• #### When is an Inertial Frame *Not* an Inertial Frame?

From LEO_MMX@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 17 07:58:37 2023
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".

What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?

Cheers,
LEO_MMX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 17 11:57:36 2023
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?

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From LEO_MMX@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 18 11:18:41 2023
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".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
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

Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Sep 19 01:41:35 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 19 12:02:29 2023
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".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
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

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From LEO_MMX@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 20 05:53:50 2023
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".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
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

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 20 06:46:08 2023
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 13:53:52 UTC+1, LEO_MMX wrote:
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".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
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

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.

It doesn’t matter to relativists. 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 20 13:09:48 2023
On 9/20/2023 8:53 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
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.

Sagnac devices are designed to measure rotation, they're intended for
that. Large sensitive Sagnacs can detect the rotation of the earth. So
the sensitivity of the Sagnac has to be compared to the earth's rotation

Sagnac devices are similar to MMX except that the Sagnac has an area
within its loop necessary for rotation detection while MMX has a zero
enclosed area making it insensitive to rotation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 20 13:15:58 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 20 11:16:56 2023
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:
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.

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 20 14:36:25 2023
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:
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.

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?

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 20 11:52:20 2023
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:
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.

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?
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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Alan B@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 20 14:08:01 2023
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:
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.

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?
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.
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.

Right on Lou!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Alan B on Wed Sep 20 14:14:44 2023
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-7, Alan B wrote:
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:
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.

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?
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.
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.
Right on Lou!

Where has a frames steady motion have been measured?
Gravity changes all motion from steady...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 20 17:26:04 2023
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:

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?
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.

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 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.

Rotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute
rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.

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 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.

A properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
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 above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis.

I don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
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 isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.

Again, 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.

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.

Either 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
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 21 14:39:44 2023
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.

Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 21 10:38:22 2023
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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Sep 21 10:46:01 2023
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 by
earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.

It depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
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.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Sep 21 12:29:28 2023
On 9/20/23 8:46 AM, Lou wrote:
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.

That is just plain wrong. I have repeatedly explained that one can
analyze an experiment as if it were at rest in an inertial frame ONLY if
the error in doing that is much smaller than the measurement resolution.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about
it. Also: stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Thu Sep 21 12:20:41 2023
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Sep 21 12:17:25 2023
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
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 by
earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
It depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
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.

But the latest MMX style experiment are sensitive enough to detect
earths rotation. As you earlier said that the original MMX at 0.02 needed to
be a million times more sensitive to detect earths rotation. Well...the
latest MMX are 10-17 more sensitive. More than enough.
But they dont detect any shift due to rotation. Proving that contrary
to your claims..light *can* travel isotropically at constant speeds relative to a source in non inertial frames.
You and Volney know this..so now you change your argument from
old MMX not being sensitive enough....to saying no matter how
sensitive any new MMX is...they are built specially to not detect
earths rotation!!
Pretty strange claim considering you just recently pretended
sensitive enough MMX could detect rotation.
Can’t have it both ways Tom.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 21 12:50:35 2023
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 22:26:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
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:

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?
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.

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 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.
Rotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.

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 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.
A properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
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 above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis.
I don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
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.

Actually you mentioned in an earlier thread that LIGO acts
as an oversize MMX. That isn’t really correct.
MMX only works if you can rotate the arms so that both
arms can be pointed in various directions to test for any aether
effects. LIGO arms can’t be rotated.

But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
Again, 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.
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.
Either 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
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.

If a “perfect”, MMX device could not be effected by earths rotation.
Then it couldn’t detect any aether even if there was one. Defeating the entire purpose of MMX. Because if there were an aether,
earths axial rotation would also give a different light speed on each arm.
Not just earths motion around sun.
(The E-W arm would always give a slightly slower light speed than the N-S
arm due to earths axial rotation in an aether model)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Alan B@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Sep 21 18:05:02 2023
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:38:34 AM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Fri Sep 22 05:56:17 2023
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.

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 14:46:41 2023
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.

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Alan B@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 22 08:40:46 2023
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:56:19 AM UTC-4, 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:
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.

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/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Alan B@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 22 09:10:06 2023
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".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
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

Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that would *not* be considered inertial.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 22 12:22:14 2023
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: >>>> 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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Alan B on Fri Sep 22 13:05:00 2023
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 20:38:33 2023
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.

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.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 23 06:35:10 2023
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:05:14 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
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

Interesting. I wonder if the same applies for an M-M experiment
with very long arms. Anyways I’ve been wondering what light is expected
to do under SR in non inertial frames.So now is a good time to
ask the expert. 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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 06:58:17 2023
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 23 06:19:31 2023
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:
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.

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.

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Verdell Belobrovkin on Sat Sep 23 10:16:31 2023
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 17:52:58 UTC+1, Verdell Belobrovkin wrote:
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??

If you think that the Sagnac x is in an imaginary non rotating ‘inertial’ frame
and isn’t in the non inertial rotating lab frame. Then according
to your bizarre logic if I put a ring gyro onto the lab floor then
it shouldn’t be able to measure the labs rotation around the earth
because according to SR.. the gyro is not in the lab.
But ring gyros DO measure the lab/earths rotation when on the lab floor. Obviously the Sagnac x is not in an imaginary non rotating ‘inertial’ frame. Empirical observations prove it is the non inertial lab frame.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 23 13:31:14 2023
On 9/23/2023 9:19 AM, Lou wrote:
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:
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.

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.

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.

I already explained this to you. The Sagnac device is rotating in an
inertial frame which is not the lab frame.

Don't blame Paul for your inability to understand this simple concept.

The inertial frame the Sagnac device is in is typically defined such
that the origin is at the center point of the Sagnac rotation axis with
one of the frame's axes along the Sagnac's rotational axis.

Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 23 13:39:31 2023
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.

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
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 23 20:00:40 2023
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “

Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.

Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 23 13:11:21 2023
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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. You can’t stand empirical evidence from ring gyros showing that the Sagnac x is in the non inertial rotating lab frame.
Dream on Paul.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 13:13:31 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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 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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 23 17:33:46 2023
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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

Yes.

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.

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
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).

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).

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 23 17:24:31 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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
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?

I 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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 17:54:23 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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 >> 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?
I 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.

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".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 23 22:32:17 2023
On 9/23/23 8:35 AM, Lou wrote:
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?

If one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 22:49:03 2023
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 23:24:36 UTC+2, 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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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 >> 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?
I 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.

Nope. Up to SR true, but since your GR shit your physics
is unable to specify even a single frame.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 24 06:36:53 2023
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 04:32:31 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/23/23 8:35 AM, Lou wrote:
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?
If one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
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

In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
Insert into an optical fibre ring gyro two mirrors back to back
at the middle point of the ring loop. So instead of each counter rotating beam going completely around the closed loop ring and being recombined to see if there is a change in the interference pattern. The light beam on each counter rotating path gets interrupted 1/2 way and reflected back to be recombined
at the interference plane.
Essentially converting a ring gyro into a useable MMX experiment.
I would be interested to see what your thoughts are on
this possibility.
Because if this indeed is feasible technically then I would have thought
this would be a good way to test SR. Because when rotated at hi speeds
if it still gave a null result. Then this would not only not be consistent
with SR. It would also answer the question as to : Does light travel at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 24 06:26:36 2023
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:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Sep 24 10:17:09 2023
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.

[...]

I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 24 08:48:43 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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 >> 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?
I 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.

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".

"Pesudomomentum: origins and consequences", 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/abs/on-the-wave-momentum-myth/5BAA0BC91100E1EF54A33200744F05C1
"On the 'wave momentum' myth", 1981

So, at least some aspects of "rest exchange momentum" are coming up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 24 09:39:47 2023
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:17:22 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

An example?

I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.

You have only interest in pandering your dreams
of fantasies, as expected from a relativistic clown.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Sep 24 14:26:33 2023
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: >>>> 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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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 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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.

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
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 idiots

Say 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.

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...

Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
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 optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣

WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 24 11:35:16 2023
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:26:41 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
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:
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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 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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
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
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 idiots
Say 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.
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...
Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
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 optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

It's a rotating frame, so the ants on it don't necessarily know the
difference between it and a flat plane.

A rotating frame is an inertial frame of course,
though it's a rotating frame and has a free central moment.

Sagnac effect or the ring laser gyro, is usually pointed
at that "definitely Casimir and same as Brehmsstrahlung".

These things are usually pointed at as "Casimir effect".
(The light-like behavior of laser ring gyros the Sagnac effect.)

A rotating frame is a linear frame in the frames that contain it,
but a linear frame to the frames it contains in their orbits.

The rotating and linear frames are fundamentally different only
as of matters of perspective, though, all of them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 25 05:49:49 2023
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:17:22 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

Yes Tom. To paraphrase Orwell:
All theories are equal. But some are more equal than others.
Like Relativity. Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model. But it can sometimes for relativity. When it’s convenient for dishonest pseudoscientific relativists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 25 06:14:04 2023
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:
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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 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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
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
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.

Let me guess. Under relativity you can make a completely nonsensical
statement and when pressed, relativity allows you to pretend you 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).

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 idiots
Say 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.
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...
Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
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 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
“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.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Dono.@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 25 09:07:44 2023
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 in
non inertial frames.

Crank,

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 25 13:53:08 2023
On 9/25/23 8:14 AM, Lou wrote:
the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
lab.

Sure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the
rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
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 in
an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!

You REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said
that, and you just made it up (without any justification).

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.

Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
But it can sometimes for relativity.

NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to

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.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 25 13:28:16 2023
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 19:53:21 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/25/23 8:14 AM, Lou wrote:
the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
lab.
Sure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
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 in
an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
You REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said that, and you just made it up (without any justification).

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.

Above Blarney translated into English:
‘Light can’t travel at c in rotating frames unless the experiment is sensitive
enough to measure if the light is travelling at c in the rotating frame.
In which case light may or may not be able to travel at c this non inertial frame’

Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
But it can sometimes for relativity.
NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to

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.

Aside from your sneaky caveat “in a vacuum” you conveniently
forgot that 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. When you think the instrument sensitivity isn’t accurate
enough to detect rotation, as in the MMX lab, you pretend the lab isn’t rotating. When the experiment accuracy (Sagnac gyro) is such that
it shows the lab is rotating. You then waffle on and say that light
may or may not be travelling at c (😂) in a non inertial frame depending
on the instrument accuracy and error margins. An outright bizarre
claim seeing as you know the Sagnac ring gyro is accurate enough
to detect rotation of the lab. AND...has detected rotation of the lab.
Pure contradictory obfuscatory nonsense from the PR department at
Relativity Corporation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Sep 25 18:49:31 2023
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 in
non inertial frames.
Crank,

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 25 21:47:08 2023
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:
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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
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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
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
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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.
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.

In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.

Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.

Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
so light is c in it as well.

And if anyone points out this
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”

And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.

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.

The religion mouth foam again.

(*) 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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 25 19:29:20 2023
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:
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:
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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 >> 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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
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
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 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. 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 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?

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.
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.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
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. The only way you can prove that
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c is
to prove it does arrive here at c. And as far as I’m aware,
no one has yet measured lightspeeds from cosmological
sources.

Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
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.
Sagnac ring gyros prove that the Sagnac, MMX and lab are all rotating
around the earths axis
In what’s relativists call a non inertial frame.
You think fantasy assumptions are observations. Even when
not physics if it ignores observations that contradict its predictions.

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”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.

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.
The religion mouth foam again.

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.
Which would refute SR. But,...He also knows that if current and/or
any future more sensitive versions of MMX still give a null result
then he has to admit that MMX proves that light can travel at constant
speeds (presumably c) isotropically relative to rotating sources.
Because Sagnac gyros prove that the MMX and its lab are rotating.
Which would also refute SR.
So he he tries to wriggle out of admitting SR is refuted either way,
and waffle on mindlessly about 10-1 and 10-8 error margins. As if that bit
of obfuscation and subject changing proves anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 25 22:41:08 2023
On 9/25/23 8:49 PM, Lou wrote:
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.

This is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 25 22:47:02 2023
On 9/25/23 3:28 PM, Lou wrote:
Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
MMX is non inertial.

How silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
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 constant
speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
frame.

No, it does NOT. 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.

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 Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 25 23:01:45 2023
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.

[... further fantasies omitted...]

Because Sagnac gyros prove that the MMX and its lab are rotating.

Again, this is not disputed -- one KNOWS that a lab on earth is rotating without any instrument, because the earth rotates.

But as I keep saying: if the instrument is incapable of observing the
effect of the rotation (because its effect is much smaller than the
measurement resolution), then the rotation can be ignored and the
experiment analyzed as if it were at rest in an inertial frame. This
applies to the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.

[... more nonsense and fantasies omitted ...]

Grow up! Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. Learn how to read.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Sep 26 01:02:57 2023
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:
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:
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:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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
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 >>>> 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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
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
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 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...

Looks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.

but the lab is in a
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 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.

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 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.

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 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?

Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?

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.
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.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
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.

Why would you claim anything as stupid as that? The light is traveling
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 is
to 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 speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
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 said
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and
empirical observations.

For the MMX, explicitly designed to be insensitive to rotations, earth
is "inertial enough".

And if anyone points out this
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.

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.
The religion mouth foam again.

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

(*) 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.

So you did read my footnote but essentially ignored it. Once again the difference between an MMX on earth and a theoretical MMX that's
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 together

I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 26 02:19:36 2023
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.
This is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.

Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
MMX is non inertial.
How silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
is not at rest in an inertial frame.

I wasn’t talking about the rotating mirrors. I was saying
the whole Sagnac setup on the table when the mirrors aren’t spinning...is
in a non inertial frame. And contrary to your evidence free claims I can prove that the whole experiment the table plus the lab itself is non inertial. Because a
ring gyro when also placed motionless on the lab table will still detect that the table
and the lab, are rotating around earths axis.

This is true for a lab on the
surface of the (rotating and gravitating) earth.

And by association for the table and the MMX and Sagnac experiments
Proving that light travels at constant speeds ( presumably c) isotropically
in rotating non inertial frames. I have the evidence to prove this.
You have only evidence free assumptions from SR.

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.
No, it does NOT. 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 by proving there is an aether. And, if it still gave a null result, it would confirm what the original
experiment indicated. Which is that as the lab and MMX rotate around the earths axis in a non inertial frame, light is observed to travel at constant speeds isotropically relative to sources rotating around the earths axis
in non inertial frame. And thus...refuting SR.
Either way...SR is screwed. The current evidence is not consistent with
the ludicrous claims made by relativists.

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.

Really ?
So let me hi lite two of the main facts I’ve claimed which you say are completely
“BLATANTLY” wrong:
1)MMX gives a null result indicating that light travels at c in the experiment setup.
2)Sagnac ring gyro when placed in a lab will measure earths rotation

Any evidence the above two claims I’ve made are “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.

Irrelevent point.
Whether or not any instrument is insensitive to earths rotation
does not in anyway refute the fact that the instrument itself when
placed on the surface of the rotating earth is also rotating. We know
this is true because recent Sagnac ring gyro Instruments when placed
on the earths surface detect and measure the rotation of the earth
around its axis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 26 03:09:47 2023
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:
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:
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:
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 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

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
Yes.

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.
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 >>>>>>> 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
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 evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
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 >>>> 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 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...
Looks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.
but the lab is in a
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 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.
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. 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 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 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?
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. ”
This is a false assumption. The original Sagnac, MMX and their modern versions are in non inertial rotating frames.
Sagnac ring gyros confirm this is true. Paul has zero evidence
to back up his fact free claims. Pauls mistake is to ignore the evidence
and pretend the lab isn’t rotating around the earths axis.

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.
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.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
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.
Why would you claim anything as stupid as that? The light is traveling
away from the star at c because light travels in all inertial frames at
c. Again, read the 1905 paper where Einstein shows that.

Wrong. The light is travelling away from the source at c. Yes. We
know this must be true from many earth experiments which show that light
always travels at constant speeds c in source frames. Including MMX.
But your claim that light is travelling at c when it arrives here to
earth observer is not backed up by any evidence. It is called
an ASSUMPTION. A false assumption, considering no one has
yet measured the speed of starlight arriving here to earth observers.

The only way you can prove that
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c is
to 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.

Oh but we Relativity critics DO understand it. We understand that
fact free relativists have fiddled the maths to falsely claim
light magically speeds up and slows down for each observer.
It’s called falsification of data. And you SR supporters are as good
at falsifying data as you are at ignoring the huge body of evidence
that refutes SR.

Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
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 said
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and empirical observations.
For the MMX, explicitly designed to be insensitive to rotations, earth
is "inertial enough".
And if anyone points out this
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.

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.
The religion mouth foam again.

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 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.
So you did read my footnote but essentially ignored it. Once again the difference between an MMX on earth and a theoretical MMX that's
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 together
I 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. I know they are both excuses made up
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. 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Dono.@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Sep 26 07:46:37 2023
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
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 in
non inertial frames.
Crank,

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.

I predicted that you will continue to post imbecilities. Well done, crank!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Sep 26 21:24:40 2023
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 ...
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.

I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.

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

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.

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.

I suspect the latter.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Sep 26 12:43:45 2023
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:24:21 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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 ...
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.
I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.
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

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.
And Therefore Sagnac is rotating in a NON INERTIAL frame.
Not an inertial frame

You only falsely pretend the lab is an inertial frame to make your calculations.
Because you know SR does not accept that light can travel at c
isotropically in non inertial frames.
Even though in fact Sagnac and MMX are both in non inertial frames
and their observations are consistent with light being at constant speeds isotropically at c in non inertial frames.

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.

claimed that MMX is in a inertial frame.
It isn’t.
It is in a Non Inertial frame. Sagnac ring gyros confirm this.

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."

If the Sagnac ring is rotating in the lab. And the lab frame
is non inertial. Then it is a false claim to say that the Sagnac
Ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
You don’t seem to understand basic logic and physics.
Where is your evidence that the Sagnac ring is rotating in an
inertial frame?
You don’t have any. So don’t lie and say it is rotating in an
inertial frame.

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.

I don’t suspect...I KNOW you lied when you said Sagnac is
rotating in an inertial frame. And I know this because unlike
yourself I refer to empirical observations ,...not delusions, false
logic and false assumptions as you prefer to use.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 27 00:12:40 2023
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 detect
earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result.

I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your fantasies of what might happen in the future.

Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
null result it would refute SR

No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.

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".

[... further nonsense ignored]

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Sep 26 22:59:26 2023
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 07:12:53 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

Nope, it' applies TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
See, poor fanatic trash, the reality is not FORCED to your
BEST WAY at all.

I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your

No. You're discussing your absurd newspeak.

Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with

A lie, of course, compared to/measured with the real second
of a real time your insane dreams demonstrate no value.

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

A pity yoo can't teach him, as you have no clue

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 27 10:51:17 2023
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.)

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.

Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Sep 27 02:50:43 2023
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 09:50:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.)

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.
Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D

Can’t admit that the Sagnac setup isn’t in an inertial frame can’t you Paul? So you sling an insult instead hoping no one will notice you
screwed up when you made the following evidence free, false claim:
“ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”

It isn’t rotating in an inertial frame. Ring fibre gyros have recently proved that
any lab experiment like Sagnac or MMX are always only in non inertial
frames.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Sep 27 03:07:21 2023
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 06:12:53 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t sensitive enough to
detect any rotation,..future ones will.

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.
I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your fantasies of what might happen in the future.
Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
null result it would refute SR
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.

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".

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?
Hypocrite.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 27 09:32:15 2023
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:
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.

You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t
sensitive enough to detect any rotation,..future ones will.

NONSENSE! 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
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. It
would refute SR.

Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.

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 refute
SR.

Nope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
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 rotation
.

This 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 inertial
frames.

Nobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
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 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 .

More nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
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 theory
predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
predictions?

You simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain
emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the
apparatus, not the theory.

You keep repeating the same nonsense. Do not expect me to continue.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 27 12:42:52 2023
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:

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.
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.

Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.

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!

No, 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
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.

While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!

Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.

Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.

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.

Nobody disputes that.

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 of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I 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.

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 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.

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims

Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

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?

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 27 10:45:20 2023
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 18:42:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

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.

Come on, stupid Mike, the mumble of your idiot
guru wasn't even consistent - and the evidence
is only making relativistic doggies barking
more fiercely.
Logic means nothing against stupidity and fanatism,
like yours.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 27 12:27:02 2023
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:
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

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.
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.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
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 that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
No, 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
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 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 & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.

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.
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.

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 understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I 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.
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 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.
None of you knew the answer. So pretended it was my fault that
you guys don’t know the difference between the two.

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Sep 27 12:59:11 2023
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 15:32:27 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
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:
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.

You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t
sensitive enough to detect any rotation,..future ones will.
NONSENSE! 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
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.

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.

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. It
would refute SR.
Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.

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.

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.)

How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
The E-W arm tilts down slightly shortening the path length during
the finite time light travels there and back.
But the N-S arm isn’t shortened. And thus a different path length
occurs for each arm. A difference that can only be detected
once the two arms were switched by 90 degree rotation.
The one caveat being if this switching of path length could
still effect a fringe shift.

And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refute
SR.
Nope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
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.

That’s the question you relativists don’t seem to want to answer.
If the sensitivity of MMX was enough to:detect rotation via path
length differences ...would that fringe shift non null result still be consistent with 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
.
This 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 inertial
frames.
Nobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
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 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 .
More nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
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 theory
predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
predictions?
You simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the apparatus, not the theory.

Your “rule” is a biased one. You ignore certain theory predictions, not because
they aren’t confirmed by the null result...but because you don’t want the competion to SR. That’s called hypocrisy.
Because an aether free emission theory can predict light will always still travel at c
isotropically even in a non inertial frame.
This is confirmed by MMX. Yet you and other relativists say MMX isn’t sensitive
enough to confirm this prediction.
Hold it a minute!! You just admitted even though it’s not sensitive enough MMx can still be acceptable as confirmation of SR.
HYPOCRITE !!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 27 15:54:25 2023
On 9/27/23 2:59 PM, Lou wrote:
[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?

No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
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 one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the
arms.

Why do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
Such fantasies are useless.

You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.
It would refute SR.
Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.

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.

Yes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
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).

fantasies are HOPELESS.

I give up -- you repeat the same nonsense too often for me to be
bothered responding to it any more.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom on Thu Sep 28 01:42:15 2023
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 21:54:36 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:

Tom wrote:
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 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?
No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
AT ALL about any arm "shortening" -- that is YOUR fantasy, and is both ridiculous and inconsistent with SR.

You said that MMX was designed to be insensitive to rotation.
(You snipped that part but I’ve added it back above.)
What I was trying to get you to explain was how is it you think
rotation of the earth /lab/experiment setup could never
be able to be detected by a sensitive enough MMX. Because that’s
a false claim you make. In fact regsrdless of its sensitivity
there is always a path difference on the arms of MMX due to rotation.
It’s just too small to be detected.
My reference to arm length changing was me trying to explain to you
that the mirrors rotate in a circle in the non inertial lab frame.
But don’t rotate in your imaginary inertial frame.

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 one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the
arms.
Why do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
Such fantasies are useless.

Actually I was asking you to explain how you think it doesn’t shorten. Because your imaginary inertial frame you pretend the MMX is in
doesnt rotate. Whereas the lab frame being non inertial does.
Put the two together and do a simulation it will give a shorter
path length for the E-W path.

You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.
It would refute SR.
Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.

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.
Yes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
or implied.

So it’s incorrect of me to assume a non null result in MMX would still be consistent with predictions made by SR?

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).

Nothing to do with a mercury pool. I’m referring to earths rotation of the lab!!
HERES a simple analogy to try to explain basic geometry to you.
Have a 1/meter arm attached horizontally at the edge of a rotating carousel
in a computer simulation. The view in your simulation is a top view of the carousel.
It being a rotating circle in the simulation.(Imagine also then that this is a simulation showing the EW arm of MMX as it rotates around the earths Center. A cross section of the rotating planet so to speak)
Place another 1 meter arm on top of the first.
They both rotate in a circle in the simulation at a constant speed.
Now at a certain point in time have the top 1meter horizontal arm detach itself
from the attached arm and continue on off in a straight inertial path along
a line defined as parralel to the x axis in your simulation.
Tangentially away from the first arm but at the
same speed it was as it was travelling just before it detached.

The detached arm now moves away from the attached arm in this
top view of the rotating carousel of your simulation along a path
parallel to the x axis...The forward point of the detached arm must therefore travel farther along the x axis than the forward point of the rotating arm attached to the carousel.! Because the forward point of the rotating
arm is not travelling in a straight line. But in a curved circular path relative to the x axis in this top view of the rotating carousel in the simulation.

Therefore if If light travels at c in the of the inertial detached arm
frame ( which is travelling in a straight line in the x axis of the simulation) but reflects off the mirror in the rotating arm, then the light path will
be shorter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Sep 28 10:49:36 2023
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:
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

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.
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.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
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.

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
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.

And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.

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.

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.

If perfect, it couldn't.

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!
No, 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
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 an
inertial frame.

Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).

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.

And...? The Sagnac will potentially detect that. The MMX won't.

Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.

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.
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.

I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.

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.

Nobody disputes that. (It confuses you regardless)

I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of >>>>> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I 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.
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 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 of
you actually know what they mean.

No, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on
others.

Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.

Now you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

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)

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 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.

The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 28 08:26:10 2023
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 16:49:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,

Yes, they did. They have specific meaing in relativity,
the meaning made up to make The Shit more
digestible. Orwellian classics, stupid Mike.

Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and

And make idiots like you spitting with Polish jokes, drunken
janitors, nazi kapos or alike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 29 02:21:28 2023
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:
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:

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.
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.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >> 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.
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
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.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
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. Imagine the two superimposed on a top view.
Your inertial frame EW arm always points in the same direction and moves EW slightly as the light goes out and back. BUT...the real lab EW arm, being non inertial,
moves across slightly with the inertial arm in the EW direction but more importantly
it also rotates downwards in a circle with the rotating earth lab. So do the maths
and geometry...*it does it not travel as far EW as the inertial frame*.
The actual path length of the non inertial EW arms mirror is closer to the source
then it’s imaginary inertial mirror. And seeing as the light reflects
off the real non inertial mirror the EW path becomes shortened.
It’s very hard to describe in words.
If relativists weren’t so visually and geometrically illiterate...
you would understand.

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.

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.
If perfect, it couldn't.

Wrong. As per above.

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!
No, 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
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 an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
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.
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.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.

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.

Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation if
sensitive enough at the interferometer.
You just are unable to grasp this visually.
Get Toms pals at Fermi to do a computer simulation. They
Will prove Im right.
Until then I can only as the saying goes...” lead the donkey to
water, but can’t make it drink”

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.
To help relativists con the world with gibberish.
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 ‘ ?
You can’t admit it can’t...so you say... “Oh well maybe it can or... maybe it can’t” 🤣😂

Yet none of
you actually know what they mean.
No, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on others.
Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
Now you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?

See! I told you above how when Relativists can’t answer a question because it will show up SR to be nonsense...you get obfuscation, waffle and bad
fiddle playing. Just like your hero Albert.

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

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) 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 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.

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. Even PMT observations don’t need
photon fantasies as I’ve pointed out above.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 29 12:55:49 2023
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:
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:

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.
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.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >>>> 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.
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
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.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
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.

And 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
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 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.

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.

And the return path cancels.

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.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
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.

It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the 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.

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.

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.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.

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.

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 rotation

It 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 c isotropically under SR ‘ ?

The answer is "yes" of course.

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

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.

Scientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure

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.

That's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
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 been better modelled by a classical model.

Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).

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.

That's how science works. New data updates poorer quality old data,
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 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.

No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 30 02:48:11 2023
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
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:
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:

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.
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.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >>>> 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.
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
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.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's >> 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.
And 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
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 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
relative to sources as per an aether free emission model. Then the path length doesn’t change for this emission model.
As observed in MMX with the null result.
( The two mirrors rotate around the source at the same distance.)

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
Or B)does the “inertial “ frame not rotate with the lab but move away in a
straight line from the lab at 1630k/s relative to the axis? Meaning it’s travelling in a straight line at 30ks + 1630kh?
How do you define your inertial frame re MMX, the lab and the
earths rotation. If under SR it’s B) then there will be a shorter or
longer path for the EW arm.
If it’s A) there will also be a path difference.

Maybe SRT should change its name to “The Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t” theory.

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.
And the return path cancels.
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.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
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.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the 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. It depends on how you imagine your imaginary inertial
frame moves or doesn’t move, relative to the real MMX setup over the time
it takes for the light to go out and come back to the interferometer.

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.

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.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.

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.

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 rotation
It 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 c
isotropically under SR ‘ ?
The answer is "yes" of course.
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence. >>>
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.
Scientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure

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.
That's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
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 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.

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.
That's how science works. New data updates poorer quality old data,
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 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.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does. And the only “evidence” for light as a photon is
PMT point like detections. But those points are actually only representations by electric circuits, software and LED screens showing a dot which is in fact Light wave energy being quantised by the detectors ‘resonant system’ atoms. And famous experiments like Aspect et al prove that waves are
better at modelling light and coincident rates than QT particles .
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.

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.

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.
The intelligent observer knows this is water waves energy being quantised
at the detector. The moronic particle theorists thinks someone is
throwing balls at the detector.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 30 12:45:15 2023
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 frames

I 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.
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

The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.

[snip crap]

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.
And the return path cancels.
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.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
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.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
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.

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.
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.

And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.

That'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,
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.

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.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.

Except the photoelectric effect.

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Oct 1 02:17:31 2023
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:
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
I 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.

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
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.
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
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
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?
Sounds like you don’t.

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.
And the return path cancels.
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.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough" >>>> 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.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the >> 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.
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.
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 behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That'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,
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.

💩

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.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.
Except the photoelectric effect.
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.

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.

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. Seen as individual straight
curving or spiral paths in 2 D with two overlapping waves. And in 3D
by 3 overlapping wavefronts interfering with each other in space.
It’s basic physics.
Something which you mathematicians just cannot seem to comprehend.

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.
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Oct 1 12:58:52 2023
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:
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
I 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.

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.

The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.

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...

Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.

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.
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
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
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.

It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.

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.

The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).

Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?

What's a "ks"?

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?

If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
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, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.

Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
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 behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That'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,
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”

Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
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.

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.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.

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

Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.

The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”

Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!

The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.

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 regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.

Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Oct 1 10:28:30 2023
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
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:
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
I 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.

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.
The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
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...
Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.

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.
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
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
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.
It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.
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.
The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).

Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
What's a "ks"?
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?
If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
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, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
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 behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That'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,
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”
Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
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.

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.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.

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
Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!

The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.

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 regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
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.

Demonstrate a motion that is not changing or is not always subject to it.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Oct 1 15:33:02 2023
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
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:
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
I 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.

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.
The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
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...
Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.

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.
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
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
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.
It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.
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.
The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).

Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
What's a "ks"?
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?
If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
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, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
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 behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That'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,
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”
Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
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.

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.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.

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
Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!

The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.

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 regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
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.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Oct 1 20:49:26 2023
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.

Only for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by amounts
too small for the instrument to measure.

[... considerable nonsense omitted]

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Oct 2 01:49:15 2023
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 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?

You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
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 what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.

Once 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!

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/

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Oct 1 23:33:12 2023
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 07:49:24 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
lie, stupid Mike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Oct 2 01:46:52 2023
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 speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
Only for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by 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?
You also forget that if it was sensitive enough and did not give a null result...
it might refute constant isotropic speeds of light in non inertial frames. But it would also refute SR. Because SR is based on the assumption that MMX
cannot predict a non null result.
Anyways, you also have a ridiculous contradiction in your logic when you
say above that MMX isn’t sensitive enough *currently* to detect rotation if there were any. Yet in other posts you and other relativists have said...MMX was designed NEVER to be able to detect rotation. Regardless of how sensitive to rotation it could made to be as an experiment.
Special Theory of Maybe it can,Maybe it can’t Relativity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Oct 2 02:44:11 2023
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:
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?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
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.
(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 what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
Once 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!

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/

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?

Hmm. Let me guess...you haven’t got any evidence . Right?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Oct 2 10:38:04 2023
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 speeds
isotropically in non inertial frames.
Only for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
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?

You are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.

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
hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do).

[... further nonsense omitted]

You are overly repetitive. Don't expect me to continue.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Oct 2 11:56:46 2023
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:
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?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
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.
(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. “)

You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
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?

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 what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
Once 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!

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?

Easily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.

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.

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
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.

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/

even mentioned.
💩

So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.

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.
😂💩

For a second time, you have 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.

😂🤣💩

And for a third time, no answer.

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?

Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
am making a point from your lack of data and observations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Oct 2 11:50:17 2023
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:
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 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?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
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.
(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. “)
You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being 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.

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 what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
Once 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!

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?
Easily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.
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.
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
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.
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/

even mentioned.
💩
So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.

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.
😂💩
For a second time, you have 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.

😂🤣💩
And for a third time, no answer.

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?

Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
am making a point from your lack of data and observations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Oct 2 11:29:08 2023
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:38:18 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
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 speeds
isotropically in non inertial frames.
Only for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
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?
You are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.

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
hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do).

[... further nonsense omitted]

You seem to have a problem reading my posts. You just pretend I
am talking about detecting an aether wind from earths rotation around sun.
I am NOT. You are fantasising about what I claim.
Look back in this thread and others. I have said in all threads that MMX rotates
around earth whilst giving the null result. Indicating that yes I already know that
there is *no aether wind*...
What Im saying is.... that because the setup rotates
AROUND THE EARTHS AXIS 24 hours a day it is in a non inertial frame and also proves that contrary to predictions by SR...light can travel at isotropic constant
speeds in a non inertial source. And this is consistent with MMX results to date.

You relativists then claimed MMX null result isnt evidence enough to prove isotropic
constant speeds are possible in non inertial frames. Pretending that a more sensitive
MMX would prove me wrong and detect rotation of lab around earths axis even though
it detects no ether wind.
Fact free claim. Because you need the results of this imaginary super sensitive
MMX experiment to prove that in a aether free universe light cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in non inertial frames. And you haven’t got it yet.

And pretending LIGO is the MMX experiment proves me wrong is complete illogical fact free nonsense. Because in a universe without an aether the only way to
check if the LIGO sized MMX arms can detect *lab/earths rotation* would be to have
both arms ROTATING in the LIGO sized lab whilst the setup itself rotates around the earths axis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Oct 2 19:27:07 2023
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:
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 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?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
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.
(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. “)
You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
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.

What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?

AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.

0.00225 Hz?

But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.

Correct, so far.

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 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.

Except the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
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 degrees
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.

The earth does all the rotation that's needed.

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.

The ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.

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*

Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not 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.

The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Oct 2 17:03:22 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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 >> 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?
I 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.

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".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Oct 2 22:18:50 2023
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:27:14 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
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:
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 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?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> 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.
(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. “)
You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
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.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.
0.00225 Hz?
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.
Correct, so far.
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,

How do you know, stupid Mike?
Have you measured ideal inertial frame?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Oct 3 02:51:07 2023
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
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:
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 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?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> 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.
(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. “)
You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
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.
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?

AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.
0.00225 Hz?
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.
Correct, so far.
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.

Until such time as MMX gives a non null result then you are out of luck.
MMX confirms that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
And even if a more sensitive MMX did find a fringe shift. It would refute special relativity as well as an aether free emission theory.

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.
Except the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
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.

Yes. But in an aether free universe there could still be a path difference
due to rotation if, as relativists falsely claim, light cannot travel 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.
The earth does all the rotation that's needed.
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.
The ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.
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*
Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not a few minutes.

I was quoting the Wiki MMX page which that says Michelson and Morley
rotated the device 380 degrees on a mercury frame in a time frame of minutes. You think they did a full rotation in nanoseconds ?!?
That’s faster then c isn’t it? I thought that was impossible under relativity.

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.
The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?

I like the way you managed to snip the quotes from wiki proving that
Contrary to your false fact free claims that they didn’t...Michelson Morley actually *did* rotate the experiment on a mercury bed in time frames of minutes in order to see if there was a fringe shift.

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.

No youve got it all wrong. I never said LIGO couldnt detect an aether wind
in the solar frame.
Technically it’s 4km arms should be long enough and it could a shift
if there was an aether.
However it doesn’t detect a path difference. So there isn’t an aether

But being a low IQ relativist, you don’t seem to understand that path difference
due to earth rotation in an aether free universe is a different phenomena
than path difference due to earths speed around the sun in an aether universe. Because LIGO could not detect a fringe shift due to the earths rotation speed of 1600k/h rotation of earth in an *aether free* universe.
Because to do so you would have to rotate the two 4km arms so that each
arm could detect a path difference due to earths rotation. Otherwise if you didn’t,
each arm would always be showing the an unchanging path length for the whole 24 hour rotation. (rotation speed 1600k/hr never changes over 24 hours)
But you don’t understand maths or geometry.
So I doubt you will understand how LIGO can’t detect earths rotation in an Aether free universe. Physics is hard for fact free relativists.
By the way... the only reason there could be a fringe shift due to earths rotation
...is because relativists like yourself inadvertently and incorrectly *predicted there
should be one* in an aether free universe when you falsely claimed light cannot
travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames. Because if your
prediction was correct than this would be observed by a sensitive enough
MMX as a....PATH DIFFERENCE due to earths rotation in an aether free universe when the Experiment is rotated in the lab.
Personally I don’t think any MMX type setup however sensitive will ever deliver
a non null result. Because all other relevent experiments like Sagnac show
that light does indeed travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Tue Oct 3 04:54:49 2023
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:03:24 UTC+1, 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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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
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?
I 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.

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".

Interesting. I can’t get any clarification from relativists how their imaginary
inertial frames relate to real rotating frames like MMX /lab frame
So in your opinion under SR how does the relativist’s inertial frame relate to the actual rotating lab frame. (The frame that rotates around the earth
whilst light goes out and back in MMX)
My best understanding of these SR wackos is that their “inertial” frame goes in a straight path tangental to the lab due to earths rotation
from the point the light beam left the source. In which case I can only
assume that the imaginary “inertial” frame travels in a straight line relative
to earths axis whilst the lab rotates in a circle and slowly diverges
from the “inertial” frame.

Kind of like when you are driving on a motorway on the inside lane.
And the car on the outside lane starts to turn off the motorway as its
lane curves off from parallel to perpendicular to get off the motorway.
If both your car on the motorway lane and the car on its curved lane
are travelling at the same speed....the car on the curved lane still falls behind your
car relative to your cars direction of travel on the motorway.
Does that make sense to you?
Relativist don’t understand basic physics so it’s hard to describe
basic physics to them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Oct 3 22:04:10 2023
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]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Oct 4 01:36:36 2023
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:
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.

Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around

[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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Oct 4 10:55:46 2023
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
light speeds in non inertial frames

You 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.

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.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Oct 4 09:44:13 2023
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 constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
You 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.

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. Don’t forget the relativists mantra. A theory isn’t ever proven,.,its disproven.
After all if MMx gives a null result that is consistent with a prediction
of isotropic constant speeds in non inertial frames, and MMX is in a non inertial frame then you haven’t disproven the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
You need proof to disprove a theory. You can’t disprove a theory
with an assumption, as you are trying to do here.
And don’t forget. 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Oct 4 16:10:21 2023
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:
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.

Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around

Please explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not existing.

[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.

Tom R. has AGAIN explained this to you, so double the reason to skip
responding to this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Oct 4 19:55:03 2023
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 constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
You 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.

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.

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 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.

In SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
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.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Oct 5 02:28:57 2023
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 constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
You 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.

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.

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 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.
In SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
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. If you have a point x
situated on the circumference of a circle and it took two paths. One
was in a straight line in a tangent to the circle on an axis defined as the
x axis. And the second path was in a circular path around the circle.
If the speed of both was the same and you measured how far each
travelled in the x axis in time t ....then the point travelling in a circle DOES
NOT travel as far in the x axis as the point travelling in a straight line
on the x axis does.
Basic maths you can’t understand.
The x axis being the path taken by light in your imaginary inertial frame path

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Oct 5 02:17:44 2023
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 21:10:23 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
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:
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.

Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around
Please explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not existing.

Since when is kilometers per second a frequency?
Nice try though. By pretending you didn’t know the speed of earth in the solar frame
(30 kilometers per second) You managed to avoid admitting you didn’t know
MMX rotated the setup on a concrete bed on mercury in minutes to test
for the null result.
Not to mention the fact that you can’t admit that the null result of MMX, which is in a non inertial frame, is consistent with the prediction that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.

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.

No Tom hasnt. He , like yourself, doesn’t realize that a point moving in a circle
at speed x travels a different distance in the x axis as a point travelling in a
straight line in the same x axis does. Impossible mathematically. You two cant tell the difference between a curved path and a straight path.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Oct 5 03:41:59 2023
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 11:29:00 UTC+2, Lou wrote:
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 constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
You 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.

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.

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 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.
In SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
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.

He doesn't need to, his idiot guru has announced
basic math geometry obsolete and inadequate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 8 11:20:10 2023
T24gU2F0dXJkYXksIE9jdG9iZXIgNywgMjAyMyBhdCAyOjM2OjIy4oCvQU0gVVRDLTcsIENhcm1l bGxvIFV6YmVrb3Ygd3JvdGU6DQo+IFZvbG5leSB3cm90ZTogDQo+IA0KPiA+IE9uIDEwLzMvMjAy MyA1OjUxIEFNLCBMb3Ugd3JvdGU6IA0KPiA+Pj4gV2hhdCdzIGEgay9zPyAzMDAwMC9zZWNvbmQ/ IE9yIDMzLjMzMyBtaWNyb2hlcnR6PyANCj4gPj4gDQo+ID4+IFlvdSBkb27igJl0IGtub3cgd2hh dCBrIGFuZCBzIHN0YW5kIGZvcj8gDQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gSW4gcGh5c2ljcywgd2hlbiByZXByZXNl bnRpbmcgdmFsdWVzLCBrID0ga2lsbywgb3IgMTAwMCB0aW1lcy4gcyA9IA0KPiA+IHNlY29uZHMu IFNvIDMwIGsvcyBoYXMgbm8gYmFzZSB1bml0IGluIGl0cyBudW1lcmF0b3IgYW5kIHNlY29uZCBp biB0aGUgDQo+ID4gZGVub21pbmF0b3IuIE1lYW5pbmcgInBlciBzZWNvbmQiLCBhIHJhdGUgb3Ig YSBmcmVxdWVuY3kuIDMwMDAwL3NlY29uZCANCj4gPiBvciAzMCBraWxvaGVydHouIChjb3JyZWN0 aW5nIG15IG93biBtaXN0YWtlKS4gV2h5IGlzIHRoZSBldGhlciB3aW5kIA0KPiA+IG1lYXN1cmVk IGFzIGEgZnJlcXVlbmN5Pw0KPiB3ZSBzdXJlPz8gVGhlIPCdl6bwnZe68J2XsvCdl7nwnZe58J2X svCdl7vwnZiA8J2XuPCdmIYgYW5kIPCdl6bwnZe68J2XsvCdl7nwnZe58J2XsvCdl7vwnZiA8J2X uPCdl64uIEhpIGhpIGhpIGhpIGhpLg0KPiDwnZeUX/Cdl6/wnZe28J2YgV/wnZe88J2Xs1/wnZe9 8J2XvPCdl7zwnZe/X/Cdl6jwnZe48J2Xv/Cdl67wnZe28J2Xu/Cdl7IuIA0KPiBodHRwczovL2Jp JTc0JTYzaHV0ZS5jb20vdmlkZW8vRjZ1ZkhxYXEwcEYyDQo+IHRoZSBtb3N0IGltcGVydGluZW50 IPCdl7bwnZe78J2XsfCdl7zwnZe58J2XsvCdl7vwnZiBX/Cdl6/wnZey8J2XtPCdl7TwnZeu8J2X vyBvbiB0aGUgZmFjZSBvZiB0aGUgZWFydGgsIGJlZ2dpbmcgaW4gDQo+IHBhcmxpYW1lbnRzIPCd l7PwnZe/8J2XvPCdl7pf8J2YgfCdl7XwnZeyX/Cdl7XwnZey8J2XrvCdl7Ff8J2XvPCdl7Nf8J2Y gPCdmIHwnZeu8J2YgfCdl7LwnZiALCBub3Qgb24gc3RyZWV0cyBhbmQgY29ybmVycy4gQW5kIHRo ZSANCj4g8J2XpvCdl7rwnZey8J2XufCdl7nwnZey8J2Xu/CdmIDwnZe48J2XriBraGF6YXIgZ295 IGJpdGNoIGp1c3Qgc3BlbnQgb3ZlciAkMS4xX/Cdl7rwnZe28J2XufCdl7nwnZe28J2XvPCdl7sg YnV5aW5nIGNyYXAgYW5kIHNoaXQgDQo+IGluIPCdl7vwnZey8J2YhCDwnZiG8J2XvPCdl7/wnZe4 IPCdl67wnZe68J2XsvCdl7/wnZe28J2XsPCdl64uIEFtYXppbmcgdGhlIGltcGVydGluZW5jZS4g SW4g8J2XsPCdl7zwnZe/8J2Xv/CdmILwnZe98J2YgfCdl7bwnZe88J2XuyBhbWVyaWNhIGlzIG51 bWJlciANCj4gMSwg8J2YgvCdl7jwnZiC8J2Xv/Cdl7bwnZe78J2XriBudW1iZXIgMi4NCg0KSG93 IGNhbiBhbiBpbmVydGlhbCBmcmFtZSBldmVyIGJlIHByb3ZlbiBpZiBpdCBjYW4ndCBiZSBvYnNl cnZlZCBieSBhIGNvbXBhcmlzb24/DQpXaHkgd291bGQgYSBubyBjb21wYXJpc29uIGNoYW5nZSBt b3Rpb24gdG8gc3RlYWR5Pw0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Oct 28 17:42:44 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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 >> 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?
I 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.

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".

All correct!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Oct 30 11:44:13 2023
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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
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?
I 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.

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".
All correct!

If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...
It is not an inertial frame...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Alan B@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 30 13:23:04 2023
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
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:
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:
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.

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.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
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
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?
I 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.

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".
All correct!
If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 31 11:25:49 2023
Den 30.10.2023 21:23, skrev Alan B:

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.

And which 'friction' is it you should get rid of?
A Michelson interferometer isn't rotating.
It's turned in different directions, but it isn't
rotating while the measurements are done.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)