If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
then what would happen to SRT?
two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
--
-- lover of truth
Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:30:09 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
distance between them is 100 km.
Note this:
The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.
The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone they may be in is irrelevant.
"UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D Each segment (Time Zone) is 1,667.9 km/h ??
The ground at equator is moving with this speed in the ECI frame, and so are the clocks A and B.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that lightwould |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
Not quite.
Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)
Wrong. There is no difference.
Which means that light moving eastwards will cover the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
longer time than the light moving westwards.
Wrong. It will take the same time.
If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they would arrive
back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.
Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in the two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
Wrong. The transit times are the same.
snip
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
the ECI frame).
They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two numbers be frame dependent.
____________________________________
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It does not a
No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light
be sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did >> >> not matter where they were situated because his postulate stated
that all light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.
I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I think a visual description of the experiment would have been much
better.
A little vague.Yes Sorry, I don't want to give away too many ddetails of my sensational discoveries. This one is worth plagiariaing.
The experiment is tbasically as described by Einstein. It is also rather vague but if you study it for long enough you will get the gist. You should have a copy of his 1905 paper. It is available online. The first few pages are all you need to read to find the mistake.
However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
--
-- lover of truth
Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the >> > second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.
Not sure how this would happen.
It will be difficult not to accept it. I also have compiled an animation that demonstrates the principle.Could you explainThat is what I mean.I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out
the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying
particular light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter
(because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2), >> he was able to build a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not
valid.
I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical
impossibility. It is complicated.
If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's >> calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would stillYou wont convince anyone.
indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true >> if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means
that the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT >> numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
stationary clocks do).
However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the
travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would
advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.
Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
frame dependent.
Also,
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to theYes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a
system of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events >> > when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system."
It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was
following,
but that method was not followed for some reason.
If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals, >> > then what would happen to SRT?
two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
--
-- lover of truth
Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its synchronization can
be initially adjusted with light while at rest and checked again at high speed. It is basically a thought experiment but is actually almost practical.
--
-- lover of truth
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using anThen it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was doomed before it even began.
extraterrestrial light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX
apparatus.
Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
"The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources
in no way altered the results."
Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson
PNAS 11:306 (1925)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/
Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,
sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter
Über das Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen".
Annalen der Physik. 378 (1): 105–126 (1924) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using anThen it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MOREYes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply
than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result:
since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the
instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.
moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result
clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was doomed before it even began.
extraterrestrial light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX
apparatus.
Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
"The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources
in no way altered the results."
Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson
PNAS 11:306 (1925)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/
Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,I hope you are aware, by the way, that there are a VARIETY of
sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter
Über das Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen".
Annalen der Physik. 378 (1): 105–126 (1924) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#
emission theories, each requiring different methods of disproof.
1) In the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory, reflected
beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their
incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror.
2) Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a
reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of
a mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light.
3) Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially
bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that
of a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once
emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always
retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light
source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam
undergoes.
The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that
there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that
would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions
of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to
disprove other forms of emission theory.
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say, because a Sagnac device is designed to
detect the first-order effect of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to detect the second-order effect of orientation.
The only reason the Michelson apparatus was (very slowly) rotated was to
take essentially static readings at different orientations, because they didn't want to wait six months for the earth to be moving in the
opposite direction. They *could* have stopped it at each orientation to
take a reading. In fact, many later experiments just used stationary apparatus (on earth) and relied on the fact that the earth can't always
be at rest in the presumed stationary aether. This is very different
from a Sagnac apparatus, whose reading is dependent on the actual active rotation. Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,
but that's just part of it's "irrelevant effect cancelling" design, not
part of what it is designed to measure. That's just precluding what
it's designed to NOT measure.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using an extraterrestrial
Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOTYes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light
MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX
null result:
since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of
the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant
and independent of orientation.
simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with
that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated.
The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The
experiment was doomed before it even began.
light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX apparatus.
Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
"The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources in no way
altered the results."
Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson PNAS 11:306 (1925)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/
Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,
sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter Über das
Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen". Annalen der Physik.
378 (1): 105–126 (1924)
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#
I hope you are aware, by the way, that there are a VARIETY of emission theories, each requiring different methods of disproof.
1) In the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory, reflected
beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their
incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror.
2) Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a
reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of a
mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light.
3) Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially
bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that
The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that
there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions of
special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as
experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to disprove other forms of emission theory.
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly disproven.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:00:18 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
the ECI frame).
They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two
numbers be frame dependent.
____________________________________
This is what I cannot understand.
Light is supposed to travel independent of the source. If that were
true, and it is not, then, consider a point in space:
_____________A______________
A is moving to the right relative to the rest frame at 1,000 km/h
How does light emit?
_____________<A>____________
_______<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do not worry about A, A's subsequent motion is of no relevance.
Regardless of the motion of the source.
Place A on the equator.
A is moving 1,000 km to the right.
If the light was somehow made to curve around the equator, through fibre optics for example, then it would go around the Earth and meet back
again at the emission point at the same time.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
wrote:
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly disproven.Hahaha, What rubbish.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:47 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Hah back to you. It is evident from your writings that upTo date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly disproven.Hahaha, What rubbish.
until my post, you were *totally unaware* of the existence
of different variants of emission theory, much less were
capable of describing different consequences of those
emission theories requiring different tests.
I've left out a bunch of variants developed after Pauli wrote
his book. Can you describe a few variants that I have not
covered?
You religious fanatics have had more than a century to
come up with experiments to disprove SR (within its domain
of applicability) and all you've managed is to repeat empty
mantras while shutting your eyes to the simple facts.
Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.
Emission theory seems to be the most rational.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.Nature does not care what "seems to be most rational."
Nature is what she is, and it is up to us beings of finite
intellect to figure out her workings.
None of us are G-d,
and we cannot dictate to Nature how she should behave.
This is something that crackpots do not accept.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.Nature does not care what "seems to be most rational."
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It does not a
No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light
be sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did >>>>> not matter where they were situated because his postulate stated
that all light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.
I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I
think a visual description of the experiment would have been much
better.
A little vague.
Yes Sorry, I don't want to give away too many ddetails of my sensational discoveries. This one is worth plagiariaing.
The experiment is tbasically as described by Einstein. It is also rather vague but if you study it for long enough you will get the gist. You should have a copy of his 1905 paper. It is available online. The first few pages are all you need to read to find the mistake.
However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
--
-- lover of truth
Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the
second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.
Not sure how this would happen.
>
Could you explainThat is what I mean.I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out
the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying
particular light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter
(because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2),
he was able to build a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not
valid.
I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical
impossibility. It is complicated.
If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein'sYou wont convince anyone.
calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still
indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means
that the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
stationary clocks do).
However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the
travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would
advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.
Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
frame dependent.
Also,
It will be difficult not to accept it. I also have compiled an animation
that demonstrates the principle.
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to theYes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a
system of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system."
It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was
following,
but that method was not followed for some reason.
If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
then what would happen to SRT?
two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
--
-- lover of truth
Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?
I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its synchronization can
be initially adjusted with light while at rest and checked again at high speed. It is basically a thought experiment but is actually almost
practical.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:30:09 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
distance between them is 100 km.
Note this:
The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.
The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone they may be in
is irrelevant.
"UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D Each segment (Time Zone) is
1,667.9 km/h ??
The ground at equator is moving with this speed in the ECI frame, and so
are the clocks A and B.
would |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.
Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.
If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
Not quite.
Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms The
difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)
Wrong. There is no difference.
Which means that light moving eastwards will cover the 100 km distance
between the clocks A and B in
δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
longer time than the light moving westwards.
Wrong. It will take the same time.
If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they would arrive
back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.
Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in the
two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground
frame.
Wrong. The transit times are the same.
snip
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
the ECI frame).
They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two numbers be frame dependent.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 18:29:03 UTC-4, whodat escribió:
On 4/28/2023 4:54 PM, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:If a postulate is actually true... In this day and age all sorts
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >>>>> of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics. >>> A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
of claims are made, many untrue. Just look at this newsgroup.
For sure, if the postulate is, for example, Earth is a plane, the consequences of the physical model derived from that postulate can be falsified, but a postulate (or axiom or assumption) is a definition which can't, by itself, be disproved.
On 4/28/2023 4:54 PM, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >>> of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenIf a postulate is actually true... In this day and age all sorts
of claims are made, many untrue. Just look at this newsgroup.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Note the date on this file: December 2016. We've been through all your confusions here over the years. None of your errors so far have been
terribly original :-)
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 12:58:14 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com
wrote:
Emission theory seems to be the most rational.
...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:58:12 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
<snip meaningless drivel>
Note the date on this file: December 2016. We've been through all your
confusions here over the years. None of your errors so far have been
terribly original :-)
What do you mean by that? I might have popped in here a few times in the
past but because the atmosphere was invariably more akin to gang
warfare... or even Gaelic football... than to constructive science, I
chose to waste no further time. I see nothing much has changed.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:08:03 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com
wrote:
Emission theory seems to be the most rational.
...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.
How can someone be described as being 'anti something that is pure
fiction'.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:08:03 -0700, Dono. wrote:Relativity is a fairy tale.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Emission theory seems to be the most rational.
...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.How can someone be described as being 'anti something that is pure
fiction'.
I might have popped in here a few times in the
past but because the atmosphere was invariably more akin to gang
warfare... or even Gaelic football... than to constructive science, I
chose to waste no further time. I see nothing much has changed.
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4,
gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a
premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
wavelength of the light used.
The postulate has never been directly verified.
On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:
Wrong. It will take the same time.
If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in
opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they
would arrive back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect
depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.
Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."
To me that means zero differentiation in time. Of course with the
velocity of light in fiber optic cable being close to 124,000 mi/second
you can customize your definitions to make your claims true, but that is
not realistic or reasonable from the standpoint of science. It does,
however, satisfy most science fiction buffs.
Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in
the two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the
ground frame.
Wrong. The transit times are the same.
True in a vacuum, however not demonstrated true in other transmitting mediums, unless you have experimental data showing otherwise. Please let
me know when the experiments begin, I'd like to be present.
snip
Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.
The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.
But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
the ECI frame).
They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two
numbers be frame dependent.
Because they are not theoretical frames. You've spilled over into
another completely different realm. The parameters that are legitimate
in mind experiments do not have any validity where a real matter
environment is in play. It is up to you to demonstrate the validity of
your claims. In science fiction the rule is "It has to appear possible."
In science there has to be some basis for convincing the audience.
Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
Indeed it is:
SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where the centre of the circular loop is stationary.
Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where the centre of the
circular loop is stationary.
Both assumptions lead to the same math:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)
Note that Sagnac also predicts:
The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)
The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)
where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.
Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will use different time depending on the direction.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:47 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
wrote:
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughlyHahaha, What rubbish.
disproven.
Hah back to you. It is evident from your writings that up until my post,
you were *totally unaware* of the existence of different variants of
emission theory, much less were capable of describing different
consequences of those emission theories requiring different tests.
I've left out a bunch of variants developed after Pauli wrote his book.
Can you describe a few variants that I have not covered?
You religious fanatics have had more than a century to come up with experiments to disprove SR (within its domain of applicability) and all you've managed is to repeat empty mantras while shutting your eyes to
the simple facts.
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame.
Well I have already explained why the RoS is a myth and that this then refutes the whole of SR. I am about to provide even more proof right now,I thought you were going to immortalize all your imbecilities in a book.
in a new thread.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:25:24 -0500, whodat wrote:
On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:
Wrong. It will take the same time.
If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in
opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they
would arrive back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect
depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.
Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."
Do you ever think before you write something?
There is obviously no
problem when those actions are performed at the same point.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase >> > Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >> > of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a
premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase >> > Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >> > of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics. A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious. It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer isThat's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision
Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L = wavelength of the light used.
of a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.
The postulate has never been directly verified.Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. There is no rational basis for your denial.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >> Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up >> >
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
Imbecile,I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious. It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. There is no rational basis for your denial.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
That is a very good point, however look at the following reasoning:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >> Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven? >>
I have not really been convinced.
Imbecile,I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly >> > disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?
I have not really been convinced.
Imbecile,I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
No, it doesn't , lying imbecileSo does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
That is a very good point, however look at the following reasoning:
Your message didn't contain any actual reasoning. Case closed.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:19:55 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:No, the equations:
Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
Indeed it is:
SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where the centre of the
circular loop is stationary.
Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where the centre of the
circular loop is stationary.
Both assumptions lead to the same math:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)
Note that Sagnac also predicts:
The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)
The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)
where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the
sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.
Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will use
different time depending on the direction.
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame. In the ECI frame
the travel times are the same because the
difference in light speeds exactly compensates for the path length difference.
That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. During
constant rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths and the above equation applies.
You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, as
you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant
rotation.
most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support SR
and refute Newton.
Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I will discuss in another thread..
On 4/29/23 7:21 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I amYou don't need to accept Einstein's second postulate. In 1905 Einstein intermixed what today we consider two separate theories: Special
forced to do so.
Relativity and classical electrodynamics. His first postulate is clearly geometrical, while his second postulate is clearly electrodynamical. We
now know how to separate these two theories. Here's the geometrical part (SR), which does not need or use his second postulate:
From the definition of inertial frames it is straightforward to show
that the relationships between standard coordinates [#] in different
inertial frames can only be described by three groups:
a) the Euclid group (in 4D)
b) the Galilei group
c) the Lorentz group
[#] Cartesian coordinates on space, becoming Minkowski
coordinates on spacetime. Aka inertial coordinates. The
key points are that the four coordinate axes are mutually
orthogonal, and the metric components are all constant.
Experiments and observations of the world we inhabit refute (a) and (b),
Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I am
forced to do so.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two
straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area
the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
because a Sagnac device is designed to detect the first-order effect
of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to
detect the second-order effect of orientation.
The only reason the Michelson apparatus was (very slowly) rotated was
to take essentially static readings at different orientations,
because they didn't want to wait six months for the earth to be
moving in the opposite direction. They *could* have stopped it at
each orientation to take a reading. In fact, many later experiments
just used stationary apparatus (on earth) and relied on the fact that
the earth can't always be at rest in the presumed stationary aether.
This is very different from a Sagnac apparatus, whose reading is
dependent on the actual active rotation.
Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,
but that's just part of it's "irrelevant effect cancelling" design,
not part of what it is designed to measure. That's just precluding
what it's designed to NOT measure.
On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.
A lot of people here are ignorance of the facts.
The Michelson type could never detect rotation because the latter would always be perpendicular to all four arms.
It is also insensitive to variations in light speed.
On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two
straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area
the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say, because a Sagnac device is designed to
detect the first-order effect of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to detect the second-order effect of translation.
Sure, they were designed for different reasons.
There is nothing to prevent one from applying the Sagnac analysis
to a Michelson interferometer. This is straightforward...
Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,
Sure. But not due to any "magic"....
On 4/29/2023 1:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12?AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.
There is a difference. A Sagnac device has one loop which the light beam passes through in the two different directions. The M-M device has two
loops, both of zero area, each with one beam in it, not two
counterrotating beams.
I could imagine a zero area Sagnac device, with the path in a figure-8 configuration, with two beams taking opposite directions through the figure-8. Both lobes of the 8 are the exact same size and shape but the
path is such that one of the beams passes clockwise through one lobe but counter clockwise through the other, so the total intersected area would
be 0. I don't know if such a configuration has any use other than to
verify the equal areas really do cancel to 0.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
--Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?
Jan
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. There is no rational basis for your denial.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the
readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special andLocal Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:21:41 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
That is a very good point, however look at the following reasoning:
Your message didn't contain any actual reasoning. Case closed.Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I am forced to do so. Put it down to ignorance or anything else.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Well I have already explained why the RoS is a myth and that this thenI thought you were going to immortalize all your imbecilities in a book.
refutes the whole of SR. I am about to provide even more proof right
now,
in a new thread.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
wavelength of the light used.
That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision of
a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular
path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for
other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the
path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct
multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.
The postulate has never been directly verified.
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely
tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with principles
such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as to the
relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible
levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever
been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well
established empirically.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory
when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory when science had progressed 100 years less than today.Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
from wasting over 100 years of research money.
--
-- lover of truth
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame.
No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any rotating
frame. You are full of shit.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame.
No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any rotating frame. You are full of shit.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between
relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and
scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory
when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
from wasting over 100 years of research money.
--
-- lover of truth
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave >>> it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory >>> when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
from wasting over 100 years of research money.
--
-- lover of truth
there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.
Can you be more specific?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been >>>> relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart >>>> from wasting over 100 years of research money.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave >>>>> it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>>>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory >>>>> when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
--
-- lover of truth
there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.
Can you be more specific?
This specific is OK for you?
https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor
This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light
"Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.
There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.
There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been >>>> relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart >>>> from wasting over 100 years of research money.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave >>>>> it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>>>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory >>>>> when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
--
-- lover of truth
there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.
Can you be more specific?
This specific is OK for you?
https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor
This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light
"Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.
There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.
There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".
See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been >> relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart >> from wasting over 100 years of research money.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.
I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory
when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
--
-- lover of truth
there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.
Can you be more specific?This specific is OK for you?
https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor
This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light
"Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.
There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.
There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
<snip>
See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.
I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.
Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)
The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)
where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the
sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.
Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will
use different time depending on the direction.
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame. In the ECI frame
No, the equations:
tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.
But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:
tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)
So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:
tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps
tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps
0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
is ignored.
the travel times are the same because the difference in light speeds
exactly compensates for the path length difference.
Nonsense.
In the stationary frame, the light speed is c in both directions,
and the path lengths are different, 2πrv/(c-v) and 2πrv/(c+v).
In the rotating frame the path length is 2πr⋅√(1−v²/c²) in both directions and the light speeds are different, (c+v) and (c-v).
That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. During constant
rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths
and the above equation applies.
Quite.
AND the travel times are different.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone
unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, as
you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant
rotation.
Good grief!
I will give you a tip:
If you think you have found something which has escaped all physicists
for hundred of years, think again or you will make a giant fool of
yourself.
(Which is done, too late to rethink!)
The fringe shift is ∆φ = 2πf⋅∆t where ∆t = tf-tb,
∆t constant, ∆φ constant.
That is NOT what happens. So Sagnac clearly refutes SR as does
most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support
SR and refute Newton.
Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I
will discuss in another thread..
And yet again make a fool of yourself.
Maybe you should think before posting?
Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
<snip>
See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.
I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.
I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as it
was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.
On 4/28/2023 8:22 PM, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:25:24 -0500, whodat wrote:
On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:
Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."
Do you ever think before you write something?
That the question you should be asking yourself. Do you actually not understand the meaning of the word "IF?" So you think you know the
meaning of "instant" that includes a finite time period. I'm frankly
shocked at some of this stuff you've been writing lately.
There is obviously no problem when those actions are performed at the
same point.
Aside from in a "thought experiment" do you actually believe they can
be?
<snip>
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:It wouldn't be hard for people at the top, above the Gates and other known rich people to control much of world affairs. The richest people are probably better at concealing their wealth than people like Mr. Gates. They wouldn't be confined to any race
Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
<snip>
See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.
I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.
I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as itI'm a decent, honest and religious person. God gave me more intelligence than I could have possibly desired.
was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.
It makes things difficult for me when interacting with others, lesser blessed.
That's why I tried, sometimes and only here, some original thinking or critics about the history of physics and technology.
My past work, still unable to disclose, put me in front of many state-of-the-art projects with multinational partners.
I don't invent the jew hand. It's everywhere and is the most powerful force driving the world since WWII.
Einstein did his designed job to get another god of science (any science). Others followed, and an order was established in physics.
Name to me ANY FIELD OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES, and I'll show you the threads of the puppets and the puppeteers.
Medical sciences, logistics, chemistry, finances, trading, politics, economy, social sciences, mathematics, electronics, mining,
agriculture, education, journalism, military, astronomy, cosmology, entertainment, publishing houses, arts, real state, housing,
food industry, WHATEVER.
In 80 years, and with extreme intelligence and sense of unity beyond frontiers, unmatched by any other religious group, a
minority of less than 0.5% of the world population CONTROL EVERYTHING. You have to be proud of this, don't deny it.
Relativity is just a minor glitch in the stream of daily events. Consider most of the remaining 99.5% like Homer Simpsons.
Consider myself as a distant spectator of the events that unfold daily all over the world. I'm glad that I'm retired of everything.
But I don't lie, nor I have an agenda or have any desire to be an activist. I just put a wire to the ground just only here.
I'm trying to have fun with little things, and historic revisionism in physics just fill the quote.
You CAN'T FIND ANY ANTI-RELATIVITY OR EINSTEIN BOOK in Google. Maybe you'll have a little bit more luck with Duck Duck Go.
And that's how far I'm willing to go, when searching material. I have other means, which I will not disclose, and it's not P2P.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:24:37 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:description of atomism of the time period. - Wikipedia
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:No, it doesn't , lying imbecile
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Imbecile,
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4,The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious. >>>>>> It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever >>>>>> be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >>>>>>>> Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase >>>>>>>>> Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >>>>>>>>> of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up >>>>>>>>>
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly >>>>>>>>> disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven? >>>>>>>>
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a >>>>>>> premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
In optics, the corpuscular theory of light states that light is made up of small discrete particles called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight line with a finite velocity and possess impetus. This was based on an alternate
On 4/28/2023 4:43 AM, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
then what would happen to SRT?Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
--
-- lover of truth
Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?
I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and
rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its
long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its
synchronization can be initially adjusted with light while at rest and
checked again at high speed. It is basically a thought experiment but
is actually almost practical.
How do you propose to demonstrate that a "long and rigid cylinder" is actually straight and not subject to variances? After all, if space
curves, so does your cylinder (a glorified rod.)
I suppose it is all right so long as the results are accepted as
theoretical as is every foundational basis of your thought experiment.
I remind everyone once again, that science presents us with models that predict behavior, definitely not "the real(tm) thing."
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:34:12 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net >> > area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
wavelength of the light used.
That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision of
a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct
multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.
The postulate has never been directly verified.
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible
levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever
been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.
Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.
On 4/29/2023 1:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a
Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into
two straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed
area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.
There is a difference. A Sagnac device has one loop which the light
beam passes through in the two different directions. The M-M device
has two loops, both of zero area, each with one beam in it, not two counterrotating beams.
The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are
obvious.
It is virtually impossible to do so even today
no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the
god Einstein.
[... further nonsense ignored -- there are no "Einstein worshipers",
that is a fantasy among fools and idiots]
Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:19:55 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. >>> AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
Indeed it is:
SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where the centre of the
circular loop is stationary.
Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where the centre of the
circular loop is stationary.
Both assumptions lead to the same math:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)
Note that Sagnac also predicts:
The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)
The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)
where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the
sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.
Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will use >> different time depending on the direction.
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotatingNo, the equations:
frame. In the ECI frame
tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.
But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:
tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)
So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:
tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps
tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps
0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
is ignored.
the travel times are the same because theNonsense.
difference in light speeds exactly compensates for the path length difference.
In the stationary frame, the light speed is c in both directions,
and the path lengths are different, 2πrv/(c-v) and 2πrv/(c+v).
In the rotating frame the path length is 2πr⋅√(1−v²/c²) in both directions and the light speeds are different, (c+v) and (c-v).
That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. DuringQuite.
constant rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths and the above equation applies.
AND the travel times are different.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, asGood grief!
you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant rotation.
I will give you a tip:
If you think you have found something which has escaped all
physicists for hundred of years, think again or you will
make a giant fool of yourself.
(Which is done, too late to rethink!)
The fringe shift is ∆φ = 2πf⋅∆t where ∆t = tf-tb
∆t constant, ∆φ constant.
That is NOT what happens. So Sagnac clearly refutes SR as does
most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support SR and refute Newton.And yet again make a fool of yourself.
Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I will discuss in another thread..
Maybe you should think before posting?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net >> > area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
wavelength of the light used.
That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision of
a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words, the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape
of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.
The postulate has never been directly verified.
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible
levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever
been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been
abundantly well established empirically.
Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
<snip>
See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.
I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.
I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as itI'm a decent, honest and religious person. God gave me more intelligence than I could have possibly desired.
was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.
It makes things difficult for me when interacting with others, lesser blessed.
That's why I tried, sometimes and only here, some original thinking or critics about the history of physics and technology.
My past work, still unable to disclose, put me in front of many state-of-the-art projects with multinational partners.
I don't invent the jew hand. It's everywhere and is the most powerful force driving the world since WWII.
Einstein did his designed job to get another god of science (any science). Others followed, and an order was established in physics.
Name to me ANY FIELD OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES, and I'll show you the threads of the puppets and the puppeteers.
Medical sciences, logistics, chemistry, finances, trading, politics, economy, social sciences, mathematics, electronics, mining,
agriculture, education, journalism, military, astronomy, cosmology, entertainment, publishing houses, arts, real state, housing,
food industry, WHATEVER.
In 80 years, and with extreme intelligence and sense of unity beyond frontiers, unmatched by any other religious group, a
minority of less than 0.5% of the world population CONTROL EVERYTHING. You have to be proud of this, don't deny it.
Relativity is just a minor glitch in the stream of daily events. Consider most of the remaining 99.5% like Homer Simpsons.
Consider myself as a distant spectator of the events that unfold daily all over the world. I'm glad that I'm retired of everything.
But I don't lie, nor I have an agenda or have any desire to be an activist. I just put a wire to the ground just only here.
I'm trying to have fun with little things, and historic revisionism in physics just fill the quote.
You CAN'T FIND ANY ANTI-RELATIVITY OR EINSTEIN BOOK in Google. Maybe you'll have a little bit more luck with Duck Duck Go.
And that's how far I'm willing to go, when searching material. I have other means, which I will not disclose, and it's not P2P.
On 29-Apr-23 10:24 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:description of atomism of the time period. - Wikipedia
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:24:37 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:No, it doesn't , lying imbecile
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:Imbecile,
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.
El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4,It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >>>>>>>> Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
...
See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
of these various theories.
https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up >>>>>>>>>
To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly >>>>>>>>> disproven.
Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven? >>>>>>>>
I have not really been convinced.
You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a >>>>>>> premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. >>>>>> The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
Therefore a postulate can't be disprovenWhat nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
incurable Einstein worshipper.
--
-- lover of truth
So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
In optics, the corpuscular theory of light states that light is made up of small discrete particles called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight line with a finite velocity and possess impetus. This was based on an alternate
I don't see the point of that comment. Many theories about many thingsNewton did not, in his theory, postulate the 'constant speed of light'
were proposed in the past. Most did not survive the test of time.
Leaving aside the modern quantum mechanics interpretation involving
photons, which is certainly not what the corpuscular theory proponents
had in mind, the corpuscular theory of light is been abundantly
falsified, and is of only mild historical interest. It forms, and can
form, no part of modern physics.
Sylvia.
Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction of theAnother way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a
Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into
two straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed
area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.
On 4/28/23 8:04 PM, Jane wrote:
The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are
obvious.
Nonsense. Both of Einstein's 1905 postulates have been directly tested.
For the first postulate, look up "tests of local Lorentz invariance".
For the second postulate: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
Note also that as I recently posted [#], one does not need the second postulate to derive the Lorentz transform and SR (in the modern sense, excluding electrodynamics).
[#] in the thread "EInstein's 1905 SR HOAX: How a young clerk
used false arguments and deceived the world for 110 years"
It is virtually impossible to do so even todayComplete nonsense.
no funding would ever be given to something that would topple theMore nonsense -- you OBVIOUSLY do not understand how science works, or
god Einstein.
how funding agencies allocate their resources. There have been LOTS of experiments testing relativity that have been funded. Each had the
potential to refute SR, but to date all have supported SR.
Outside of your fantasy world, in the world we inhabit, anyone who
performed an experiment that refuted SR would be a very strong contender
for a Nobel Prize.
[... further nonsense ignored -- there are no "Einstein worshipers",
that is a fantasy among fools and idiots]
Tom Roberts
If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some people crazy.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some people crazy.A physical theory can have many different axiomatic bases, and it has
always been well known that the principle of relativity, all by itself, logically
implies the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems
up to a single constant that we can call k, and that every quantity of
bound energy E has inertia k*E. In Newtonian physics, k=0, but making
use of the latter fact, we can experimentally measure k (in many different ways, most having nothing to do with light propagation), and we find
that it is nearly but not quite 0, it actually equals 1/c^2, so standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.
What part of this don't you understand?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:07:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
You choose an arbitrary limit to the speed of travel of information, be it c or anything else, speed of sound etc, and then make your equations.Not at all; that is your misunderstanding. There is no "choosing" involved. We can measure empirically that every localized quantity of energy E (including
kinetic energy) has inertia E/c^2. We don't choose this, and we don't assume it, we measure it. From this all the other consequences of local Lorentz invariance
follow unambiguously. Do you understand this?
I do not believe reality is limited by the speed of light.That is a senseless statement, and special relativity does not make senseless assertions such as "reality is limited by the speed of light". That doesn't even make sense. What has been discovered is that every quantity of energy E has inertia E/c^2, and this has many consequences, including the fact that (for example) if you apply a constant force to
a mass it does not undergo constant acceleration (in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates), it's inertia increases with its kinetic energy, and it asymptotically approaches the speed c. This isn't assumed,
it is an empirical fact. Do you understand this?
You choose an arbitrary limit to the speed of travel of information, be it
c or anything else, speed of sound etc, and then make your equations.
I do not believe reality is limited by the speed of light.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 15:11:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame.
No, the equations:
tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.
But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:
tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)
So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:
tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps
tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps
0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
is ignored.
No. In the ECI frame, the light travels at c+v and c-v so the travel
times are equal...as they must be for Sagnac to work.
If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now
you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove
some people crazy.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction
between relative speed and closing speed.
On 4/30/23 1:37 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and nowOnly people who aren't paying attention.
you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove
some people crazy.
Einstein's 1905 paper was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies" -- its focus was clearly electrodynamics and not the geometrical revolution it created.
It implicitly assumes Maxwell's equations (ME)
and derives the Lorentz transform, and many of the geometrical aspects
of SR, from the ME and his two postulates (plus a bunch of other
assumptions he didn't mention as they were obvious to his intended audience).
Today we find it convenient to separate the geometrical aspects of SR
from electrodynamics, and we call the result SR for convenience. It is
this geometrical theory that does not need his second postulate (as it
is about electrodynamics, not geometry).
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no >> failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing theGalileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into >>>> special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, >>>> the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?
premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing >> curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was >> shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has
survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny.
There is no rational basis for your denial.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction betweenVelocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
relative speed and closing speed.
system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the
velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, >> both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the >> readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially
synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between
distinct things is not rational.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...
To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and >> general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective >> account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is
simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special >> relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without
the light track actually collapsing onto itself.
On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero
net area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).
The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
wavelength of the light used.
That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision
of a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a
circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order
terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are
different. In other words, the exact Sagnac effect, above first
order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why
it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths with net zero area but
non-zero Sagnac effect.
Your inability to even attempt a response amounts to tacit admission of
your error. Good.
The postulate has never been directly verified.
Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely
tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with
principles such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the
principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as
to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and
that degree of freedom has been experimentally established to
incredible levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz
invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special
relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.
Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.
That is not a substantive rebuttal. If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification. There's no need for you to persist in your juvenile misunderstandings.
If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification. There's no need for you
to persist in your juvenile misunderstandings.
Everyone can see you running away from this, so if at any time they want
to send you back to the showers, they now know that all they have to do
is re-post the above, and watch you run away.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:25 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Sure, they were designed for different reasons.
Right -- and the experiments are completely different, one with an
apparatus rotating at high speed to detect the Sagnac effect and the
other not.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
I'm a.... religious person.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you
say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some
people crazy.
A physical theory can have many different axiomatic bases, and it has
always been well known that the principle of relativity, all by itself, logically implies the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems up to a single constant that we can call k, and that every
quantity of bound energy E has inertia k*E. In Newtonian physics, k=0,
but making use of the latter fact, we can experimentally measure k (in
many different ways, most having nothing to do with light propagation),
and we find that it is nearly but not quite 0, it actually equals 1/c^2,
so standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.
What part of this don't you understand?
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 18:08:46 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:03:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:Reduced you to frothing at the mouth.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame.
No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any
rotating frame. You are full of shit.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:03:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:Reduced you to frothing at the mouth.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
frame.
No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any
rotating frame. You are full of shit.
Den 30.04.2023 04:53, skrev Jane:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 15:11:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
No. In the ECI frame, the light travels at c+v and c-v so the travel
times are equal...as they must be for Sagnac to work.
Sorry, this is enough.
I won't waste my time reading your posts.
*plonk*
He told me his nickname once but I cannot remember it...it
was a funny Greek name like Hercules or Democles, chronicles, testicles
or something like that.
On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing theGalileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed? >> Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no
premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing
curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was
shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has
survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. >> There is no rational basis for your denial.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the >> velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates,
both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the
readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially
synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between
distinct things is not rational.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality... >>To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is
simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
local than at longer distances.
Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
as you approach the top. By just a little.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:21:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
He told me his nickname once but I cannot remember it...itImbecility runs in your family.
was a funny Greek name like Hercules or Democles, chronicles, testicles
or something like that.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING
MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.
HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
AND HE FOUND THAT
Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A
AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
That formula is comes directly from Newton. It is just (path wavenumber difference)/(wavelength). Fringe displacement = 4π.ω.A/(λc)..... note 4 is
correct not 8 CMIIR.
No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING
MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in many claimed refutations of Newton.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:54:32 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
I'm a.... religious person.
....That rules out intelligence...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in many claimed refutations of Newton.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
local than at longer distances.
Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
as you approach the top. By just a little.
Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).
On 4/30/2023 5:36 PM, Jane wrote:Both of them are kapos. Of the despicable kind.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:54:32 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
I'm a.... religious person.
....That rules out intelligence...Strange, that, from someone who disappears every Saturday sabbath...
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in many claimed refutations of Newton.There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
of Relativity".
BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
different variants of ballistic theory.
Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
rules out, and which it does not?
To date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled out
by experiment and/or by observational evidence.
There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known inhttps://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/n7/mode/2up
1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
of Relativity".
On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
local than at longer distances.
Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging >> as you approach the top. By just a little.
Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebraAnd what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?
was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping
the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v replaced by -v and x' by -x.
Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
gamma factor, but I don't remember what.
So close but so far.
You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.
Voigt didn't screw up anything.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
you are too new to remember those.
Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proofThere are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in
many claimed refutations of Newton.
1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
of Relativity".
BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
different variants of ballistic theory.
Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
rules out, and which it does not?
To date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled outFor extra points: what experiment rules out all the ballistic theories?
by experiment and/or by observational evidence.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:16:06 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group, you are too new to remember those.
Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proofThere are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's
website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in
many claimed refutations of Newton.
1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
of Relativity".
BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
different variants of ballistic theory.
Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
rules out, and which it does not?
Are you referring to one conducted by a major relativityTo date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled outFor extra points: what experiment rules out all the ballistic theories?
by experiment and/or by observational evidence.
skeptic who published an idea that he thought would be
able to resurrect ballistic theories in general, and who had
the knowledge and means to conduct this experiment?
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:And what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?
On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
local than at longer distances.
Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging >>>> as you approach the top. By just a little.
Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz
transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping
the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v
replaced by -v and x' by -x.
Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
gamma factor, but I don't remember what.
So close but so far.
You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean
those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.
Voigt didn't screw up anything.
His transforms, developed for 4D spaces, gave that x' and t' aren't affected by Gamma, while y' and z' did.
If you multiply the four transforms by the Gamma factor, you obtain Lorentz.
Face to face, three years later, at the 1911 Solvay's Conference, Lorentz acknowledged to Voigt only the local time subject.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
It actually works better at short distances because things are "more" >> local than at longer distances.
Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging >> as you approach the top. By just a little.
Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebraAnd what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?
was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v replaced by -v and x' by -x.
Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
gamma factor, but I don't remember what.
So close but so far.Voigt didn't screw up anything.
You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.
His transforms, developed for 4D spaces, gave that x' and t' aren't affected by Gamma, while y' and z' did.
If you multiply the four transforms by the Gamma factor, you obtain Lorentz.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing theGalileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
empirically.
Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed? >> Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no
premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing
curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was
shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has >> survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. >> There is no rational basis for your denial.
I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the
velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates,
both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the
readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially >> synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between >> distinct things is not rational.
As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality... >>To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is >> simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
it's just your misunderstanding.
Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.
It actually works better at short distances because things are "more" local than at longer distances.
Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances forAre you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
as you approach the top. By just a little.
was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson
interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically
deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
zero.
Complete crap again.
I suspected you know very little about basic
physics..this proves it.
SR says that light moves at c relative to everything at rest in the
source frame.
No experiment has refuted Newton.
[... further nonsense ignored]
All the sham experiments that claim to support Einstein are riddled
with holes. So are the ones that claim to regute Newton. There is
absolutely no believable evidence that even remotely suggests that SR
is correct and plenty to say it is not.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:15:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction ofAnother way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as
a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically
deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- since it
has zero enclosed area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be
zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
the two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.
So am I. The analyses are completely different [...] The phenomena
and the analyses are completely different.
[... the MMX apparatus] Isn't. Rotating.
It's self-evident that the MMX would show no Sagnac effect, and this
is as irrelevant as it is self-evident.
On 4/30/23 5:26 PM, Jane wrote:You are clearly ignorant of Wallace Kantor and J. G. Fox who have refuted all the evidence. There is still an ongoing debate and many studies questioning the second postulate and experiments on it by professionals. But who needs professionals to know it'
All the sham experiments that claim to support Einstein are riddled
with holes. So are the ones that claim to regute Newton. There is absolutely no believable evidence that even remotely suggests that SR
is correct and plenty to say it is not.
This is just the ravings of a lunatic, until and unless you show
PRECISELY where the error lies. There are several hundred such
experiments, and you must do this for each and every one of them. But
start with one, any one of your own choosing -- tell us precisely and in detail where an error was made that is sufficiently serious to negate
its conclusion.
So far your writings around here give little hope that you will ever do this. I will read a physics analysis, but not when your writings are indistinguishable from the ravings of a lunatic.
[See also the thread 'Claims that SR has been "refuted"'.
Perhaps respond there.]
Tom Roberts
There is nothing to prevent the application of a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
You have yet to explain why one cannot apply a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
It's self-evident that the MMX would show no Sagnac effect, and this
is as irrelevant as it is self-evident.
NOTHING in physics is "self-evident".
On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson
interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been
topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its
enclosed area is zero.
Complete crap again.
So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
I suspected you know very little about basic physics..this proves it.
In the absence of the explanation requested above, it's clear that your opinions are worthless.
SR says that light moves at c relative to everything at rest in the
source frame.
Not really. That holds only with a number of conditions and
qualifications, which you ALWAYS omit.
No experiment has refuted Newton.
You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.
[... further nonsense ignored]
Tom Roberts
On 4/30/23 1:39 AM, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:15:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>> Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as
Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction ofa Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed
into two straight arms at right angles -- since it
has zero enclosed area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be
zero, as observed.
That's an odd thing to say,
the two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.
So am I. The analyses are completely different [...] The phenomena
and the analyses are completely different.
Sure. So what? There is nothing to prevent the application of a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer. Nothing you have said indicates otherwise, you just keep repeating irrelevant facts that are obvious.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In >>> this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson >>> interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been
topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its
enclosed area is zero.
Complete crap again.
So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a SagnacIt should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing,
analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and always
of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The Michelson is
not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not alter wave numbers at all.
In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe displacement
of 4Aѡ/cλ.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:47:28 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:usp=share_link
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense.
In this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a
Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has
been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles
-- its enclosed area is zero.
Complete crap again.
So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic,
you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing,
the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and
always of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The
Michelson is not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not
alter wave numbers at all.
In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe
displacement of 4Aѡ/cλ.
The light path of a Michelson-Morley interferometer is smoothly
deformable to that of a Sagnac interferometer. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i8vW8gQF6ifJ6BFFRbwLwJ7U6PYw0o12/view?
The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three dimensional
path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the *oriented* enclosed
area of the 2D projection of the loop on the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as aComplete crap again.
Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed
into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
zero.
So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a
lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot
apply a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever.
[... more nonsense] Anyone who sees similarities between these two
types of interferometer does not have much of a clue.
You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.
You mean like Paul Andersen's bogus Sagnac theory and Michelson's
fake moving mirror experiment. ...just to mention a few.
If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/ sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.
If I create a device similar to the Michelson interferometer, except
that the two arms are not of zero area (say there are two mirrors at
the ends of the arms), and one beam is in one arm and the second in
the other arm (like the Michelson interferometer), will it work
(poorly) as a Sagnac device?
Will it work if and only if the areas and lengths of the arms are
exactly the same?
If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz
invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification.
There is no absolute frame...
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:47:28 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
What nonsense.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In >>> this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson >>> interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been
topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its >>> enclosed area is zero.
Complete crap again.
The light path of a Michelson-Morley interferometer isSo you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing, the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and always of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The Michelson is not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not alter wave numbers at all.
In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe displacement of 4Aѡ/cλ.
smoothly deformable to that of a Sagnac interferometer. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i8vW8gQF6ifJ6BFFRbwLwJ7U6PYw0o12/view?usp=share_link
The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three
dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
*oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.
On 5/2/23 6:47 PM, Jane wrote:
So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic,
you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever.
This is just plain not true. A physicist looking at the MMX will
immediately notice that it is rotating (relative to the lab), in a way
that is similar to Sagnac's interferometer. The question arises: does
the Sagnac effect affect the result? -- that is not at all "obvious",
but by applying a Sagnac analysis to the Michelson interferometer one concludes: no.
[... more nonsense] Anyone who sees similarities between these two
types of interferometer does not have much of a clue.
YOU do not have a clue -- both interferometers are rotating (relative to
the lab).
You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.
You mean like Paul Andersen's bogus Sagnac theory and Michelson's fake
moving mirror experiment. ...just to mention a few.
Again you display complete ignorance of modern physics. The things you mention are not "particle experiments".
If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/
sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.
And yet YOU have never pointed out any error. You only make vague
references to unspecified "errors". That's useless. I do not pursue
figments of other people's imaginations.
Tom Roberts (indoctrinated beyond the point of no return)
On Wed, 03 May 2023 10:42:37 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Again you display complete ignorance of modern physics. The things you mention are not "particle experiments".The latter experiment is a shocking example of relativist ignorance. The value of r hardly effects the path length differences. It could be 2000
and the experimental result would be about the same.
If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/
sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.
And yet YOU have never pointed out any error. You only make vague references to unspecified "errors". That's useless. I do not pursue figments of other people's imaginations.I have given a clue....but I want to see how dumb you relativists really are.
The mistake is pretty obvious and has been used as a main refutation of ballistic theory for a hundred years. Anyone who cannot identify it is
not fit to post on this NG.
Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's because
behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:09:56 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a threeThere is an issue , though. One cannot find a point in the plane determined by the MMX arms that would mimic the center of rotation for Sagnac.
dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
*oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.
One can get around the above issue by remembering that the contemporary MMX interferometers are crosses (resonating cavities) that rotate about the intersection of the two arms. If you modify your drawing, you will get the perfect equivalence.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's becauseThat may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
"pop-sci" level.
Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR well
enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:35:23 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's becauseThat may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
"pop-sci" level.
Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR wellWhy not use first hand history from Sagnac himself?
enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:43:32 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:09:56 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
There is no issue. The operation of a Sagnac interferometerThe Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a threeThere is an issue , though. One cannot find a point in the plane determined by the MMX arms that would mimic the center of rotation for Sagnac.
dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
*oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.
does not depend on the center of rotation being centered on the
rotation axis. If you align the axis of a sensitive ring laser
gyroscope with the rotation axis of the Earth, it will detect the
same 1.99x10^-7 radians/second whether the gyroscope is
at the Equator or at either Pole.
One can get around the above issue by remembering that the contemporary MMX interferometers are crosses (resonating cavities) that rotate about the intersection of the two arms. If you modify your drawing, you will get the perfect equivalence.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:35:23 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's becauseThat may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
"pop-sci" level.
Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR wellWhy not use first hand history from Sagnac himself?
enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070514001340#se0230
Goo paper. Read the section on "Harress"a proof of the ether. "
"Since the early 1920s, many physicists have discussed relativistic explanations of the Sagnac effect in a deeper manner, also in a general-relativistic context. Their efforts have not prevented the anti-relativist sect to brandish the Sagnac effect as