Discussion:
When is an Inertial Frame *Not* an Inertial Frame?
(too old to reply)
LEO_MMX
2023-09-17 14:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".

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

Cheers,
LEO_MMX
Tom Roberts
2023-09-17 16:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?

The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.

Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.

Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.

Tom Roberts
LEO_MMX
2023-09-18 18:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Volney
2023-09-19 16:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LEO_MMX
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
LEO_MMX
2023-09-20 12:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by LEO_MMX
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
How about Sagnac?
Lou
2023-09-20 13:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by LEO_MMX
Post by Volney
Post by LEO_MMX
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
How about Sagnac?
You are wasting your time.
It doesn’t matter to relativists. You could have Sagnac spinning around another
star every few seconds in a rapidly spinning binary star system..
And the relativist will still pretend the experiment isn’t rotating and
be in an inertial frame.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-21 17:29:28 UTC
Permalink
You could have Sagnac spinning around another star every few seconds
in a rapidly spinning binary star system.. And the relativist will
still pretend the experiment isn’t rotating and be in an inertial
frame.
That is just plain wrong. I have repeatedly explained that one can
analyze an experiment as if it were at rest in an inertial frame ONLY if
the error in doing that is much smaller than the measurement resolution.

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

Tom Roberts
Volney
2023-09-20 17:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by LEO_MMX
Post by Volney
Post by LEO_MMX
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
How about Sagnac?
Sagnac devices are designed to measure rotation, they're intended for
that. Large sensitive Sagnacs can detect the rotation of the earth. So
the sensitivity of the Sagnac has to be compared to the earth's rotation
to answer that.

Sagnac devices are similar to MMX except that the Sagnac has an area
within its loop necessary for rotation detection while MMX has a zero
enclosed area making it insensitive to rotation.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-21 15:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by LEO_MMX
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding
Michelson-Morley?
If one put an MMX-like interferometer, with its 11-meter light paths,
into LEO, the error due to assuming it is at rest in an inertial frame
would still be VASTLY smaller than its measurement resolution. If one
used modern techniques that are thousands to millions of times more
accurate, then a complete error analysis would be required, which cannot
be performed without details of the equipment.
Post by LEO_MMX
How about Sagnac?
Similarly negligible for the MMX interferometer.

If one used light paths involving mirrors many kilometers away, then a
careful error analysis would be required, and the Sagnac effect would be
part of it.

Tom Roberts
Alan B
2023-09-22 01:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
If one put an MMX-like interferometer, with its 11-meter light paths,
into LEO, the error due to assuming it is at rest in an inertial frame
would still be VASTLY smaller than its measurement resolution. If one
used modern techniques that are thousands to millions of times more
accurate, then a complete error analysis would be required, which cannot
be performed without details of the equipment.
Post by LEO_MMX
How about Sagnac?
Similarly negligible for the MMX interferometer.
If one used light paths involving mirrors many kilometers away, then a
careful error analysis would be required, and the Sagnac effect would be
part of it.
Tom Roberts
https://www.academia.edu/89498223/Is_the_Velocity_of_Light_Isotropic_in_the_Frame_of_the_Rotating_Earth
Lou
2023-09-19 08:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.

And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
Volney
2023-09-20 17:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.

A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
Lou
2023-09-20 18:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Volney
2023-09-20 18:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
Lou
2023-09-20 18:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
Alan B
2023-09-20 21:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
Right on Lou!
mitchr...@gmail.com
2023-09-20 21:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan B
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
Post by Tom Roberts
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
Right on Lou!
Where has a frames steady motion have been measured?
As rule motion is unsteady. Where are your measured inertial frames?
Gravity changes all motion from steady...
Volney
2023-09-20 21:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame.
Inertial to within an error small enough that it doesn't affect the
outcome. This is true for *any* science experiment, not just relativity
experiments. There are effects that are assumed to be zero that are not
exactly zero, but are so small that they don't affect the outcome.
Post by Lou
And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
Rotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute
rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.

Remember the rotation of the earth (at the poles) is 0.000694 rpm. How
sensitive is the Sagnac device, can it detect the 0.000694 rpm from the
earth's rotation?
Post by Lou
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough.
A properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
light paths so the light paths cancel out rotation effects. If the
equivalent included area is nonzero, it will function as a Sagnac device
so will potentially detect any rotation. I say 'potentially' because it
depends on how sensitive it is. A MMX device's sensitivity is a fraction
of a fringe shift, so for earth's rotation you'll have to
calculate/measure what the included area is, and what 0.000694 rpm and
that area produces when measured in fringe shifts.

I think Tom R. already answered for the original MMX device and came up
with a fringe shift far smaller than a fringe shift so the rotation is
unmeasurable.

Same for any science measurement. Did that butterfly farting in China
affect my measurements? How large is the vibration from the sound of the
fart when it reaches my lab device? Does that vibration level affect my
measurement?
Post by Lou
Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis.
I don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
have a zero included equivalent area so that it is not sensitive to
earth's rotation, but it's likely that cannot be done perfectly so that
they either tune it out or filter it out of the output . Since the
frequencies LIGO is interested in are ones in the audio range, while
earth's rotation is 0.0000116 Hz, it is easily ignored/filtered out.
Post by Lou
But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
Again, it depends on how well they get the enclosed area to be 0 so it
doesn't act as a Sagnac device detecting earth's rotation. I suspect you
have no clue what that even means.
Post by Lou
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
Either they get the enclosed area of the light path loop small enough so
that rotation of the earth or other rotations are unmeasurable by the
device or they don't, and there is a Sagnac signal present.

A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area and will be
unaffected by the rotation of the earth.
Lou
2023-09-21 19:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.
In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.
I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame.
Inertial to within an error small enough that it doesn't affect the
outcome. This is true for *any* science experiment, not just relativity
experiments. There are effects that are assumed to be zero that are not
exactly zero, but are so small that they don't affect the outcome.
Post by Lou
And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
Rotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute
rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.
Remember the rotation of the earth (at the poles) is 0.000694 rpm. How
sensitive is the Sagnac device, can it detect the 0.000694 rpm from the
earth's rotation?
Post by Lou
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough.
A properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
light paths so the light paths cancel out rotation effects. If the
equivalent included area is nonzero, it will function as a Sagnac device
so will potentially detect any rotation. I say 'potentially' because it
depends on how sensitive it is. A MMX device's sensitivity is a fraction
of a fringe shift, so for earth's rotation you'll have to
calculate/measure what the included area is, and what 0.000694 rpm and
that area produces when measured in fringe shifts.
I think Tom R. already answered for the original MMX device and came up
with a fringe shift far smaller than a fringe shift so the rotation is
unmeasurable.
Same for any science measurement. Did that butterfly farting in China
affect my measurements? How large is the vibration from the sound of the
fart when it reaches my lab device? Does that vibration level affect my
measurement?
Post by Lou
Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis.
I don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
have a zero included equivalent area so that it is not sensitive to
earth's rotation, but it's likely that cannot be done perfectly so that
they either tune it out or filter it out of the output . Since the
frequencies LIGO is interested in are ones in the audio range, while
earth's rotation is 0.0000116 Hz, it is easily ignored/filtered out.
Actually you mentioned in an earlier thread that LIGO acts
as an oversize MMX. That isn’t really correct.
MMX only works if you can rotate the arms so that both
arms can be pointed in various directions to test for any aether
effects. LIGO arms can’t be rotated.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
Again, it depends on how well they get the enclosed area to be 0 so it
doesn't act as a Sagnac device detecting earth's rotation. I suspect you
have no clue what that even means.
Post by Lou
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
Either they get the enclosed area of the light path loop small enough so
that rotation of the earth or other rotations are unmeasurable by the
device or they don't, and there is a Sagnac signal present.
A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area and will be
unaffected by the rotation of the earth.
If a “perfect”, MMX device could not be effected by earths rotation.
Then it couldn’t detect any aether even if there was one. Defeating the
entire purpose of MMX. Because if there were an aether,
earths axial rotation would also give a different light speed on each arm.
Not just earths motion around sun.
(The E-W arm would always give a slightly slower light speed than the N-S
arm due to earths axial rotation in an aether model)
Paul B. Andersen
2023-09-21 12:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.

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

https://paulba.no/
Lou
2023-09-21 19:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by 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?
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
2023-09-22 12:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Lou
2023-09-22 12:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:

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

Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Post by Paul B. Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Alan B
2023-09-22 15:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Post by Paul B. Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
--
Paul
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space
Volney
2023-09-22 16:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
Lou
2023-09-23 13:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Verdell Belobrovkin
2023-09-23 16:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also rotating
relative to the Sagnac lab? Prove this.
what ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｒｏｔａｔｉｎｇ you don't undrestand??
Lou
2023-09-23 17:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Verdell Belobrovkin
Post by Volney
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also rotating
relative to the Sagnac lab? Prove this.
what ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｒｏｔａｔｉｎｇ you don't undrestand??
If you think that the Sagnac x is in an imaginary non rotating ‘inertial’ frame
and isn’t in the non inertial rotating lab frame. Then according
to your bizarre logic if I put a ring gyro onto the lab floor then
it shouldn’t be able to measure the labs rotation around the earth
because according to SR.. the gyro is not in the lab.
But ring gyros DO measure the lab/earths rotation when on the lab floor.
Obviously the Sagnac x is not in an imaginary non rotating ‘inertial’
frame. Empirical observations prove it is the non inertial lab frame.
Volney
2023-09-23 17:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!

So three frames.
Lou
2023-09-23 20:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
Volney
2023-09-23 21:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.

The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.

You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
Ross Finlayson
2023-09-24 00:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.

So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....

Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".

That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.

It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".

Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
Ross Finlayson
2023-09-24 15:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00033-021-01507-9
"Pesudomomentum: origins and consequences", 2021

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

So, at least some aspects of "rest exchange momentum" are coming up.
Maciej Wozniak
2023-09-24 05:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames.
Nope. Up to SR true, but since your GR shit your physics
is unable to specify even a single frame.
Paul B. Andersen
2023-09-22 18:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Right.

Your point?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Lou
2023-09-23 13:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Right.
Your point?
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Volney
2023-09-23 17:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Right.
Your point?
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
I already explained this to you. The Sagnac device is rotating in an
inertial frame which is not the lab frame.

Don't blame Paul for your inability to understand this simple concept.
Blame your low IQ instead.

The inertial frame the Sagnac device is in is typically defined such
that the origin is at the center point of the Sagnac rotation axis with
one of the frame's axes along the Sagnac's rotational axis.
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul B. Andersen
2023-09-23 18:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.

Right?

If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Lou
2023-09-23 20:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.

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

Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it. You can’t stand empirical evidence from ring gyros showing that
the Sagnac x is in the non inertial rotating lab frame.
Dream on Paul.
Volney
2023-09-23 21:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
Lou
2023-09-24 13:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac
gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots woke
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter
how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
Volney
2023-09-24 18:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.

But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac
gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.
No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
showed you just don't understand them.
Post by Lou
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots
Say what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?

These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like
engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
Post by Lou
woke
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter
how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such
insanity in so many crackpots?
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
Post by Lou
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
Ross Finlayson
2023-09-24 18:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac
gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.
No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
showed you just don't understand them.
Post by Lou
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots
Say what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?
These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like
engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
Post by Lou
woke
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter
how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such
insanity in so many crackpots?
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
Post by Lou
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
It's a rotating frame, so the ants on it don't necessarily know the
difference between it and a flat plane.

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

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

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

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

The rotating and linear frames are fundamentally different only
as of matters of perspective, though, all of them.
Lou
2023-09-25 13:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.

Let me guess. Under relativity you can make a completely nonsensical
statement and when pressed, relativity allows you to pretend you never
made that claim.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.
I do get it.
No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).
Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac
gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.
No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
showed you just don't understand them.
Post by Lou
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots
Say what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?
These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like
engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
Post by Lou
woke
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter
how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such
insanity in so many crackpots?
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?

Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers. Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX. And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”

It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed up
by empirical observations.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-25 18:53:08 UTC
Permalink
the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
lab.
Sure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the
rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
sensitive enough, but modern fiber gyroscopes can be.

[#] I presume your "rotating lab" is at rest on the
surface of the (rotating) earth.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab is in
an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
You REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said
that, and you just made it up (without any justification).

I have said several times that one can analyze an experiment at rest on
the surface of the earth as if it were at rest in a (locally) inertial
frame IF AND ONLY IF the error due to that approximation is much smaller
than the measurement resolution. This clearly depends on the specific
instrument and measurement technique used. So the MMX, and many
repetitions of it, can be analyzed as if they were at rest in a locally
inertial frame; so can the original Sagnac interferometer; modern fiber
gyroscopes cannot.
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
Yes, because YOU CANNOT READ.
Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
But it can sometimes for relativity.
NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to
read.

Light does not travel in vacuum with speed c relative to rotating
coordinates. But any measurement has a resolution, and if the error in
considering the rotating coordinates to be inertial is much smaller
than the measurement resolution, then one can analyze the experiment as
if it were at rest in an inertial (non-rotating) frame.

Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it cannot.
This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the different
experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity and rotation.

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-25 20:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
lab.
Sure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the
rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
sensitive enough, but modern fiber gyroscopes can be.
[#] I presume your "rotating lab" is at rest on the
surface of the (rotating) earth.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab is in
an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
You REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said
that, and you just made it up (without any justification).
I have said several times that one can analyze an experiment at rest on
the surface of the earth as if it were at rest in a (locally) inertial
frame IF AND ONLY IF the error due to that approximation is much smaller
than the measurement resolution. This clearly depends on the specific
instrument and measurement technique used. So the MMX, and many
repetitions of it, can be analyzed as if they were at rest in a locally
inertial frame; so can the original Sagnac interferometer; modern fiber
gyroscopes cannot.
Above Blarney translated into English:
‘Light can’t travel at c in rotating frames unless the experiment is sensitive
enough to measure if the light is travelling at c in the rotating frame.
In which case light may or may not be able to travel at c this non inertial frame’
Post by Tom Roberts
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
Yes, because YOU CANNOT READ.
Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
But it can sometimes for relativity.
NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to
read.
Light does not travel in vacuum with speed c relative to rotating
coordinates. But any measurement has a resolution, and if the error in
considering the rotating coordinates to be inertial is much smaller
than the measurement resolution, then one can analyze the experiment as
if it were at rest in an inertial (non-rotating) frame.
Aside from your sneaky caveat “in a vacuum” you conveniently
forgot that Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both
Sagnac and thus MMX is non inertial.Yet MMX shows us that light is
still observed to be at constant speeds isotropically (and presumably at c)
in this MMX/Sagnac lab frame.
Post by Tom Roberts
Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it cannot.
This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the different
experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity and rotation.
Like I said. When you think the instrument sensitivity isn’t accurate
enough to detect rotation, as in the MMX lab, you pretend the lab isn’t
rotating. When the experiment accuracy (Sagnac gyro) is such that
it shows the lab is rotating. You then waffle on and say that light
may or may not be travelling at c (😂) in a non inertial frame depending
on the instrument accuracy and error margins. An outright bizarre
claim seeing as you know the Sagnac ring gyro is accurate enough
to detect rotation of the lab. AND...has detected rotation of the lab.
Pure contradictory obfuscatory nonsense from the PR department at
Relativity Corporation.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-26 03:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
MMX is non inertial.
How silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
is not at rest in an inertial frame. This is true for a lab on the
surface of the (rotating and gravitating) earth.
Yet MMX shows us that light is still observed to be at constant
speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
frame.
No, it does NOT. The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of
the interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the observer
pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Post by Tom Roberts
Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it
cannot. This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the
different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity
and rotation.
Like I said. [...]
You just repeat your nonsense, displaying your profound inability to read.

Tom Roberts
Volney
2023-09-26 01:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
Post by Lou
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.

The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
Post by Lou
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.

You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
Post by Lou
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
Post by Lou
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
so light is c in it as well.
Post by Lou
And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
Post by Lou
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed up
by empirical observations.
The religion mouth foam again.

(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't
matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8
fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Lou
2023-09-26 02:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
Post by Lou
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
So what. The ring gyro can.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con
that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...but the lab is in a
non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction. Because MMX and Sagnac
are in the same frame as the lab.
Post by Volney
You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
Post by Lou
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
If you have light from a binary star travelling towards an observer at
c in the observer frame then the fact is that it can’t be travelling
away from the star source at c. The only way you can prove that
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c is
to prove it does arrive here at c. And as far as I’m aware,
no one has yet measured lightspeeds from cosmological
sources.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
so light is c in it as well.
No it isn’t. You’ve just not only contradicted yourself when you said
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and
empirical observations.
Sagnac ring gyros prove that the Sagnac, MMX and lab are all rotating
around the earths axis
In what’s relativists call a non inertial frame.
You think fantasy assumptions are observations. Even when
the observations contradict your assumptions. Relativity is
not physics if it ignores observations that contradict its predictions.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
Post by Lou
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed
by empirical observations.
The religion mouth foam again.
Said the ranting cleric.
Post by Volney
(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't
matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8
fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Tom knows that current MMX give null results. He also knows that
if it didn’t as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation ..it would show that there is an aether.
Which would refute SR. But,...He also knows that if current and/or
any future more sensitive versions of MMX still give a null result
then he has to admit that MMX proves that light can travel at constant
speeds (presumably c) isotropically relative to rotating sources.
Because Sagnac gyros prove that the MMX and its lab are rotating.
Which would also refute SR.
So he he tries to wriggle out of admitting SR is refuted either way,
and waffle on mindlessly about 10-1 and 10-8 error margins. As if that bit
of obfuscation and subject changing proves anything.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-26 04:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Tom knows that [...]
You don't have a clue about what I know. Most of what you attribute to
me here is really stuff you made up, and is BLATANTLY WRONG.
He also knows that if [modern repetitions of the MMX] didn’t [give a
null result] as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation
This just displays your near total ignorance about basic physics and
experimental technique -- any competent repetition of the MMX is
designed to be insensitive to rotation. Because the instrument must be
rotated so it can make measurements in different orientations, and such
INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTS must not affect the physics results.
[... further fantasies omitted...]
Because Sagnac gyros prove that the MMX and its lab are rotating.
Again, this is not disputed -- one KNOWS that a lab on earth is rotating
without any instrument, because the earth rotates.

But as I keep saying: if the instrument is incapable of observing the
effect of the rotation (because its effect is much smaller than the
measurement resolution), then the rotation can be ignored and the
experiment analyzed as if it were at rest in an inertial frame. This
applies to the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.
[... more nonsense and fantasies omitted ...]
Grow up! Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. Learn how to read.

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-26 09:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
This is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.
Post by Lou
Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
MMX is non inertial.
How silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
is not at rest in an inertial frame.
I wasn’t talking about the rotating mirrors. I was saying
the whole Sagnac setup on the table when the mirrors aren’t spinning...is
in a non inertial frame. And contrary to your evidence free claims I can prove
that the whole experiment the table plus the lab itself is non inertial. Because a
ring gyro when also placed motionless on the lab table will still detect that the table
and the lab, are rotating around earths axis.
Post by Tom Roberts
This is true for a lab on the
surface of the (rotating and gravitating) earth.
And by association for the table and the MMX and Sagnac experiments
Proving that light travels at constant speeds ( presumably c) isotropically
in rotating non inertial frames. I have the evidence to prove this.
You have only evidence free assumptions from SR.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
Yet MMX shows us that light is still observed to be at constant
speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
frame.
No, it does NOT. The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of
the interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the observer
pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument. Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to
to detect earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result. Not least because if it did detect
earths rotation and not give a null result it would refute SR by proving there
is an aether. And, if it still gave a null result, it would confirm what the original
experiment indicated. Which is that as the lab and MMX rotate around the
earths axis in a non inertial frame, light is observed to travel at constant
speeds isotropically relative to sources rotating around the earths axis
in non inertial frame. And thus...refuting SR.
Either way...SR is screwed. The current evidence is not consistent with
the ludicrous claims made by relativists.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it
cannot. This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the
different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity
and rotation.
Tom knows that [...]
You don't have a clue about what I know. Most of what you attribute to
me here is really stuff you made up, and is BLATANTLY WRONG.
Really ?
So let me hi lite two of the main facts I’ve claimed which you say are completely
“BLATANTLY” wrong:
1)MMX gives a null result indicating that light travels at c in the experiment setup.
2)Sagnac ring gyro when placed in a lab will measure earths rotation

Any evidence the above two claims I’ve made are “BLATANTLY WRONG”.?
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
He also knows that if [modern repetitions of the MMX] didn’t [give a
null result] as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation
This just displays your near total ignorance about basic physics and
experimental technique -- any competent repetition of the MMX is
designed to be insensitive to rotation. Because the instrument must be
rotated so it can make measurements in different orientations, and such
INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTS must not affect the physics results.
Irrelevent point.
Whether or not any instrument is insensitive to earths rotation
does not in anyway refute the fact that the instrument itself when
placed on the surface of the rotating earth is also rotating. We know
this is true because recent Sagnac ring gyro Instruments when placed
on the earths surface detect and measure the rotation of the earth
around its axis.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-27 05:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
Post by Lou
Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to to detect
earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result.
I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your
fantasies of what might happen in the future.
Post by Lou
Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
null result it would refute SR
No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment would
necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.

Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
the prediction of the theory (perhaps SR, perhaps GR is required), not
that it give a "null result".
Post by Lou
[... further nonsense ignored]
You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

Tom Roberts
Maciej Wozniak
2023-09-27 05:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
Nope, it' applies TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
See, poor fanatic trash, the reality is not FORCED to your
BEST WAY at all.
Post by Tom Roberts
I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your
No. You're discussing your absurd newspeak.
Post by Tom Roberts
Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
A lie, of course, compared to/measured with the real second
of a real time your insane dreams demonstrate no value.
Post by Tom Roberts
You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.
A pity yoo can't teach him, as you have no clue
about it.
Lou
2023-09-27 10:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t sensitive enough to
detect any rotation,..future ones will.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to to detect
earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result.
I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your
fantasies of what might happen in the future.
Post by Lou
Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
null result it would refute SR
No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment would
necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
Nonsense. You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got
null result. It would refute SR. And yet you know if it didn’t get a null
result it would also refute SR.
Post by Tom Roberts
Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
the prediction of the theory (perhaps SR, perhaps GR is required), not
that it give a "null result".
It’s OK for relativists to pretend that even though MMX isn’t
sensitive to rotation one can assume it’s always going to give a null
result at more sensitive future versions that could detect rotation .
Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial frames.
Yet when emission theory says that the current MMX sensitivity which gives
null result means emission theory can predict that light travels at constant
speeds in a non inertial frame....you turn into a hypocrite and say that MMX
isn’t sensitive enough to confirm theoretical predictions by emission theory .
If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory predictions...
then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR predictions?
Hypocrite.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-27 14:32:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 06:12:53 UTC+1, Tom Roberts
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT
HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND
FANTASIES.
You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t
sensitive enough to detect any rotation,..future ones will.
NONSENSE! I have never made any claims at all about future experiments,
except that their analysis will include all relevant aspects of their
physical situation. You attribute your personal fantasies to me -- DON'T
DO THAT.

But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
the physics results.
Post by Tom Roberts
No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment
would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
Nonsense.
You obviously know nothing about experimental technique and analysis. If
some future MMX-like experiment could detect its rotation, then that
rotation MUST be included in the analysis. As long as the experimental
result is consistent with the prediction of SR (which necessarily
includes the rotation), then the experiment will not refute SR. Whether
that result is "null" is IRRELEVANT -- all that matters is whether the
experimental result is consistent with the prediction of SR (including
rotation).

One can analyze the MMX using SR and include its rotation. The rotation
implies an orientation-independent change of its fringe positions by
about 0.000001 fringe [#]; the data were recorded with a resolution of
0.1 fringe, so the effect of the rotation is completely unobservable.
Note also that an ORIENTATION_INDEPENDENT change in fringe position doe
not affect the result. So the SR prediction for the MMX result using its
actual physical situation is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the prediction
assuming the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; they predict no
orientation dependence in fringe position, and the experiment is
consistent with that.

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

I do know that to date no repetition of the MMX has been sensitive to
its rotation. Deliberately -- they are designed to be insensitive to
rotation. (It was happenstance that the original MMX was insensitive to
rotation, as the Sagnac effect was not then known.)
And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refute
SR.
Nope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
unable to read what I write. The ONLY way to refute SR is for the
experimental result to be inconsistent with the prediction of SR for its
physical situation -- if its physical situation includes rotation, then
the SR prediction MUST include the rotation. But when the effect of the
rotation is nearly a million times smaller than the experimental
resolution, there is no need to belabor the rotation because it can be
neglected.
It’s OK for relativists to pretend that even though MMX isn’t
sensitive to rotation one can assume it’s always going to give a null
result at more sensitive future versions that could detect rotation .
This is just a crazy statement. Today NOTHING can be said about future
experiments, except that the analysis of such experiments will include
all relevant aspects of their physical situation. This includes rotation.
Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial frames.
Nobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
inertially (except you in your fantasies and dreams). But when
the effects of the non-inertialness of the apparatus are very much
smaller than the experimental resolution, one can ignore them. That is
the case for the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.
Yet when emission theory says that the current MMX sensitivity which
gives null result means emission theory can predict that light
travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame....you turn into
a hypocrite and say that MMX isn’t sensitive enough to confirm
theoretical predictions by emission theory .
More nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
result of the MMX, and some of its repetitions. Your statement about
"light travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame" is just your
personal nonsense that is IRRELEVANT to physics. What matters is whether
the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of the theory.
Whether the theoretical analysis uses a non-inertial frame is IRRELEVANT
-- what matters is that the analysis is valid within the theory being
used, for the physical situation of the experiment. Some emission
theories predict a null result for the MMX; SR predicts a null result.
The experiment is unable to distinguish between them (but other
experiments can and do).
If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory
predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
predictions?
You simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain
emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the
apparatus, not the theory.

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

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-27 19:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
Lousy argument.
No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT
HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND
FANTASIES.
You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t
sensitive enough to detect any rotation,..future ones will.
NONSENSE! I have never made any claims at all about future experiments,
except that their analysis will include all relevant aspects of their
physical situation. You attribute your personal fantasies to me -- DON'T
DO THAT.
But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
the physics results.
It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeed shorten the E-W arm path
length via earths rotation, then when the two arms are switched by a 90 degree
turn of the setup....no fringe shift would still be observed even though
the path difference was switched from one arm to the other.
Have I understood you correctly?
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the arms.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
Post by Tom Roberts
No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment
would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
Nonsense.
You obviously know nothing about experimental technique and analysis. If
some future MMX-like experiment could detect its rotation, then that
rotation MUST be included in the analysis. As long as the experimental
result is consistent with the prediction of SR (which necessarily
includes the rotation), then the experiment will not refute SR. Whether
that result is "null" is IRRELEVANT -- all that matters is whether the
experimental result is consistent with the prediction of SR (including
rotation).
One can analyze the MMX using SR and include its rotation. The rotation
implies an orientation-independent change of its fringe positions by
about 0.000001 fringe [#]; the data were recorded with a resolution of
0.1 fringe, so the effect of the rotation is completely unobservable.
Note also that an ORIENTATION_INDEPENDENT change in fringe position doe
not affect the result. So the SR prediction for the MMX result using its
actual physical situation is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the prediction
assuming the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; they predict no
orientation dependence in fringe position, and the experiment is
consistent with that.
[#] Estimate.
Post by Lou
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result. It
would refute SR.
Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null
result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’s ridiculous.
Post by Tom Roberts
I do know that to date no repetition of the MMX has been sensitive to
its rotation. Deliberately -- they are designed to be insensitive to
rotation. (It was happenstance that the original MMX was insensitive to
rotation, as the Sagnac effect was not then known.)
How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
The E-W arm tilts down slightly shortening the path length during
the finite time light travels there and back.
But the N-S arm isn’t shortened. And thus a different path length
occurs for each arm. A difference that can only be detected
once the two arms were switched by 90 degree rotation.
The one caveat being if this switching of path length could
still effect a fringe shift.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refute
SR.
Nope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
unable to read what I write. The ONLY way to refute SR is for the
experimental result to be inconsistent with the prediction of SR for its
physical situation -- if its physical situation includes rotation, then
the SR prediction MUST include the rotation. But when the effect of the
rotation is nearly a million times smaller than the experimental
resolution, there is no need to belabor the rotation because it can be
neglected.
That’s the question you relativists don’t seem to want to answer.
If the sensitivity of MMX was enough to:detect rotation via path
length differences ...would that fringe shift non null result still be
consistent with SR?
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
It’s OK for relativists to pretend that even though MMX isn’t
sensitive to rotation one can assume it’s always going to give a null
result at more sensitive future versions that could detect rotation .
This is just a crazy statement. Today NOTHING can be said about future
experiments, except that the analysis of such experiments will include
all relevant aspects of their physical situation. This includes rotation.
Post by Lou
Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial frames.
Nobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
inertially (except you in your fantasies and dreams). But when
the effects of the non-inertialness of the apparatus are very much
smaller than the experimental resolution, one can ignore them. That is
the case for the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.
Post by Lou
Yet when emission theory says that the current MMX sensitivity which
gives null result means emission theory can predict that light
travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame....you turn into
a hypocrite and say that MMX isn’t sensitive enough to confirm
theoretical predictions by emission theory .
More nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
result of the MMX, and some of its repetitions. Your statement about
"light travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame" is just your
personal nonsense that is IRRELEVANT to physics. What matters is whether
the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of the theory.
Whether the theoretical analysis uses a non-inertial frame is IRRELEVANT
-- what matters is that the analysis is valid within the theory being
used, for the physical situation of the experiment. Some emission
theories predict a null result for the MMX; SR predicts a null result.
The experiment is unable to distinguish between them (but other
experiments can and do).
Post by Lou
If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory
predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
predictions?
You simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain
emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the
apparatus, not the theory.
Your “rule” is a biased one. You ignore certain theory predictions, not because
they aren’t confirmed by the null result...but because you don’t want the
competion to SR. That’s called hypocrisy.
Because an aether free emission theory can predict light will always still travel at c
isotropically even in a non inertial frame.
This is confirmed by MMX. Yet you and other relativists say MMX isn’t sensitive
enough to confirm this prediction.
Hold it a minute!! You just admitted even though it’s not sensitive enough
MMx can still be acceptable as confirmation of SR.
HYPOCRITE !!
Tom Roberts
2023-09-27 20:54:25 UTC
Permalink
[to me] It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeed
shorten the E-W arm path length via earths rotation, then when the
two arms are switched by a 90 degree turn of the setup....no fringe
shift would still be observed even though the path difference was
switched from one arm to the other. Have I understood you correctly?
No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
AT ALL about any arm "shortening" -- that is YOUR fantasy, and is both
ridiculous and inconsistent with SR.

Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. You are VERY BAD at that.
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the arms.
Why do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
Such fantasies are useless.
Post by Tom Roberts
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.
It would refute SR.
Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null
result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’s
ridiculous.
Yes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
or implied.
How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
By making the area enclosed by the light paths be accurately zero. Since
you don't know this very basic fact, you have no hope of understanding
either the MMX or the Sagnac experiment.
The E-W arm tilts down slightly [...]
Not in a well-designed MMX repetition, or in the original MMX (which was
floating in a mercury pool to ensure the plane of rotation was
accurately horizontal).

You REALLY need to learn about this experiment. Your guesses and
fantasies are HOPELESS.

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

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-28 08:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
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.
[to me] It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeed
shorten the E-W arm path length via earths rotation, then when the
two arms are switched by a 90 degree turn of the setup....no fringe
shift would still be observed even though the path difference was
switched from one arm to the other. Have I understood you correctly?
No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
AT ALL about any arm "shortening" -- that is YOUR fantasy, and is both
ridiculous and inconsistent with SR.
You said that MMX was designed to be insensitive to rotation.
(You snipped that part but I’ve added it back above.)
What I was trying to get you to explain was how is it you think
rotation of the earth /lab/experiment setup could never
be able to be detected by a sensitive enough MMX. Because that’s
a false claim you make. In fact regsrdless of its sensitivity
there is always a path difference on the arms of MMX due to rotation.
It’s just too small to be detected.
My reference to arm length changing was me trying to explain to you
that the mirrors rotate in a circle in the non inertial lab frame.
But don’t rotate in your imaginary inertial frame.
Post by Tom Roberts
Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. You are VERY BAD at that.
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the arms.
Why do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
Such fantasies are useless.
Actually I was asking you to explain how you think it doesn’t shorten.
Because your imaginary inertial frame you pretend the MMX is in
doesnt rotate. Whereas the lab frame being non inertial does.
Put the two together and do a simulation it will give a shorter
path length for the E-W path.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Tom Roberts
You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.
It would refute SR.
Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null
result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’s
ridiculous.
Yes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
or implied.
So it’s incorrect of me to assume a non null result in MMX would still be
consistent with predictions made by SR?
Post by Tom Roberts
How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
By making the area enclosed by the light paths be accurately zero. Since
you don't know this very basic fact, you have no hope of understanding
either the MMX or the Sagnac experiment.
The E-W arm tilts down slightly [...]
Not in a well-designed MMX repetition, or in the original MMX (which was
floating in a mercury pool to ensure the plane of rotation was
accurately horizontal).
Nothing to do with a mercury pool. I’m referring to earths rotation of the lab!!
HERES a simple analogy to try to explain basic geometry to you.
Have a 1/meter arm attached horizontally at the edge of a rotating carousel
in a computer simulation. The view in your simulation is a top view of the carousel.
It being a rotating circle in the simulation.(Imagine also then that this is a
simulation showing the EW arm of MMX as it rotates around the earths Center.
A cross section of the rotating planet so to speak)
Place another 1 meter arm on top of the first.
They both rotate in a circle in the simulation at a constant speed.
Now at a certain point in time have the top 1meter horizontal arm detach itself
from the attached arm and continue on off in a straight inertial path along
a line defined as parralel to the x axis in your simulation.
Tangentially away from the first arm but at the
same speed it was as it was travelling just before it detached.

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

Therefore if If light travels at c in the of the inertial detached arm
frame ( which is travelling in a straight line in the x axis of the simulation)
but reflects off the mirror in the rotating arm, then the light path will
be shorter.
Volney
2023-09-26 05:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
Post by Lou
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
So what. The ring gyro can.
And your point is...?
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con
that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...
Looks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.
Post by Lou
but the lab is in a
non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction.
The "contradiction" is because of your fantasy belief that anyone said
the lab frame is inertial.

Because MMX and Sagnac
Post by Lou
are in the same frame as the lab.
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.

I still don't know why you are so upset about the MMX being in a "not
perfectly inertial" environment when the difference between the earth
and perfection is too small to measure.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
Post by Lou
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
If you have light from a binary star travelling towards an observer at
c in the observer frame then the fact is that it can’t be travelling
away from the star source at c.
Why would you claim anything as stupid as that? The light is traveling
away from the star at c because light travels in all inertial frames at
c. Again, read the 1905 paper where Einstein shows that.

The only way you can prove that
Post by Lou
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c is
to invoke the relativity speed combination formula.

w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). Substitute u=c (u=speed of light in the star's
frame, v=speed of star at emission) and you get w=c (w=speed of light
according to earth observer). So simple, even anti-relativity crackpots
should be able to understand it.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
so light is c in it as well.
No it isn’t.
You didn't read the footnote indicated by the asterisks.
Post by Lou
You’ve just not only contradicted yourself when you said
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and
empirical observations.
For the MMX, explicitly designed to be insensitive to rotations, earth
is "inertial enough".
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
Post by Lou
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed
by empirical observations.
The religion mouth foam again.
Said the ranting cleric.
There you go again with the "Relativity is a cult!" crackpottery. Such
claims only show that you are a crackpot unable to hold sane discussions
about science.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't
matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8
fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Tom knows that current MMX give null results. He also knows that
if it didn’t as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation ..it would show that there is an aether.
So you did read my footnote but essentially ignored it. Once again the
difference between an MMX on earth and a theoretical MMX that's
perfectly inertial with zero rotation is less than 1 millionth of a
fringe, far less than 0.1 fringe in a real MMX. You refuse to address
this point.

[snip nonsense]
Post by Lou
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
Lou
2023-09-26 10:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
Post by Lou
Post by Lou
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
Post by Lou
You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
Right?
If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
True
Yes.
Post by Lou
Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
Post by Lou
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).
Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.
The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.
But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?
My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
Post by Lou
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
So what. The ring gyro can.
And your point is...?
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con
that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...
Looks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.
Post by Lou
but the lab is in a
non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction.
The "contradiction" is because of your fantasy belief that anyone said
the lab frame is inertial.
Because MMX and Sagnac
Post by Lou
are in the same frame as the lab.
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result. Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
I still don't know why you are so upset about the MMX being in a "not
perfectly inertial" environment when the difference between the earth
and perfection is too small to measure.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)
You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab frame?
Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
earths axis.)
Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial
frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...
then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are
shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.
Here’s Pauls quote:
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
This is a false assumption. The original Sagnac, MMX and their modern versions
are in non inertial rotating frames.
Sagnac ring gyros confirm this is true. Paul has zero evidence
to back up his fact free claims. Pauls mistake is to ignore the evidence
and pretend the lab isn’t rotating around the earths axis.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
Post by Lou
Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers.
In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.
If you have light from a binary star travelling towards an observer at
c in the observer frame then the fact is that it can’t be travelling
away from the star source at c.
Why would you claim anything as stupid as that? The light is traveling
away from the star at c because light travels in all inertial frames at
c. Again, read the 1905 paper where Einstein shows that.
Wrong. The light is travelling away from the source at c. Yes. We
know this must be true from many earth experiments which show that light
always travels at constant speeds c in source frames. Including MMX.
But your claim that light is travelling at c when it arrives here to
earth observer is not backed up by any evidence. It is called
an ASSUMPTION. A false assumption, considering no one has
yet measured the speed of starlight arriving here to earth observers.
Post by Volney
The only way you can prove that
Post by Lou
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c is
to invoke the relativity speed combination formula.
w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). Substitute u=c (u=speed of light in the star's
frame, v=speed of star at emission) and you get w=c (w=speed of light
according to earth observer). So simple, even anti-relativity crackpots
should be able to understand it.
Oh but we Relativity critics DO understand it. We understand that
fact free relativists have fiddled the maths to falsely claim
light magically speeds up and slows down for each observer.
It’s called falsification of data. And you SR supporters are as good
at falsifying data as you are at ignoring the huge body of evidence
that refutes SR.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX.
Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
so light is c in it as well.
No it isn’t.
You didn't read the footnote indicated by the asterisks.
Post by Lou
You’ve just not only contradicted yourself when you said
above that the lab does rotate...you’ve ignored basic physics and
empirical observations.
For the MMX, explicitly designed to be insensitive to rotations, earth
is "inertial enough".
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”
And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
Post by Lou
It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed
by empirical observations.
The religion mouth foam again.
Said the ranting cleric.
There you go again with the "Relativity is a cult!" crackpottery. Such
claims only show that you are a crackpot unable to hold sane discussions
about science.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't
matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8
fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?
Tom knows that current MMX give null results. He also knows that
if it didn’t as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
enough to detect rotation ..it would show that there is an aether.
So you did read my footnote but essentially ignored it. Once again the
difference between an MMX on earth and a theoretical MMX that's
perfectly inertial with zero rotation is less than 1 millionth of a
fringe, far less than 0.1 fringe in a real MMX. You refuse to address
this point.
[snip nonsense]
Post by Lou
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
“difference” between the two fantasies. I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
observers. I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
made by SR. And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR. Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
Paul B. Andersen
2023-09-26 19:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
earths axis.)
Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial
frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...
then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are
shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.
I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.
Post by Lou
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
Like this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.

But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame

Lou wrote:
|"Then why do relativists calculate the path difference
| for SR in Sagnac, in what they call the inertial lab frame?"

I responded:
| They don't.
| They calculate it in an inertial frame.
| The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
| See:
| https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
| https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

Meaning that they don't _calculate_ it in the _lab_ frame
because it isn't inertial.
They _calculate_ it with a theoretical Sagnac ring rotating
in a theoretical inertial frame.

And I never said anything about the MMX in this thread.

So please stop claiming that I said what I never said.
========================================================

You can quote me literally, but not out of context.

You quoted me out of context:
"The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame."

and say that I claim that:
"the Sagnac lab frame is inertial."

You pretend that the Sagnac ring in the former quote
is the same as the Sagnac ring in the latter quote.

Either you are a troll who is writing this to provoke,
or you are very ignorant of logic so you don't understand
that what you are writing is wrong.

I suspect the latter.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Lou
2023-09-26 19:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
earths axis.)
Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial
frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...
then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are
shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.
I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.
Post by Lou
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame
But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you
contradicted yourself earlier.
Because look at your initial quote:
You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
(You even admit this above)
And Therefore Sagnac is rotating in a NON INERTIAL frame.
Not an inertial frame

You only falsely pretend the lab is an inertial frame to make your calculations.
Because you know SR does not accept that light can travel at c
isotropically in non inertial frames.
Even though in fact Sagnac and MMX are both in non inertial frames
and their observations are consistent with light being at constant speeds
isotropically at c in non inertial frames.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
|"Then why do relativists calculate the path difference
| for SR in Sagnac, in what they call the inertial lab frame?"
| They don't.
| They calculate it in an inertial frame.
| The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
| https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
| https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Meaning that they don't _calculate_ it in the _lab_ frame
because it isn't inertial.
They _calculate_ it with a theoretical Sagnac ring rotating
in a theoretical inertial frame.
And I never said anything about the MMX in this thread.
Maybe not in this thread. But you and your website have
claimed that MMX is in a inertial frame.
It isn’t.
It is in a Non Inertial frame. Sagnac ring gyros confirm this.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
So please stop claiming that I said what I never said.
========================================================
You can quote me literally, but not out of context.
"The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame."
"the Sagnac lab frame is inertial."
If the Sagnac ring is rotating in the lab. And the lab frame
is non inertial. Then it is a false claim to say that the Sagnac
Ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
You don’t seem to understand basic logic and physics.
Where is your evidence that the Sagnac ring is rotating in an
inertial frame?
You don’t have any. So don’t lie and say it is rotating in an
inertial frame.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
You pretend that the Sagnac ring in the former quote
is the same as the Sagnac ring in the latter quote.
Either you are a troll who is writing this to provoke,
or you are very ignorant of logic so you don't understand
that what you are writing is wrong.
I don’t suspect...I KNOW you lied when you said Sagnac is
rotating in an inertial frame. And I know this because unlike
yourself I refer to empirical observations ,...not delusions, false
logic and false assumptions as you prefer to use.
Paul B. Andersen
2023-09-27 08:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame.
(The ring may be rotating, but the center of the ring is
stationary in a non inertial frame. The "Sagnac setup"
is stationary on the lab table.)
Post by Lou
But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you
contradicted yourself earlier.
You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Lou
2023-09-27 09:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Lou
“ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame.
(The ring may be rotating, but the center of the ring is
stationary in a non inertial frame. The "Sagnac setup"
is stationary on the lab table.)
Post by Lou
But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you
contradicted yourself earlier.
You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D
Can’t admit that the Sagnac setup isn’t in an inertial frame can’t you
Paul? So you sling an insult instead hoping no one will notice you
screwed up when you made the following evidence free, false claim:
“ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”

It isn’t rotating in an inertial frame. Ring fibre gyros have recently proved that
any lab experiment like Sagnac or MMX are always only in non inertial
frames.
Richard Hachel
2023-09-27 10:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D
Ha cool, Paul B. Andersen is here.

I have a feeling that in the next few days we're going to talk about the
traveler from Tau Ceti again.

R.H.
Volney
2023-09-27 16:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
Post by Lou
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
Post by Lou
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
Post by Lou
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
Nobody disputes that.

The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.

They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
“difference” between the two fantasies.
No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
have specific definitions to scientists.
Post by Lou
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Post by Lou
made by SR.
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
Post by Lou
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?
Post by Lou
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.
Maciej Wozniak
2023-09-27 17:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Come on, stupid Mike, the mumble of your idiot
guru wasn't even consistent - and the evidence
is only making relativistic doggies barking
more fiercely.
Logic means nothing against stupidity and fanatism,
like yours.
Lou
2023-09-27 19:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure
this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect
earths rotation.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
Post by Lou
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame. And if MMX and Sagnac are in the lab and not moving
in the lab frame. Then MMX and Sagnac are not in inertial frames.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
“difference” between the two fantasies.
No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
have specific definitions to scientists.
Post by Lou
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds. Yet none of
you actually know what they mean. Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
None of you knew the answer. So pretended it was my fault that
you guys don’t know the difference between the two.
Post by Volney
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
Post by Lou
made by SR.
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Volney
2023-09-28 14:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
Post by Lou
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure
this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect
earths rotation.
If perfect, it couldn't.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
Post by Lou
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
Post by Lou
And if MMX and Sagnac are in the lab and not moving
in the lab frame. Then MMX and Sagnac are not in inertial frames.
And...? The Sagnac will potentially detect that. The MMX won't.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.
Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.

The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.
Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths
axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
Nobody disputes that. (It confuses you regardless)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
proper speed in this context.
But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
“difference” between the two fantasies.
No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
have specific definitions to scientists.
Post by Lou
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".
Post by Lou
Yet none of
you actually know what they mean.
No, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on
others.
Post by Lou
Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
Now you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
made by SR.
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
Post by Lou
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.
Maciej Wozniak
2023-09-28 15:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
Yes, they did. They have specific meaing in relativity,
the meaning made up to make The Shit more
digestible. Orwellian classics, stupid Mike.
Post by Volney
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
And make idiots like you spitting with Polish jokes, drunken
janitors, nazi kapos or alike.
Lou
2023-09-29 09:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
Post by Lou
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame. So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly. Imagine the two superimposed on a top view.
Your inertial frame EW arm always points in the same direction and moves EW
slightly as the light goes out and back. BUT...the real lab EW arm, being non inertial,
moves across slightly with the inertial arm in the EW direction but more importantly
it also rotates downwards in a circle with the rotating earth lab. So do the maths
and geometry...*it does it not travel as far EW as the inertial frame*.
The actual path length of the non inertial EW arms mirror is closer to the source
then it’s imaginary inertial mirror. And seeing as the light reflects
off the real non inertial mirror the EW path becomes shortened.
It’s very hard to describe in words.
If relativists weren’t so visually and geometrically illiterate...
you would understand.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure
this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect
earths rotation.
If perfect, it couldn't.
Wrong. As per above.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
Post by Lou
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame. And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation if
sensitive enough at the interferometer.
You just are unable to grasp this visually.
Get Toms pals at Fermi to do a computer simulation. They
Will prove Im right.
Until then I can only as the saying goes...” lead the donkey to
water, but can’t make it drink”
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I know they are both excuses made up
by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
observers.
No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".
In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds.
To help relativists con the world with gibberish.
Just one velocity relative to the observer.
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at c
isotropically under SR ‘ ?
You can’t admit it can’t...so you say... “Oh well maybe it can or...
maybe it can’t” 🤣😂
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Yet none of
you actually know what they mean.
No, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on
others.
Post by Lou
Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
Now you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?
See! I told you above how when Relativists can’t answer a question because it
will show up SR to be nonsense...you get obfuscation, waffle and bad
fiddle playing. Just like your hero Albert.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
made by SR.
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empirical
observations.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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. Even PMT observations don’t need
photon fantasies as I’ve pointed out above.
Volney
2023-09-29 16:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
Post by Lou
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame.
And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
And the return path cancels.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
concept of frames!)
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
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.
Post by Lou
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation
It won't.
Post by Lou
if
[snip]
No need to discuss these irrelevancies as the "if" is false.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Just one velocity relative to the observer.
So you're actually correct for once! Shall we celebrate?
Post by Lou
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at c
isotropically under SR ‘ ?
The answer is "yes" of course.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
made by SR.
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empirical
observations.
Scientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure
about your boogeymen.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended up
in the dustbin.
That's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
happened. No matter how hard many scientists tried. No matter how many
kooks kooked.
Post by Lou
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).
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.
No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its
realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists
have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Every week I read a new observation...that has just refuted an old theoretical
prediction that probably got the fantasist a Nobel.
JWST data showing endless billions of mature galaxies where none were
predicted must have invalidated a few dozen Nobel prize awards.
That's how science works. New data updates poorer quality old data,
meaning some features need to be tweaked. And I doubt any Nobels were
invalidated, they are conservative enough with the physics prize so that
it doesn't depend on poor measurements.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".

Nowadays we have QED, which explains it all differently. But just like
Newton's incorrect mechanics, wave or particle models are still used
because they are much simpler than full blown QED.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Olegario Babusenko
2023-09-29 22:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
Physfitfreak
2023-09-29 22:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olegario Babusenko
Post by Volney
And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
What is this attachment you have with Volney? Are you, Hanson, and
Volney, Vulva, the same person, heretofore referred as Vulva Hanson; or
Volney is perhaps your own vulva? Are you quoting your own vulva in your
messages? You know, Vulva does think like a vulva that's on a Hanson.
And you always quote Vulva, like Hanson's vulva would.

Hanson, get your vulva out of sci.physics, and chew on plastics before
ever coming back. Have a threesome with "Jim Pennino", and Volney, it'll
only be as easy as masturbating alone. Fuck each other. Fuck that one
person that all three of you are; i.e. Fuck you Hanson!
Lakhram Bahmetev
2023-09-30 12:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olegario Babusenko
Post by Volney
And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
W̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶h̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶? A̶r̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶, H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, a̶n̶d̶
V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶, V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶, t̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶m̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶, h̶e̶r̶e̶t̶o̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶ H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶; or
you suck their dicks. Read the fucking article, before post in
𝘀𝗰𝗶.𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆. You fool.
Physfitfreak
2023-09-30 20:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lakhram Bahmetev
Post by Olegario Babusenko
Post by Volney
And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
W̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶h̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶? A̶r̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶, H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, a̶n̶d̶
V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶, V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶, t̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶m̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶, h̶e̶r̶e̶t̶o̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶ H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶; or
you suck their dicks. Read the fucking article, before post in
𝘀𝗰𝗶.𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆. You fool.
Hanson, you were vulvatic for years, then hid behind "Moroney", then
"Volney" (Vulva). You were vulvatic from the beginning. Anything you
post has hallmarks of your vulva. You can't hide.

I can find whatever information "A noiseless patient Spider" ever kept
of your identity via a lawyer. Relf says you doxed me. When I find that
post, I'll get your identity out for legal purposes.

Don't go around doxing people. Unless you have assets to lose without a
qualm.
Lucius Yanson
2023-10-01 00:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by Lakhram Bahmetev
Post by Olegario Babusenko
𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
W̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶h̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶? A̶r̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶, H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, a̶n̶d̶
V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶, V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶, t̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶m̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶, h̶e̶r̶e̶t̶o̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶ H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶;
you suck their dicks. Read the fucking article, before post in
𝘀𝗰𝗶.𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆. You fool.
Hanson, you were vulvatic for years, then hid behind "Moroney", then
"Volney" (Vulva). You were vulvatic from the beginning. Anything you
post has hallmarks of your vulva. You can't hide.
eat shit, you fucking stupid. You are stupid like shit in physics and
else. Fuck your momma vulva, lol.
Lou
2023-09-30 09:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.
Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result.
Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
Post by Lou
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame.
And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
Post by Lou
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
relative to sources as per an aether free emission model. Then the path length
doesn’t change for this emission model.
As observed in MMX with the null result.
( The two mirrors rotate around the source at the same distance.)

But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
Or B)does the “inertial “ frame not rotate with the lab but move away in a
straight line from the lab at 1630k/s relative to the axis? Meaning it’s
travelling in a straight line at 30ks + 1630kh?
How do you define your inertial frame re MMX, the lab and the
earths rotation. If under SR it’s B) then there will be a shorter or
longer path for the EW arm.
If it’s A) there will also be a path difference.

Maybe SRT should change its name to “The Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t” theory.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
And the return path cancels.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
concept of frames!)
Post by Lou
And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
And SR gets it correct.
Not neccesarily. It depends on how you imagine your imaginary inertial
frame moves or doesn’t move, relative to the real MMX setup over the time
it takes for the light to go out and come back to the interferometer.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.
Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.
So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
rotating around the earths axis.
Nobody disputes that.
The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.
I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
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.
Post by Lou
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation
It won't.
Post by Lou
if
[snip]
No need to discuss these irrelevancies as the "if" is false.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Just one velocity relative to the observer.
So you're actually correct for once! Shall we celebrate?
Post by Lou
It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at c
isotropically under SR ‘ ?
The answer is "yes" of course.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
made by SR.
Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.
Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empirical
observations.
Scientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure
about your boogeymen.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
SR.
Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?
Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended up
in the dustbin.
That's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
happened. No matter how hard many scientists tried. No matter how many
kooks kooked.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.
No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
discoverers of major physics discoveries. A disproof of SR (within its
realm) would be a MAJOR discovery. Also, over they ears many scientists
have worked to disprove SR, perhaps even with the prize in mind. None
have ever been successful. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
Every week I read a new observation...that has just refuted an old theoretical
prediction that probably got the fantasist a Nobel.
JWST data showing endless billions of mature galaxies where none were
predicted must have invalidated a few dozen Nobel prize awards.
That's how science works. New data updates poorer quality old data,
meaning some features need to be tweaked. And I doubt any Nobels were
invalidated, they are conservative enough with the physics prize so that
it doesn't depend on poor measurements.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does. And the only “evidence” for light as a photon is
PMT point like detections. But those points are actually only representations
by electric circuits, software and LED screens showing a dot which is in fact
Light wave energy being quantised by the detectors ‘resonant system’ atoms.
And famous experiments like Aspect et al prove that waves are
better at modelling light and coincident rates than QT particles .
Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum
energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because
according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold.
So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals”
😂🤣😂🤣
Liars.
Post by Volney
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantised
by a resonant system atom at the detector.

Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
amount of energy to a detector.
The intelligent observer knows this is water waves energy being quantised
at the detector. The moronic particle theorists thinks someone is
throwing balls at the detector.
Volney
2023-09-30 16:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
Post by Lou
As observed in MMX with the null result.
The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
Post by Lou
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Post by Lou
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.

[snip crap]
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
And the return path cancels.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
concept of frames!)
Post by Lou
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)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Post by Lou
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.
Except the photoelectric effect.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantised
by a resonant system atom at the detector.
A bite of word salad.
Post by Lou
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.
Lou
2023-10-01 09:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
Post by Lou
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...
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Post by Lou
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.

Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
Sounds like you don’t.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.
And the return path cancels.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame.
Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame.
It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
concept of frames!)
Post by Lou
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)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
💩
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.
Except the photoelectric effect.
Post by Lou
Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum
energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because
according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold.
So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals”
Liars.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
Light and atoms are wave like only.
Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
a detector? No.
Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
to do that with a pure wave theory.
You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?
Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?
Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by
overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns.
Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and
constructive interference patterns. Seen as individual straight
curving or spiral paths in 2 D with two overlapping waves. And in 3D
by 3 overlapping wavefronts interfering with each other in space.
It’s basic physics.
Something which you mathematicians just cannot seem to comprehend.
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantised
by a resonant system atom at the detector.
A bite of word salad.
Post by Lou
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.
Volney
2023-10-01 16:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
Post by Lou
As observed in MMX with the null result.
The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
spacetime instead.
The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
Post by Lou
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Post by Lou
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.
Post by Lou
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).
Post by Lou
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
What's a "ks"?
Post by Lou
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense
here.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity
leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.

I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has
failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a
significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a
small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in
particular nothing disproving it)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile,
antirelativity cranks drool.
Post by Lou
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating
annulus rings or geographical locations.
Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
Post by Lou
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.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2023-10-01 17:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
Post by Lou
As observed in MMX with the null result.
The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
spacetime instead.
The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
Post by Lou
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Post by Lou
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.
Post by Lou
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).
Post by Lou
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
What's a "ks"?
Post by Lou
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense
here.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity
leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has
failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a
significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a
small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in
particular nothing disproving it)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile,
antirelativity cranks drool.
Post by Lou
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating
annulus rings or geographical locations.
Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
Post by Lou
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
It's strange, but look how many victims of this form of insanity are
present here. Including yourself, of course. Runs in the family.
Demonstrate a motion that is not changing or is not always subject to it.

Mitchell Raemsch
Lou
2023-10-01 22:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly.
And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
Post by Lou
As observed in MMX with the null result.
The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
spacetime instead.
The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
Post by Lou
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...
Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
Post by Lou
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.
[snip crap]
Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.
Post by Lou
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).
Post by Lou
Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
What's a "ks"?
Post by Lou
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense
here.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
SOHO data on 7 times too much
G ray emissions than your theory allows.
That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity
leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has
failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
And Fermi data on muons not behaving
at all like your theory predicts.
That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”
Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a
significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a
small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in
particular nothing disproving it)
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
The photoelectric effect.
It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
coincident rate as a wave only model can.
So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
called light "wavicles".
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
a wave theory does.
Except the photoelectric effect.
ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile,
antirelativity cranks drool.
Post by Lou
The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
Maybe it can’t Relativity”
Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating
annulus rings or geographical locations.
Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
Post by Lou
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.”
Volney
2023-10-02 05:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
Post by Lou
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know what
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
Once again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I
knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Post by Lou
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?
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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.
Post by Lou
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!
Post by Lou
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?
Tom Roberts
2023-10-02 01:49:26 UTC
Permalink
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
Only for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by amounts
too small for the instrument to measure.
[... considerable nonsense omitted]
Tom Roberts
Gregory Baibakov
2023-09-29 22:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Lou
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. A̶ d̶i̶s̶p̶r̶o̶o̶f̶ o̶f̶ S̶R̶ (w̶i̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ i̶t̶s̶
r̶e̶a̶l̶m̶) w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ b̶e̶ a̶ M̶A̶J̶O̶R̶ d̶i̶s̶c̶o̶v̶e̶r̶y̶. Also, over they ears m̶a̶n̶y̶ s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶s̶t̶s̶
h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶o̶r̶k̶e̶d̶ t̶o̶ d̶i̶s̶p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶ S̶R̶, perhaps even with the prize in mind. N̶o̶n̶e̶
h̶a̶v̶e̶ e̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶e̶n̶ s̶u̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶f̶u̶l̶. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
disproof of anything.
not true

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗗_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗔𝗴𝗼
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/5z6uqFvs5zs1

which makes america an inbreed crime family.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-21 15:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
You can’t have it both ways.
That's just your personal ignorance talking.
Post by Lou
Either experiments to date are sensitive enough to be affected by
earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
It depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
turns of optical fiber can easily measure the rotation of the earth. The
most accurate repetitions of the MMX, and MMX-like experiments, are
deliberately constructed to be insensitive to the rotation of the earth.

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-21 19:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Lou
You can’t have it both ways.
That's just your personal ignorance talking.
Post by Lou
Either experiments to date are sensitive enough to be affected by
earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
It depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
turns of optical fiber can easily measure the rotation of the earth. The
most accurate repetitions of the MMX, and MMX-like experiments, are
deliberately constructed to be insensitive to the rotation of the earth.
But the latest MMX style experiment are sensitive enough to detect
earths rotation. As you earlier said that the original MMX at 0.02 needed to
be a million times more sensitive to detect earths rotation. Well...the
latest MMX are 10-17 more sensitive. More than enough.
But they dont detect any shift due to rotation. Proving that contrary
to your claims..light *can* travel isotropically at constant speeds relative to
a source in non inertial frames.
You and Volney know this..so now you change your argument from
old MMX not being sensitive enough....to saying no matter how
sensitive any new MMX is...they are built specially to not detect
earths rotation!!
Pretty strange claim considering you just recently pretended
sensitive enough MMX could detect rotation.
Can’t have it both ways Tom.
Alan B
2023-09-22 16:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by LEO_MMX
Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?
The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.
Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.
Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
Tom Roberts
Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that would *not* be considered inertial.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-22 18:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan B
Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that
would *not* be considered inertial.
The MMX relies on a human observer to take the data -- that puts strong
constraints on where and how the experiment could be performed. I do not
think there are any conditions in which a human can take the data but
the apparatus cannot be analyzed in a locally-inertial frame. This is
basically due to the fact that the instrument re-paints the fringes
every 73 nanoseconds.

[I ignore environmental conditions and limit this to
geometrical conditions (in the sense of GR). For
instance, a small thermal gradient in the room can
mimic a signal (see Dayton Miller's heroic efforts).]

If one modifies the experiment to use an automated data acquisition
system that is suitably robust, then either a sufficiently large
gravitational field or a sufficiently fast rotation could induce errors
such that one cannot analyze it using a locally inertial frame.

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-23 13:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Alan B
Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that
would *not* be considered inertial.
The MMX relies on a human observer to take the data -- that puts strong
constraints on where and how the experiment could be performed. I do not
think there are any conditions in which a human can take the data but
the apparatus cannot be analyzed in a locally-inertial frame. This is
basically due to the fact that the instrument re-paints the fringes
every 73 nanoseconds.
[I ignore environmental conditions and limit this to
geometrical conditions (in the sense of GR). For
instance, a small thermal gradient in the room can
mimic a signal (see Dayton Miller's heroic efforts).]
If one modifies the experiment to use an automated data acquisition
system that is suitably robust, then either a sufficiently large
gravitational field or a sufficiently fast rotation could induce errors
such that one cannot analyze it using a locally inertial frame.
Tom Roberts
Interesting. I wonder if the same applies for an M-M experiment
with very long arms. Anyways I’ve been wondering what light is expected
to do under SR in non inertial frames.So now is a good time to
ask the expert. If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does
SR predict? Or at least what would you as a relativist expect.
A null result or a fringe shift?
Tom Roberts
2023-09-24 03:32:17 UTC
Permalink
If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does SR predict? Or at
least what would you as a relativist expect. A null result or a
fringe shift?
If one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
to re-align it. Once aligned, the image would be stable and not move
visibly as it rotated. As I said before, one would need a robust,
automatic data collection system, such as a movie camera capable of
withstanding the enormous forces involved.

One could not compare to other rotation rates, because one would have to
re-align for each. Of course for a high enough rotation rate the
apparatus would destroy itself.

This is, of course, no longer the MMX.

Tom Roberts
Lou
2023-09-24 13:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does SR predict? Or at
least what would you as a relativist expect. A null result or a
fringe shift?
If one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
to re-align it. Once aligned, the image would be stable and not move
visibly as it rotated. As I said before, one would need a robust,
automatic data collection system, such as a movie camera capable of
withstanding the enormous forces involved.
One could not compare to other rotation rates, because one would have to
re-align for each. Of course for a high enough rotation rate the
apparatus would destroy itself.
This is, of course, no longer the MMX.
Tom Roberts
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
How about this experiment:
Insert into an optical fibre ring gyro two mirrors back to back
at the middle point of the ring loop. So instead of each counter rotating beam
going completely around the closed loop ring and being recombined to see if
there is a change in the interference pattern. The light beam on each counter
rotating path gets interrupted 1/2 way and reflected back to be recombined
at the interference plane.
Essentially converting a ring gyro into a useable MMX experiment.
I would be interested to see what your thoughts are on
this possibility.
Because if this indeed is feasible technically then I would have thought
this would be a good way to test SR. Because when rotated at hi speeds
if it still gave a null result. Then this would not only not be consistent
with SR. It would also answer the question as to : Does light travel at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames?
Tom Roberts
2023-09-24 15:17:09 UTC
Permalink
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non
inertial frames.
NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.

There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems. For
some of them the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to the
coordinates, for some the (vacuum) speed of light is c in some
directions and not c in other directions, and for some the (vacuum)
speed of light is never c. But in EVERY case, once one is given the
relationship between the non-inertial coordinates and some (any) set of
inertial coordinates, one can then calculate the (vacuum) speed of light
relative to the non-inertial coordinates. Of course in virtually all
cases such a calculation is of no interest or use.
[...]
I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.

Tom Roberts
Maciej Wozniak
2023-09-24 16:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non
inertial frames.
NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.
There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems.
An example?
Post by Tom Roberts
I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.
You have only interest in pandering your dreams
of fantasies, as expected from a relativistic clown.
Lou
2023-09-25 12:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non
inertial frames.
NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.
There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems. For
some of them the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to the
coordinates, for some the (vacuum) speed of light is c in some
directions and not c in other directions, and for some the (vacuum)
speed of light is never c. But in EVERY case, once one is given the
relationship between the non-inertial coordinates and some (any) set of
inertial coordinates, one can then calculate the (vacuum) speed of light
relative to the non-inertial coordinates. Of course in virtually all
cases such a calculation is of no interest or use.
Yes Tom. To paraphrase Orwell:
All theories are equal. But some are more equal than others.
Like Relativity. Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission
model. But it can sometimes for relativity. When it’s convenient for
dishonest pseudoscientific relativists.
Dono.
2023-09-25 16:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
Crank,

In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.
Lou
2023-09-26 01:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Lou
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
Crank,
In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
There is no ‘may or may not’ about this fact.
Tom Roberts
2023-09-26 03:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
This is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.

Tom Roberts
Dono.
2023-09-26 14:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Post by Dono.
Post by Lou
In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
Crank,
In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.
I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
I predicted that you will continue to post imbecilities. Well done, crank!
Loading...