On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speedsOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
isotropically in non inertial frames.
amounts too small for the instrument to measure.
If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that if
it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
[...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
null result.
[... further nonsense omitted]
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves
relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes light to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.
💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
😂💩
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states,
this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
😂🤣💩
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters! >>>
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
Why do you ask?
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so >> small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being attached to earth, rotate with it.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.So now you disagree that the earth rotates? Time for YOU to check into
the Home for the Terminally Stupid or something.
I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know whatOnce again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I >> knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes lightEasily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.
to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...Make up your mind. Either the rotation of the earth affects the MMX and invalidates its null result during the few nanoseconds it took light to traverse the configuration, or the rotation of the earth doesn't affect
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.
the biggest MMX-type setups in the world, the two LIGO detectors plus
the others now online. One or the other. You can't have both. One or the other.
So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.💩And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/
An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
For a second time, you have no answer.😂💩
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states, >> this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
And for a third time, no answer.😂🤣💩
https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/
Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.
I'll ask again: Any examples of relativity failures? Not cosmology
issues, not particle physics issues, not repeats of irrelevant claims, failures of relativity itself.
If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters!
Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”
Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?
Why do you ask?Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
am making a point from your lack of data and observations.
On 10/2/23 3:46 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
the MMX results prove light travels at constant speedsOnly for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by
isotropically in non inertial frames.
amounts too small for the instrument to measure.
If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that ifYou are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.
it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
1. The MMX most definitely WAS able to operate successfully and yield a
null result for the non-inertial 'frame' of its lab on the surface of
the earth. Because the difference between that non-inertial 'frame' and
a truly inertial frame is too small for the instrument to measure.
2. Other non-inertial 'frames' were not used.
3. For most non-inertial 'frames' it would be impossible to use the instrument at all.
Example: imagine putting the MMX instrument inside a truck, and then accelerating that truck at 1 g along a smooth and straight highway. The apparatus would not even rotate because the float carrying the interferometer in the mercury bath would be stuck on the back edge of
the bath. If you imagine taking the 3-vector sum of the truck's
acceleration and the acceleration due to gravity, and orient the
instrument so that is "local vertical", then it would probably be able
to rotate, but the orientation-dependent strains on the arms would be
much larger than the rigidity necessary (gravity pulls equally on all
parts of the instrument, but the acceleration does not).
[...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
null result.
That is complete nonsense, and merely displays your comprehensive
ignorance. In 1905 Einstein was at most only distantly aware of the MMX;
he CERTAINLY did not use it in developing SR (just read his 1905 paper).
You REALLY need to learn what SR is, and what it isn't. Until and unless
you understand the theory, WITHOUT YOUR ADDED FANTASIES, you have no
hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do).
[... further nonsense omitted]
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so >>>> small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer >>> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
Seeing as the MMX and lab are
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degrees
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretended
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to
check for path speed differences on the same arm.
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle
in minutes...like the original MMX was.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental >>>>>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you >>>> whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use >>>> the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null >>> result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed) >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aetherWhat's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation0.00225 Hz?
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed orCorrect, so far.
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe,
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the >>>> rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental >>>>>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding >>>>>> physics.
Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
Sleeping on?
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you >>>> whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they >>>> must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use >>>> the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null >>> result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
attached to earth, rotate with it.
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.
Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed) >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aetherWhat's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation0.00225 Hz?
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed orCorrect, so far.
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe, which is not detectable, you cannot realistically claim that. Besides, there are no proofs in physics, only disproofs.
Seeing as the MMX and lab areExcept the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that
a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
to be sensitive to rotation, and the LIGO machines are designed to a
much higher standards than the original MMX interferometer which was insensitive to rotation. The LIGO systems COULD, in theory, be super sensitive to the ether wind...if it existed.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degreesThe earth does all the rotation that's needed.
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretendedThe ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not a few minutes.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle
within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to check for path speed differences on the same arm.The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle in minutes...like the original MMX was.
Anyway, you are talking in circles, holding both the beliefs that LIGO, despite rotating with the earth can't detect the rotation, while the original MMX system could, despite the rotation in several nanoseconds
is trivial. This is going nowhere, and as Gary reminds us, you are just insane anyway. So go have the last word, I am done with this thread.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself, >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
An inertial frame is not an inertial frame as once it moves it is an "inertial-system".
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. There. Feel better?
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
light speeds in non inertial frames
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
light speeds in non inertial frames
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial frame
and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or so, and during such
a very short time period the inertial frame and the lab diverge by an
amount FAR too small to be observed.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. >>> There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
[snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you? Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be
rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic
constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any
rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null
result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect anyIn SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's disingenuous.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a nullONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to
the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation
is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent
experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.
On 10/4/2023 4:36 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether >>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
You don’t know what k and s stand for?
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze. >>> There. Feel better?That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is aroundPlease explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not existing.
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you? Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
Tom R. has AGAIN explained this to you, so double the reason to skip responding to this.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 01:55:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
[...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constantYou keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
light speeds in non inertial frames
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
We’ve already covered this.Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time lightIn SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
non inertial frames.
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's disingenuous.
If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.ONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.
You don’t understand basic maths and geometry.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ” >>>>>
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself, >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,All correct!
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:They don't.
Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “
Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
the lab frame but some other frame.
So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
So three frames.
You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare afflictionI see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.
So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....
Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.
It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,All correct!
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
It is not an inertial frame...
So virtually zero friction in Low Earth Orbit or better out in interplanetary space is yet an additional reason for Michelson-Morley to be done in outer space.
Den 30.10.2023 21:23, skrev Alan B:
So virtually zero friction in Low Earth Orbit or better out in interplanetary
space is yet an additional reason for Michelson-Morley to be done in outer space.
And which 'friction' is it you should get rid of?
A Michelson interferometer isn't rotating.
It's turned in different directions, but it isn't
rotating while the measurements are done.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:46:52 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,855 |
| Posted today: | 1 |