Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an >> inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest >> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of >> the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73 >> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 >> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial >> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is >> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment >> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of >> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of >> the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73 >> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 >> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of >> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can >> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
How about Sagnac?Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
How about Sagnac?
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an >> inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest >> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of >> the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73 >> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 >> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial >> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is >> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed.. Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab >>> version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment >>>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of >>>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an >>>> inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest >>>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of >>>> the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73 >>>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 >>>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial >>>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can >>>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is >>>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says >>> down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths >>> rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive >>> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on >>> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected. >>>
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough". >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment >>>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of >>>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of >>>> the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73 >>>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 >>>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of >>>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can >>>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an >>>> inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest >>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the >>>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive >>> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on >>> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed.. >>> Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices >> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough". >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough". >>>
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the >>>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of >>>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times >>>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the >>>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an >>>> inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest >>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the >>>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments. >>>>
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments >>> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices >> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't >> seem to bother them.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX, if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constantBecause if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected by rotation.
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:52:23 PM UTC-4, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches >> that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough". >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough". >>>
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the >>>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the >>>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times >>>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the >>>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an >>>> inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest >>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement >>>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same >>>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments. >>>>
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments >>> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be >> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
Right on Lou!I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX. Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path differenceIn that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected by rotation.
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, theA "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices >>>> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't >>>> seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame.
And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough.
Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis.
But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
How about Sagnac?
You can’t have it both ways.
Either experiments to date are sensitive enough to be affected by
earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
You could have Sagnac spinning around another star every few seconds
in a rapidly spinning binary star system.. And the relativist will
still pretend the experiment isn’t rotating and be in an inertial
frame.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path differenceThe lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
the Sagnac experiment.
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
On 9/20/23 1:52 PM, Lou wrote:
You can’t have it both ways.That's just your personal ignorance talking.
Either experiments to date are sensitive enough to be affected byIt depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
turns of optical fiber can easily measure the rotation of the earth. The most accurate repetitions of the MMX, and MMX-like experiments, are deliberately constructed to be insensitive to the rotation of the earth.
On 9/20/2023 2:52 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, theA "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be >>>> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices >>>> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't >>>> seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX, >>> if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed >> area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected >> by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX. Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame.Inertial to within an error small enough that it doesn't affect the
outcome. This is true for *any* science experiment, not just relativity experiments. There are effects that are assumed to be zero that are not exactly zero, but are so small that they don't affect the outcome.
And the path differenceRotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
Remember the rotation of the earth (at the poles) is 0.000694 rpm. How sensitive is the Sagnac device, can it detect the 0.000694 rpm from the earth's rotation?
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have saidA properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough.
light paths so the light paths cancel out rotation effects. If the equivalent included area is nonzero, it will function as a Sagnac device
so will potentially detect any rotation. I say 'potentially' because it depends on how sensitive it is. A MMX device's sensitivity is a fraction
of a fringe shift, so for earth's rotation you'll have to
calculate/measure what the included area is, and what 0.000694 rpm and
that area produces when measured in fringe shifts.
I think Tom R. already answered for the original MMX device and came up
with a fringe shift far smaller than a fringe shift so the rotation is unmeasurable.
Same for any science measurement. Did that butterfly farting in China
affect my measurements? How large is the vibration from the sound of the fart when it reaches my lab device? Does that vibration level affect my measurement?
Yet you then contradict this aboveI don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis.
have a zero included equivalent area so that it is not sensitive to
earth's rotation, but it's likely that cannot be done perfectly so that
they either tune it out or filter it out of the output . Since the frequencies LIGO is interested in are ones in the audio range, while
earth's rotation is 0.0000116 Hz, it is easily ignored/filtered out.
But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropicallyAgain, it depends on how well they get the enclosed area to be 0 so it doesn't act as a Sagnac device detecting earth's rotation. I suspect you have no clue what that even means.
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enoughEither they get the enclosed area of the light path loop small enough so that rotation of the earth or other rotations are unmeasurable by the
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
device or they don't, and there is a Sagnac signal present.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area and will be
unaffected by the rotation of the earth.
On 9/18/23 1:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?If one put an MMX-like interferometer, with its 11-meter light paths,
into LEO, the error due to assuming it is at rest in an inertial frame
would still be VASTLY smaller than its measurement resolution. If one
used modern techniques that are thousands to millions of times more accurate, then a complete error analysis would be required, which cannot
be performed without details of the equipment.
How about Sagnac?
Similarly negligible for the MMX interferometer.
If one used light paths involving mirrors many kilometers away, then a careful error analysis would be required, and the Sagnac effect would be part of it.
Tom Roberts
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment >>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab >>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,They don't.
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment >>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac, in what they call the inertial” lab frame?They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2 during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:They don't.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment >>>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab >>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that
would *not* be considered inertial.
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
On 9/22/23 11:10 AM, Alan B wrote:
Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that would *not* be considered inertial.The MMX relies on a human observer to take the data -- that puts strong constraints on where and how the experiment could be performed. I do not think there are any conditions in which a human can take the data but
the apparatus cannot be analyzed in a locally-inertial frame. This is basically due to the fact that the instrument re-paints the fringes
every 73 nanoseconds.
[I ignore environmental conditions and limit this to
geometrical conditions (in the sense of GR). For
instance, a small thermal gradient in the room can
mimic a signal (see Dayton Miller's heroic efforts).]
If one modifies the experiment to use an automated data acquisition
system that is suitably robust, then either a sufficiently large gravitational field or a sufficiently fast rotation could induce errors
such that one cannot analyze it using a locally inertial frame.
Tom Roberts
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac, >>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac, >>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”Right.
Your point?
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also rotating relative to the Sagnac lab? Prove this.what ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｒｏｔａｔｉｎｇ you don't undrestand??
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:Right.
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac, >>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Your point?
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:They don't.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab >>>>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac, >>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is alsoI already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac, >>>>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does SR predict? Or at
least what would you as a relativist expect. A null result or a
fringe shift?
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames.
On 9/23/23 8:35 AM, Lou wrote:
If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does SR predict? Or atIf one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
least what would you as a relativist expect. A null result or a
fringe shift?
to re-align it. Once aligned, the image would be stable and not move
visibly as it rotated. As I said before, one would need a robust,
automatic data collection system, such as a movie camera capable of withstanding the enormous forces involved.
One could not compare to other rotation rates, because one would have to re-align for each. Of course for a high enough rotation rate the
apparatus would destroy itself.
This is, of course, no longer the MMX.
Tom Roberts
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for the Sagnac experiment. “Yes.
True
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” FalseHe wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of rotation) is not in the lab frame.
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showingThe Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames. Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wikiThat paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non
inertial frames.
[...]
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On 9/24/23 8:36 AM, Lou wrote:
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non inertial frames.NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.
There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems.
I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:Yes.
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>> the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showingThe Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac
gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots
woke
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter
how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Yes.
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>> the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>> False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame. >>> Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames. >> Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There isThe Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced >>> non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in >> physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidenceWhat evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is the imaginary non existent inertial frame)You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem >> with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
showed you just don't understand them.
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiotsSay what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?
These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
wokeAnother extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such insanity in so many crackpots?
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a opticalWHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
On 9/24/23 8:36 AM, Lou wrote:
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non inertial frames.NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.
There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems. For
some of them the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to the
coordinates, for some the (vacuum) speed of light is c in some
directions and not c in other directions, and for some the (vacuum)
speed of light is never c. But in EVERY case, once one is given the relationship between the non-inertial coordinates and some (any) set of inertial coordinates, one can then calculate the (vacuum) speed of light relative to the non-inertial coordinates. Of course in virtually all
cases such a calculation is of no interest or use.
On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Yes.
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>> the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>> False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame. >>> Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames. >> Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There isThe Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced >>> non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in >> physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidenceWhat evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is the imaginary non existent inertial frame)You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem >> with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
showed you just don't understand them.
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiotsSay what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?
These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
wokeAnother extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such insanity in so many crackpots?
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a opticalWHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
lab.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab is in
an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
But it can sometimes for relativity.
On 9/25/23 8:14 AM, Lou wrote:
the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotatingSure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
lab.
sensitive enough, but modern fiber gyroscopes can be.
[#] I presume your "rotating lab" is at rest on the
surface of the (rotating) earth.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab is inYou REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said that, and you just made it up (without any justification).
an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
I have said several times that one can analyze an experiment at rest on
the surface of the earth as if it were at rest in a (locally) inertial
frame IF AND ONLY IF the error due to that approximation is much smaller than the measurement resolution. This clearly depends on the specific instrument and measurement technique used. So the MMX, and many
repetitions of it, can be analyzed as if they were at rest in a locally inertial frame; so can the original Sagnac interferometer; modern fiber gyroscopes cannot.
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.Yes, because YOU CANNOT READ.
Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to
But it can sometimes for relativity.
read.
Light does not travel in vacuum with speed c relative to rotating coordinates. But any measurement has a resolution, and if the error in considering the rotating coordinates to be inertial is much smaller
than the measurement resolution, then one can analyze the experiment as
if it were at rest in an inertial (non-rotating) frame.
Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it cannot.
This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity and rotation.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:36:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not inCrank,
non inertial frames.
In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:Yes.
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes? >>>>>>> Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>> False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame. >>>>> Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames. >>>> Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced >>>>> non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in >>>> physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and >>>> how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim >>> that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is >>> the imaginary non existent inertial frame)You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving observers.
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed up
by empirical observations.
On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Yes.
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes? >>>>>>> Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>> False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of >>>>> rotation) is not in the lab frame.
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame. >>>>> Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames. >>>> Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really >>>> means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at >>>> the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the >> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's >> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis >> are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki >>>>> and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro >>>>> will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and >>>> how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is >> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because >> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation >> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation asIf the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the labIf the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claimYou have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as >> the lab frame?
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are theIf you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
same. And that both rotate.
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame (Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving observers.
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speedsOnce again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
in any source frame . Like MMX.
so light is c in it as well.
And if anyone points out thisAnd again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say... “It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backedThe religion mouth foam again.
by empirical observations.
(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8 fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
MMX is non inertial.
Yet MMX shows us that light is still observed to be at constant
speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
frame.
Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it
cannot. This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the
different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity
and rotation.
Like I said. [...]
Tom knows that [...]
He also knows that if [modern repetitions of the MMX] didn’t [give a
null result] as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation
[... further fantasies omitted...]
Because Sagnac gyros prove that the MMX and its lab are rotating.
[... more nonsense and fantasies omitted ...]
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't >>>> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the >>>> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's >>>> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis >>>> are not perpendicular.
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Yes.
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>>>> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes? >>>>>>>>> Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an >>>>>> inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame. >>>>>>> Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>>> False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of >>>>>>> rotation) is not in the lab frame.
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames. >>>>>> Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really >>>>>> means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at >>>>>> the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which >>>> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is >>>> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because >>>> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki >>>>>>> and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro >>>>>>> will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced >>>>>>> non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in >>>>>> physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and >>>>>> how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation >>>> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation. >>
The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
So what. The ring gyro can.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...
but the lab is in a
non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction.
are in the same frame as the lab.
You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a rotating around the earths axis.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim >>>>> that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is >>>>> the imaginary non existent inertial frame)You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as >>>> the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device isthe earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical >>>>> gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame >>> (Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving >>> observers.
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
If you have light from a binary star travelling towards an observer at
c in the observer frame then the fact is that it can’t be travelling
away from the star source at c.
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c isto invoke the relativity speed combination formula.
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speedsOnce again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
in any source frame . Like MMX.
so light is c in it as well.
No it isn’t.
You’ve just not only contradicted yourself when you said
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and
empirical observations.
And if anyone points out thisAnd again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
The religion mouth foam again.
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed
by empirical observations.
Said the ranting cleric.
(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't
matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8
fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Tom knows that current MMX give null results. He also knows that
if it didn’t as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation ..it would show that there is an aether.
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
Sagnac and MMX togetherThis is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thusHow silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
MMX is non inertial.
is not at rest in an inertial frame.
This is true for a lab on the
surface of the (rotating and gravitating) earth.
Yet MMX shows us that light is still observed to be at constantNo, it does NOT. The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of
speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
frame.
the interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the observer
pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it
cannot. This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the
different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity
and rotation.
On 9/25/23 9:29 PM, Lou wrote:
Tom knows that [...]
You don't have a clue about what I know. Most of what you attribute to
me here is really stuff you made up, and is BLATANTLY WRONG.
He also knows that if [modern repetitions of the MMX] didn’t [give a null result] as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive enough to detect rotation
This just displays your near total ignorance about basic physics and experimental technique -- any competent repetition of the MMX is
designed to be insensitive to rotation. Because the instrument must be rotated so it can make measurements in different orientations, and such INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTS must not affect the physics results.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis >>>> are not perpendicular.
On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Yes.
Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread: >>>>>>>>>>>
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes? >>>>>>>>> Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial. >>>>>>>>> In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an >>>>>> inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of >>>>>>> rotation) is not in the lab frame.
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really >>>>>> means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at >>>>>> the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame. >>>> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't >>>> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the >>>> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect >>>> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this. >>>>>
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which >>>> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is >>>> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. BecauseMy evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki >>>>>>> and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro >>>>>>> will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab >>>> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation >>>> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab >> frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
So what. The ring gyro can.And your point is...?
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device >> is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the conLooks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.
that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...
but the lab is in aThe "contradiction" is because of your fantasy belief that anyone said
non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction.
the lab frame is inertial.
Because MMX and Sagnac
are in the same frame as the lab.
You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding andI KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there
could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a rotating around the earths axis.No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frameSagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
rotating around the earths axis.
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
I still don't know why you are so upset about the MMX being in a "not perfectly inertial" environment when the difference between the earth
and perfection is too small to measure.
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claimYou have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as >>>> the lab frame?
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame >> on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the earths axis.)
I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device isthe earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical >>>>> gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame >>> (Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable >>> speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers.
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
If you have light from a binary star travelling towards an observer atWhy would you claim anything as stupid as that? The light is traveling
c in the observer frame then the fact is that it can’t be travelling away from the star source at c.
away from the star at c because light travels in all inertial frames at
c. Again, read the 1905 paper where Einstein shows that.
The only way you can prove that
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c isto invoke the relativity speed combination formula.
w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). Substitute u=c (u=speed of light in the star's
frame, v=speed of star at emission) and you get w=c (w=speed of light according to earth observer). So simple, even anti-relativity crackpots should be able to understand it.
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speedsOnce again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
in any source frame . Like MMX.
so light is c in it as well.
No it isn’t.You didn't read the footnote indicated by the asterisks.
You’ve just not only contradicted yourself when you saidFor the MMX, explicitly designed to be insensitive to rotations, earth
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and empirical observations.
is "inertial enough".
And if anyone points out thisAnd again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
The religion mouth foam again.
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed
by empirical observations.
Said the ranting cleric.There you go again with the "Relativity is a cult!" crackpottery. Such claims only show that you are a crackpot unable to hold sane discussions about science.
(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't >> matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8 >> fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about >> 0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Tom knows that current MMX give null results. He also knows thatSo you did read my footnote but essentially ignored it. Once again the difference between an MMX on earth and a theoretical MMX that's
if it didn’t as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive enough to detect rotation ..it would show that there is an aether.
perfectly inertial with zero rotation is less than 1 millionth of a
fringe, far less than 0.1 fringe in a real MMX. You refuse to address
this point.
[snip nonsense]
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX togetherI bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 17:07:47 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:36:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not inCrank,
non inertial frames.
In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame >>>> on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
earths axis.)
Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial
frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...
then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are
shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.
Here’s Pauls quote:
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
earths axis.)
Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.
Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.
Here’s Pauls quote:Exactly!
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
Like this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame
Lou wrote:
|"Then why do relativists calculate the path difference
| for SR in Sagnac, in what they call the inertial lab frame?"
I responded:
| They don't.
| They calculate it in an inertial frame.
| The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
| See:
| https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
| https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Meaning that they don't _calculate_ it in the _lab_ frame
because it isn't inertial.
They _calculate_ it with a theoretical Sagnac ring rotating
in a theoretical inertial frame.
And I never said anything about the MMX in this thread.
So please stop claiming that I said what I never said. ========================================================
You can quote me literally, but not out of context.
You quoted me out of context:
"The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame."
and say that I claim that:
"the Sagnac lab frame is inertial."
You pretend that the Sagnac ring in the former quote
is the same as the Sagnac ring in the latter quote.
Either you are a troll who is writing this to provoke,
or you are very ignorant of logic so you don't understand
that what you are writing is wrong.
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to to detect
earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result.
Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
null result it would refute SR
[... further nonsense ignored]
On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your
Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:24:21 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:
Here’s Pauls quote:
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
Like this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame.
But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you contradicted yourself earlier.
Because look at your initial quote:
You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
Den 26.09.2023 21:43, skrev Lou:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:24:21 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:
Here’s Pauls quote:
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
Like this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame.
(The ring may be rotating, but the center of the ring is
stationary in a non inertial frame. The "Sagnac setup"
is stationary on the lab table.)
But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you contradicted yourself earlier.Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D
Because look at your initial quote:
You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to to detectI am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your fantasies of what might happen in the future.
earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result.
Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give aNo, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
null result it would refute SR
Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
the prediction of the theory (perhaps SR, perhaps GR is required), not
that it give a "null result".
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 06:12:53 UTC+1, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THATThe MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND
FANTASIES.
You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t
sensitive enough to detect any rotation,..future ones will.
No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment
would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
Nonsense.
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result. It
would refute SR.
And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refute
SR.
It’s OK for relativists to pretend that even though MMX isn’t
sensitive to rotation one can assume it’s always going to give a null result at more sensitive future versions that could detect rotation
.
Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial
frames.
Yet when emission theory says that the current MMX sensitivity which
gives null result means emission theory can predict that light
travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame....you turn into
a hypocrite and say that MMX isn’t sensitive enough to confirm
theoretical predictions by emission theory .
If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory
predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
predictions?
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upsetYou are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there
could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a labNo scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom, Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames rotating around the earths axis.
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation ofI bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called “difference” between the two fantasies.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all observers.
made by SR.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refutingLike what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
SR.
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that thereYou are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab >>> which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a >>> rotating around the earths axis.No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here thatNo, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyrosWhile MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMXWord salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed >> area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a >> fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves thatNobody disputes that.
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames rotating around the earths axis.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation ofI bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called “difference” between the two fantasies.No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
have specific definitions to scientists.
I know they are both excuses made upNo, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all observers.
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
made by SR.Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refutingLike what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
SR.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when pressed they have nothing to show?
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which showBoth Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
On 9/27/23 5:07 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 06:12:53 UTC+1, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THATThe MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND
FANTASIES.
You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’tNONSENSE! I have never made any claims at all about future experiments, except that their analysis will include all relevant aspects of their physical situation. You attribute your personal fantasies to me -- DON'T
sensitive enough to detect any rotation,..future ones will.
DO THAT.
But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
the physics results.
No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment
would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
Nonsense.You obviously know nothing about experimental technique and analysis. If some future MMX-like experiment could detect its rotation, then that rotation MUST be included in the analysis. As long as the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of SR (which necessarily
includes the rotation), then the experiment will not refute SR. Whether
that result is "null" is IRRELEVANT -- all that matters is whether the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of SR (including rotation).
One can analyze the MMX using SR and include its rotation. The rotation implies an orientation-independent change of its fringe positions by
about 0.000001 fringe [#]; the data were recorded with a resolution of
0.1 fringe, so the effect of the rotation is completely unobservable.
Note also that an ORIENTATION_INDEPENDENT change in fringe position doe
not affect the result. So the SR prediction for the MMX result using its actual physical situation is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the prediction
assuming the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; they predict no orientation dependence in fringe position, and the experiment is
consistent with that.
[#] Estimate.
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result. ItNot true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
would refute SR.
I do know that to date no repetition of the MMX has been sensitive to
its rotation. Deliberately -- they are designed to be insensitive to rotation. (It was happenstance that the original MMX was insensitive to rotation, as the Sagnac effect was not then known.)
And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refuteNope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
SR.
unable to read what I write. The ONLY way to refute SR is for the experimental result to be inconsistent with the prediction of SR for its physical situation -- if its physical situation includes rotation, then
the SR prediction MUST include the rotation. But when the effect of the rotation is nearly a million times smaller than the experimental
resolution, there is no need to belabor the rotation because it can be neglected.
It’s OK for relativists to pretend that even though MMX isn’t sensitive to rotation one can assume it’s always going to give a null result at more sensitive future versions that could detect rotationThis is just a crazy statement. Today NOTHING can be said about future experiments, except that the analysis of such experiments will include
.
all relevant aspects of their physical situation. This includes rotation.
Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertialNobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
frames.
inertially (except you in your fantasies and dreams). But when
the effects of the non-inertialness of the apparatus are very much
smaller than the experimental resolution, one can ignore them. That is
the case for the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.
Yet when emission theory says that the current MMX sensitivity whichMore nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
gives null result means emission theory can predict that light
travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame....you turn into
a hypocrite and say that MMX isn’t sensitive enough to confirm theoretical predictions by emission theory .
result of the MMX, and some of its repetitions. Your statement about
"light travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame" is just your personal nonsense that is IRRELEVANT to physics. What matters is whether
the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of the theory. Whether the theoretical analysis uses a non-inertial frame is IRRELEVANT
-- what matters is that the analysis is valid within the theory being
used, for the physical situation of the experiment. Some emission
theories predict a null result for the MMX; SR predicts a null result.
The experiment is unable to distinguish between them (but other
experiments can and do).
If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theoryYou simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
predictions?
these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the apparatus, not the theory.
[to me] It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeed
shorten the E-W arm path length via earths rotation, then when the
two arms are switched by a 90 degree turn of the setup....no fringe
shift would still be observed even though the path difference was
switched from one arm to the other. Have I understood you correctly?
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the
arms.
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
It would refute SR.
If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’s
ridiculous.
How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
The E-W arm tilts down slightly [...]
But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
the physics results.
On 9/27/23 2:59 PM, Lou wrote:
[to me] It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeedNo. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
shorten the E-W arm path length via earths rotation, then when the
two arms are switched by a 90 degree turn of the setup....no fringe
shift would still be observed even though the path difference was
switched from one arm to the other. Have I understood you correctly?
AT ALL about any arm "shortening" -- that is YOUR fantasy, and is both ridiculous and inconsistent with SR.
Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. You are VERY BAD at that.
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if oneWhy do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the
arms.
Such fantasies are useless.
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
It would refute SR.
If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’sYes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
ridiculous.
or implied.
How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?By making the area enclosed by the light paths be accurately zero. Since
you don't know this very basic fact, you have no hope of understanding either the MMX or the Sagnac experiment.
The E-W arm tilts down slightly [...]
Not in a well-designed MMX repetition, or in the original MMX (which was floating in a mercury pool to ensure the plane of rotation was
accurately horizontal).
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
could only be one frame in existence or something.You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics. >>>> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >>>> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab >>>>> which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a >>>>> rotating around the earths axis.No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is >>>> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >>>> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom, >>> Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your non inertial frame.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect earths rotation.
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here thatNo, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyrosWhile MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
And if MMX and Sagnac are in the lab and not moving
in the lab frame. Then MMX and Sagnac are not in inertial frames.
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMXWord salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Nobody disputes that.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>>>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed >>>> area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a >>>> fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames >>> rotating around the earths axis.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when theyI understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of >>>>> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX togetherI bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
“difference” between the two fantasies.
have specific definitions to scientists.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all >>> observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
Yet none of
you actually know what they mean.
Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
made by SR.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe,
Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.
Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is >>>> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations >>>> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >>>> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I >>>>>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and >>>>> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics. >>>> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >>>> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there >>>> could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths >>> rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detectedNo it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in theAnd on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your non inertial frame.
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measureIf perfect, it couldn't.
this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect earths rotation.
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here thatNo, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement. >>> What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in anNobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
Nobody disputes that.Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>>>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is >>>> that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around >>>> 1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design preventsI will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough. Can’t have it both ways big boy.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect rotation.
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all >>> observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
Yet none ofNo, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on others.
you actually know what they mean.
Proof is I asked several timesNow you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
made by SR.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotationScientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you apparently don't understand)
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when >> pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists
have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, >> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.
Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to theLight is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.The photoelectric effect.
The closestWord salad.
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >>>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is >>>>>> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations >>>>>> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >>>>>> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I >>>>>>>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and >>>>>>> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics. >>>>>> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >>>>>> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there >>>>>> could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab >>>>>>> which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a >>>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths >>>>> rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in theAnd on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect >>> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your >>> non inertial frame.
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame.
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>>>>>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame >>>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is >>>>>> that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed >>>>>> area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a >>>>>> fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around >>>>>> 1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames >>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.Nobody disputes that.Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift >>>
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation
if
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in >>>> physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths >>> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all >>>>> observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds.
Just one velocity relative to the observer.
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at c isotropically under SR ‘ ?
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
made by SR.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empirical
observations.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when >>>> pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended up
in the dustbin.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been better modelled by a classical model.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its
realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists
have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Every week I read a new observation...that has just refuted an old theoretical
prediction that probably got the fantasist a Nobel.
JWST data showing endless billions of mature galaxies where none were predicted must have invalidated a few dozen Nobel prize awards.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, >>>> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) isBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR. >>>
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show Light and atoms are wave like only.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area). >>> Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >>>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upsetYou are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I >>>>>>>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and >>>>>>> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there >>>>>> could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a labNo scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations >>>>>> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths >>>>> rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect >>> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrorsAnd on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's >> why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you haveAnd once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6 fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame.
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
So in the time from when the light leavesAnd on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.And the return path cancels.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same! >>>So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the concept of frames!)
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
And it’s the pathAnd SR gets it correct.
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame >>>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is >>>>>> that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area >>>>>> equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around >>>>>> 1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that >>>>> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents >>> it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.Nope. A real perfect MMX won't detect rotation. Remember the light
return path cancels the forward path!
But we humans are imperfect, so any physical MMX won't have an exactly 0 Sagnac area, so the Sagnac effect will detect rotation.
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotationIt won't.
if
[snip]
No need to discuss these irrelevancies as the "if" is false.
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in >>>> physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths >>> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all. >>>Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds.Actually now that I think of it, neither would modern physics. "Proper speed" would mean the speed of an object in its own frame. Which would
be 0 by definition, of course. So we can dismiss with "coordinate speed"
and "proper speed", there's just speed/velocity.
Just one velocity relative to the observer.So you're actually correct for once! Shall we celebrate?
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at cThe answer is "yes" of course.
isotropically under SR ‘ ?
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotationI also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence. >>>
made by SR.
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empiricalScientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure
observations.
about your boogeymen.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize. >>>> Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended upThat's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
in the dustbin.
happened. No matter how hard many scientists tried. No matter how many
kooks kooked.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least beenName just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
better modelled by a classical model.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its
realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists >> have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Every week I read a new observation...that has just refuted an old theoreticalThat's how science works. New data updates poorer quality old data,
prediction that probably got the fantasist a Nobel.
JWST data showing endless billions of mature galaxies where none were predicted must have invalidated a few dozen Nobel prize awards.
meaning some features need to be tweaked. And I doubt any Nobels were invalidated, they are conservative enough with the physics prize so that
it doesn't depend on poor measurements.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, >>>> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is >>>> supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR. >>>Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The GrangierNo, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
Nowadays we have QED, which explains it all differently. But just like Newton's incorrect mechanics, wave or particle models are still used
because they are much simpler than full blown QED.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanaticsExcept for things like the photoelectric effect.
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show Light and atoms are wave like only.
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or shorter. But not the NS path
And the return path cancels.They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees. >>>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel. >>>
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed >>> go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed >>> If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand theNobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same! >>>>>So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
concept of frames!)
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
And SR gets it correct.
Not neccesarily.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich galaxies where your theory predict none,
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well asNo, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and otherBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever >>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
a wave theory does.
Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold.
So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals” 😂🤣😂🤣
Liars.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show >>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantised
by a resonant system atom at the detector.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised amount of energy to a detector.
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial framesI just said the effect cancels on the return path.
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
And the return path cancels.But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees. >>>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the >> concept of frames!)Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough" >>>> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same! >>>>>So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
And SR gets it correct.
Not neccesarily.It is within 1*10^-6 fringes away from "getting it correct".
Unmeasurable and can be ignored, other than (in a modern paper) a description of sources of errors and their contribution to an overall
error. These days, papers give an overall confidence level, how many
sigmas relevance, which can be translated into odds that the overall
results are real and not from random errors. (these odds are never 100%
but ideally as close to 100% as possible)
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
galaxies where your theory predict none,
SOHO data on 7 times too muchThat's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
at all like your theory predicts.
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
Except the photoelectric effect.There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well asNo, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and otherBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
a wave theory does.
Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum
energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold. So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals”
Liars.ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hittingYes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
a detector? No.
of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
to do that with a pure wave theory.
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantisedA bite of word salad.
by a resonant system atom at the detector.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against aDoesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels. >>>Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich >>> galaxies where your theory predict none,
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
at all like your theory predicts.
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
💩
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and otherBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show >>>>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns. Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and constructive interference patterns.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it >>> is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down >>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or >>> shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
inertial or not.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybeThe MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
(and theory).
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel inWhat's a "ks"?
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motionIf you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense here.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone. >>>
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see. >>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
galaxies where your theory predict none,
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, youYet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.Again, name just one.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories >> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
at all like your theory predicts.
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’tNothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in particular nothing disproving it)
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
💩Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.
Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no evidence of relativity being the issue.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the >>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
called light "wavicles".
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors >> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain resultsNope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber >>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs >> of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way >> to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?They move much too fast (nearly c) to "see them zipping through" a cloud chamber. The path instantaneously appears and expands and fades. A kid
at my kid's high school set up a Wilson cloud chamber. It was neat to
watch. A path would instantaneously appear at semi-random locations
based on the location of a mildly radioactive source. A crystal of
potassium compound IIRC. Some came from muons.
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?There was alcohol involved but nobody was drinking the pure (isopropyl) alcohol.
Anyway, it's a neat effect. There should be plenty of Youtube videos of
it. Find them and watch them.
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns. Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and constructive interference patterns.Nope. You obviously have no idea how a Wilson cloud chamber or a bubble chamber work. An energetic particle ionizes gas molecules along its path
and they become nuclei for condensation in the supersaturated alcohol
vapor, forming tiny droplets along its path (Wilson cloud chamber) which
are visible.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.No interference effects in the photoelectric effect. It cannot be
explained by the wave model of light.
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularlyNothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding physics.
It's strange, but look how many victims of this form of insanity are
present here. Including yourself, of course. Runs in the family.
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down >>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or >>> shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
inertial or not.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybeThe MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
(and theory).
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel inWhat's a "ks"?
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motionIf you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense here.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone. >>>
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see. >>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
galaxies where your theory predict none,
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, youYet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.Again, name just one.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories >> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
at all like your theory predicts.
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’tNothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in particular nothing disproving it)
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
💩Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.
Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no evidence of relativity being the issue.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the >>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
called light "wavicles".
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors >> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain resultsNope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber >>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs >> of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way >> to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?They move much too fast (nearly c) to "see them zipping through" a cloud chamber. The path instantaneously appears and expands and fades. A kid
at my kid's high school set up a Wilson cloud chamber. It was neat to
watch. A path would instantaneously appear at semi-random locations
based on the location of a mildly radioactive source. A crystal of
potassium compound IIRC. Some came from muons.
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?There was alcohol involved but nobody was drinking the pure (isopropyl) alcohol.
Anyway, it's a neat effect. There should be plenty of Youtube videos of
it. Find them and watch them.
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns. Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and constructive interference patterns.Nope. You obviously have no idea how a Wilson cloud chamber or a bubble chamber work. An energetic particle ionizes gas molecules along its path
and they become nuclei for condensation in the supersaturated alcohol
vapor, forming tiny droplets along its path (Wilson cloud chamber) which
are visible.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.No interference effects in the photoelectric effect. It cannot be
explained by the wave model of light.
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularlyNothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding physics.
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
[... considerable nonsense omitted]
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE.
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropicallyOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by amounts
in non inertial frames.
too small for the instrument to measure.
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees onYou are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
😂💩https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states,
this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters!
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speedsOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
isotropically in non inertial frames.
amounts too small for the instrument to measure.
If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that if
it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
[...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
null result.
[... further nonsense omitted]
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves
relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes light to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.
💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
😂💩
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states,
this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
😂🤣💩
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters! >>>
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
Why do you ask?
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so >> small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being attached to earth, rotate with it.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.So now you disagree that the earth rotates? Time for YOU to check into
the Home for the Terminally Stupid or something.
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I >> knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes lightEasily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.
to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...Make up your mind. Either the rotation of the earth affects the MMX and invalidates its null result during the few nanoseconds it took light to traverse the configuration, or the rotation of the earth doesn't affect
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.
the biggest MMX-type setups in the world, the two LIGO detectors plus
the others now online. One or the other. You can't have both. One or the other.
So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
For a second time, you have no answer.😂💩
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states, >> this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
And for a third time, no answer.😂🤣💩
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
I'll ask again: Any examples of relativity failures? Not cosmology
issues, not particle physics issues, not repeats of irrelevant claims, failures of relativity itself.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters!
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
Why do you ask?Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
am making a point from your lack of data and observations.
On 10/2/23 3:46 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speedsOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
isotropically in non inertial frames.
amounts too small for the instrument to measure.
If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that ifYou are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.
it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
1. The MMX most definitely WAS able to operate successfully and yield a
null result for the non-inertial 'frame' of its lab on the surface of
the earth. Because the difference between that non-inertial 'frame' and
a truly inertial frame is too small for the instrument to measure.
2. Other non-inertial 'frames' were not used.
3. For most non-inertial 'frames' it would be impossible to use the instrument at all.
Example: imagine putting the MMX instrument inside a truck, and then accelerating that truck at 1 g along a smooth and straight highway. The apparatus would not even rotate because the float carrying the interferometer in the mercury bath would be stuck on the back edge of
the bath. If you imagine taking the 3-vector sum of the truck's
acceleration and the acceleration due to gravity, and orient the
instrument so that is "local vertical", then it would probably be able
to rotate, but the orientation-dependent strains on the arms would be
much larger than the rigidity necessary (gravity pulls equally on all
parts of the instrument, but the acceleration does not).
[...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
null result.
That is complete nonsense, and merely displays your comprehensive
ignorance. In 1905 Einstein was at most only distantly aware of the MMX;
he CERTAINLY did not use it in developing SR (just read his 1905 paper).
You REALLY need to learn what SR is, and what it isn't. Until and unless
you understand the theory, WITHOUT YOUR ADDED FANTASIES, you have no
hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do).
[... further nonsense omitted]
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so >>>> small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer >>> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
Seeing as the MMX and lab are
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degrees
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretended
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to
check for path speed differences on the same arm.
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle
in minutes...like the original MMX was.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental >>>>>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you >>>> whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use >>>> the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null >>> result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed) >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aetherWhat's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation0.00225 Hz?
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed orCorrect, so far.
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe,
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental >>>>>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you >>>> whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use >>>> the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null >>> result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed) >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aetherWhat's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation0.00225 Hz?
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed orCorrect, so far.
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe, which is not detectable, you cannot realistically claim that. Besides, there are no proofs in physics, only disproofs.
Seeing as the MMX and lab areExcept the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that
a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
to be sensitive to rotation, and the LIGO machines are designed to a
much higher standards than the original MMX interferometer which was insensitive to rotation. The LIGO systems COULD, in theory, be super sensitive to the ether wind...if it existed.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degreesThe earth does all the rotation that's needed.
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretendedThe ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not a few minutes.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle
within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to check for path speed differences on the same arm.The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle in minutes...like the original MMX was.
Anyway, you are talking in circles, holding both the beliefs that LIGO, despite rotating with the earth can't detect the rotation, while the original MMX system could, despite the rotation in several nanoseconds
is trivial. This is going nowhere, and as Gary reminds us, you are just insane anyway. So go have the last word, I am done with this thread.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself, >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
An inertial frame is not an inertial frame as once it moves it is an "inertial-system".
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. There. Feel better?
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
light speeds in non inertial frames
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial frame
and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or so, and during such
a very short time period the inertial frame and the lab diverge by an
amount FAR too small to be observed.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. >>> There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you? Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be
rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic
constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any
rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null
result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect anyIn SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's disingenuous.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a nullONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to
the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation
is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent
experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.
On 10/4/2023 4:36 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. >>> There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is aroundPlease explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not existing.
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you? Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
Tom R. has AGAIN explained this to you, so double the reason to skip responding to this.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 01:55:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time lightIn SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's disingenuous.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.ONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.
You don’t understand basic maths and geometry.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself, >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,All correct!
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,All correct!
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
It is not an inertial frame...
So virtually zero friction in Low Earth Orbit or better out in interplanetary space is yet an additional reason for Michelson-Morley to be done in outer space.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 374 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:08:54 |
| Calls: | 7,969 |
| Files: | 13,014 |
| Messages: | 5,817,090 |