But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
the physics results.
On 9/27/23 2:59 PM, Lou wrote:
[to me] It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeedNo. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
shorten the E-W arm path length via earths rotation, then when the
two arms are switched by a 90 degree turn of the setup....no fringe
shift would still be observed even though the path difference was
switched from one arm to the other. Have I understood you correctly?
AT ALL about any arm "shortening" -- that is YOUR fantasy, and is both ridiculous and inconsistent with SR.
Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. You are VERY BAD at that.
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if oneWhy do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the
arms.
Such fantasies are useless.
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
It would refute SR.
If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’sYes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
ridiculous.
or implied.
How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?By making the area enclosed by the light paths be accurately zero. Since
you don't know this very basic fact, you have no hope of understanding either the MMX or the Sagnac experiment.
The E-W arm tilts down slightly [...]
Not in a well-designed MMX repetition, or in the original MMX (which was floating in a mercury pool to ensure the plane of rotation was
accurately horizontal).
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
could only be one frame in existence or something.You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics. >>>> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >>>> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab >>>>> which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a >>>>> rotating around the earths axis.No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is >>>> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >>>> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom, >>> Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your non inertial frame.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect earths rotation.
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here thatNo, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyrosWhile MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
And if MMX and Sagnac are in the lab and not moving
in the lab frame. Then MMX and Sagnac are not in inertial frames.
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMXWord salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Nobody disputes that.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>>>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed >>>> area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a >>>> fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames >>> rotating around the earths axis.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when theyI understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of >>>>> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX togetherI bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
“difference” between the two fantasies.
have specific definitions to scientists.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all >>> observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
Yet none of
you actually know what they mean.
Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
made by SR.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe,
Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.
Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is >>>> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations >>>> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >>>> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I >>>>>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and >>>>> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics. >>>> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >>>> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there >>>> could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths >>> rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detectedNo it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in theAnd on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your non inertial frame.
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measureIf perfect, it couldn't.
this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect earths rotation.
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here thatNo, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement. >>> What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in anNobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
Nobody disputes that.Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>>>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is >>>> that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around >>>> 1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design preventsI will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough. Can’t have it both ways big boy.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect rotation.
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all >>> observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
Yet none ofNo, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on others.
you actually know what they mean.
Proof is I asked several timesNow you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
made by SR.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotationScientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you apparently don't understand)
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when >> pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists
have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, >> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.
Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to theLight is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.The photoelectric effect.
The closestWord salad.
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >>>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is >>>>>> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations >>>>>> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX >>>>>> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I >>>>>>>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and >>>>>>> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics. >>>>>> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset >>>>>> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there >>>>>> could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab >>>>>>> which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a >>>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths >>>>> rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in theAnd on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect >>> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your >>> non inertial frame.
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame.
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves >>>>>>> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame >>>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is >>>>>> that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed >>>>>> area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a >>>>>> fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around >>>>>> 1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames >>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.Nobody disputes that.Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift >>>
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation
if
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in >>>> physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths >>> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all >>>>> observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds.
Just one velocity relative to the observer.
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at c isotropically under SR ‘ ?
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
made by SR.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empirical
observations.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when >>>> pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended up
in the dustbin.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been better modelled by a classical model.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its
realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists
have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Every week I read a new observation...that has just refuted an old theoretical
prediction that probably got the fantasist a Nobel.
JWST data showing endless billions of mature galaxies where none were predicted must have invalidated a few dozen Nobel prize awards.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, >>>> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) isBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR. >>>
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show Light and atoms are wave like only.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area). >>> Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented >>>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upsetYou are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I >>>>>>>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and >>>>>>> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there >>>>>> could only be one frame in existence or something.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a labNo scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations >>>>>> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths >>>>> rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect >>> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrorsAnd on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's >> why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you haveAnd once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6 fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame.
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
So in the time from when the light leavesAnd on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.And the return path cancels.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same! >>>So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the concept of frames!)
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
And it’s the pathAnd SR gets it correct.
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame >>>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is >>>>>> that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area >>>>>> equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around >>>>>> 1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that >>>>> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents >>> it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.Nope. A real perfect MMX won't detect rotation. Remember the light
return path cancels the forward path!
But we humans are imperfect, so any physical MMX won't have an exactly 0 Sagnac area, so the Sagnac effect will detect rotation.
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotationIt won't.
if
[snip]
No need to discuss these irrelevancies as the "if" is false.
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in >>>> physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths >>> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all. >>>Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds.Actually now that I think of it, neither would modern physics. "Proper speed" would mean the speed of an object in its own frame. Which would
be 0 by definition, of course. So we can dismiss with "coordinate speed"
and "proper speed", there's just speed/velocity.
Just one velocity relative to the observer.So you're actually correct for once! Shall we celebrate?
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at cThe answer is "yes" of course.
isotropically under SR ‘ ?
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotationI also know there is zero evidence to back up these claimsExcept for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence. >>>
made by SR.
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empiricalScientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure
observations.
about your boogeymen.
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize. >>>> Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended upThat's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
in the dustbin.
happened. No matter how hard many scientists tried. No matter how many
kooks kooked.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least beenName just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
better modelled by a classical model.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its
realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists >> have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Every week I read a new observation...that has just refuted an old theoreticalThat's how science works. New data updates poorer quality old data,
prediction that probably got the fantasist a Nobel.
JWST data showing endless billions of mature galaxies where none were predicted must have invalidated a few dozen Nobel prize awards.
meaning some features need to be tweaked. And I doubt any Nobels were invalidated, they are conservative enough with the physics prize so that
it doesn't depend on poor measurements.
Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe, >>>> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is >>>> supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR. >>>Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The GrangierNo, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
Nowadays we have QED, which explains it all differently. But just like Newton's incorrect mechanics, wave or particle models are still used
because they are much simpler than full blown QED.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanaticsExcept for things like the photoelectric effect.
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show Light and atoms are wave like only.
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or shorter. But not the NS path
And the return path cancels.They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees. >>>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel. >>>
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed >>> go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed >>> If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand theNobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same! >>>>>So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
concept of frames!)
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
And SR gets it correct.
Not neccesarily.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich galaxies where your theory predict none,
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well asNo, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and otherBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever >>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
a wave theory does.
Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold.
So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals” 😂🤣😂🤣
Liars.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show >>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantised
by a resonant system atom at the detector.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised amount of energy to a detector.
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial framesI just said the effect cancels on the return path.
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
And the return path cancels.But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees. >>>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the >> concept of frames!)Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough" >>>> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same! >>>>>So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
And SR gets it correct.
Not neccesarily.It is within 1*10^-6 fringes away from "getting it correct".
Unmeasurable and can be ignored, other than (in a modern paper) a description of sources of errors and their contribution to an overall
error. These days, papers give an overall confidence level, how many
sigmas relevance, which can be translated into odds that the overall
results are real and not from random errors. (these odds are never 100%
but ideally as close to 100% as possible)
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
galaxies where your theory predict none,
SOHO data on 7 times too muchThat's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
at all like your theory predicts.
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
Except the photoelectric effect.There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well asNo, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and otherBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
a wave theory does.
Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum
energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold. So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals”
Liars.ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hittingYes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
a detector? No.
of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
to do that with a pure wave theory.
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantisedA bite of word salad.
by a resonant system atom at the detector.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against aDoesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels. >>>Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich >>> galaxies where your theory predict none,
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
at all like your theory predicts.
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
💩
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and otherBallistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show >>>>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns. Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and constructive interference patterns.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it >>> is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down >>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or >>> shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
inertial or not.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybeThe MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
(and theory).
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel inWhat's a "ks"?
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motionIf you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense here.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone. >>>
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see. >>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
galaxies where your theory predict none,
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, youYet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.Again, name just one.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories >> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
at all like your theory predicts.
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’tNothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in particular nothing disproving it)
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
💩Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.
Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no evidence of relativity being the issue.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the >>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
called light "wavicles".
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors >> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain resultsNope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber >>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs >> of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way >> to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?They move much too fast (nearly c) to "see them zipping through" a cloud chamber. The path instantaneously appears and expands and fades. A kid
at my kid's high school set up a Wilson cloud chamber. It was neat to
watch. A path would instantaneously appear at semi-random locations
based on the location of a mildly radioactive source. A crystal of
potassium compound IIRC. Some came from muons.
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?There was alcohol involved but nobody was drinking the pure (isopropyl) alcohol.
Anyway, it's a neat effect. There should be plenty of Youtube videos of
it. Find them and watch them.
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns. Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and constructive interference patterns.Nope. You obviously have no idea how a Wilson cloud chamber or a bubble chamber work. An energetic particle ionizes gas molecules along its path
and they become nuclei for condensation in the supersaturated alcohol
vapor, forming tiny droplets along its path (Wilson cloud chamber) which
are visible.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.No interference effects in the photoelectric effect. It cannot be
explained by the wave model of light.
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularlyNothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding physics.
It's strange, but look how many victims of this form of insanity are
present here. Including yourself, of course. Runs in the family.
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
As observed in MMX with the null result.The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down >>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or >>> shorter. But not the NS path
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
inertial or not.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybeThe MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
(and theory).
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel inWhat's a "ks"?
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motionIf you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense here.
Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
better modelled by a classical model.
Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone. >>>
But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see. >>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
galaxies where your theory predict none,
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, youYet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.Again, name just one.
And Fermi data on muons not behavingThat's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories >> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
at all like your theory predicts.
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’tNothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in particular nothing disproving it)
ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
💩Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.
Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no evidence of relativity being the issue.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as >>> a wave theory does.No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the >>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
called light "wavicles".
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors >> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain resultsNope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks drool.
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
Word salad.
Waves aren’t word salad.
Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber >>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs >> of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way >> to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?They move much too fast (nearly c) to "see them zipping through" a cloud chamber. The path instantaneously appears and expands and fades. A kid
at my kid's high school set up a Wilson cloud chamber. It was neat to
watch. A path would instantaneously appear at semi-random locations
based on the location of a mildly radioactive source. A crystal of
potassium compound IIRC. Some came from muons.
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?There was alcohol involved but nobody was drinking the pure (isopropyl) alcohol.
Anyway, it's a neat effect. There should be plenty of Youtube videos of
it. Find them and watch them.
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns. Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and constructive interference patterns.Nope. You obviously have no idea how a Wilson cloud chamber or a bubble chamber work. An energetic particle ionizes gas molecules along its path
and they become nuclei for condensation in the supersaturated alcohol
vapor, forming tiny droplets along its path (Wilson cloud chamber) which
are visible.
Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.No interference effects in the photoelectric effect. It cannot be
explained by the wave model of light.
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularlyNothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating annulus rings or geographical locations.
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding physics.
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
[... considerable nonsense omitted]
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE.
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropicallyOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by amounts
in non inertial frames.
too small for the instrument to measure.
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees onYou are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
😂💩https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states,
this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters!
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speedsOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
isotropically in non inertial frames.
amounts too small for the instrument to measure.
If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that if
it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
[...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
null result.
[... further nonsense omitted]
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves
relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes light to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.
💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
😂💩
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states,
this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
😂🤣💩
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters! >>>
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
Why do you ask?
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so >> small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being attached to earth, rotate with it.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.So now you disagree that the earth rotates? Time for YOU to check into
the Home for the Terminally Stupid or something.
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I >> knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes lightEasily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.
to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...Make up your mind. Either the rotation of the earth affects the MMX and invalidates its null result during the few nanoseconds it took light to traverse the configuration, or the rotation of the earth doesn't affect
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.
the biggest MMX-type setups in the world, the two LIGO detectors plus
the others now online. One or the other. You can't have both. One or the other.
So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
For a second time, you have no answer.😂💩
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states, >> this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
And for a third time, no answer.😂🤣💩
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
I'll ask again: Any examples of relativity failures? Not cosmology
issues, not particle physics issues, not repeats of irrelevant claims, failures of relativity itself.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters!
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
Why do you ask?Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
am making a point from your lack of data and observations.
On 10/2/23 3:46 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speedsOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
isotropically in non inertial frames.
amounts too small for the instrument to measure.
If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that ifYou are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.
it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
1. The MMX most definitely WAS able to operate successfully and yield a
null result for the non-inertial 'frame' of its lab on the surface of
the earth. Because the difference between that non-inertial 'frame' and
a truly inertial frame is too small for the instrument to measure.
2. Other non-inertial 'frames' were not used.
3. For most non-inertial 'frames' it would be impossible to use the instrument at all.
Example: imagine putting the MMX instrument inside a truck, and then accelerating that truck at 1 g along a smooth and straight highway. The apparatus would not even rotate because the float carrying the interferometer in the mercury bath would be stuck on the back edge of
the bath. If you imagine taking the 3-vector sum of the truck's
acceleration and the acceleration due to gravity, and orient the
instrument so that is "local vertical", then it would probably be able
to rotate, but the orientation-dependent strains on the arms would be
much larger than the rigidity necessary (gravity pulls equally on all
parts of the instrument, but the acceleration does not).
[...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
null result.
That is complete nonsense, and merely displays your comprehensive
ignorance. In 1905 Einstein was at most only distantly aware of the MMX;
he CERTAINLY did not use it in developing SR (just read his 1905 paper).
You REALLY need to learn what SR is, and what it isn't. Until and unless
you understand the theory, WITHOUT YOUR ADDED FANTASIES, you have no
hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do).
[... further nonsense omitted]
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so >>>> small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer >>> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
Seeing as the MMX and lab are
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degrees
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretended
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to
check for path speed differences on the same arm.
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle
in minutes...like the original MMX was.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental >>>>>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you >>>> whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use >>>> the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null >>> result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed) >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aetherWhat's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation0.00225 Hz?
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed orCorrect, so far.
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe,
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental >>>>>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you >>>> whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use >>>> the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null >>> result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed) >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aetherWhat's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation0.00225 Hz?
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed orCorrect, so far.
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe, which is not detectable, you cannot realistically claim that. Besides, there are no proofs in physics, only disproofs.
Seeing as the MMX and lab areExcept the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that
a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
to be sensitive to rotation, and the LIGO machines are designed to a
much higher standards than the original MMX interferometer which was insensitive to rotation. The LIGO systems COULD, in theory, be super sensitive to the ether wind...if it existed.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degreesThe earth does all the rotation that's needed.
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretendedThe ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not a few minutes.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle
within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to check for path speed differences on the same arm.The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle in minutes...like the original MMX was.
Anyway, you are talking in circles, holding both the beliefs that LIGO, despite rotating with the earth can't detect the rotation, while the original MMX system could, despite the rotation in several nanoseconds
is trivial. This is going nowhere, and as Gary reminds us, you are just insane anyway. So go have the last word, I am done with this thread.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself, >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
An inertial frame is not an inertial frame as once it moves it is an "inertial-system".
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. There. Feel better?
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
light speeds in non inertial frames
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial frame
and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or so, and during such
a very short time period the inertial frame and the lab diverge by an
amount FAR too small to be observed.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. >>> There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you? Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be
rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic
constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any
rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null
result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect anyIn SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's disingenuous.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a nullONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to
the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation
is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent
experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.
On 10/4/2023 4:36 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. >>> There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is aroundPlease explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not existing.
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you? Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
Tom R. has AGAIN explained this to you, so double the reason to skip responding to this.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 01:55:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time lightIn SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's disingenuous.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.ONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.
You don’t understand basic maths and geometry.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself, >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,All correct!
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,All correct!
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
It is not an inertial frame...
So virtually zero friction in Low Earth Orbit or better out in interplanetary space is yet an additional reason for Michelson-Morley to be done in outer space.
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:47:31 |
| Calls: | 9,490 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,617 |
| Messages: | 6,121,236 |