geistkiesel
-
Posts
150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by geistkiesel
-
-
Your definitions are far too confusing and awkward to wade through.
You've assumed c is constant. Good.
L__________P__________R
LP and PR are equal distance.
If the system is at rest' date=' photons emitted from P will reflect off L and R and arrive back at P at the same time.
Is it your contention that this is not true if the system is thought to be moving?[/quote']
Are you suggesting I have ever considered c other than constant c?- Basically if moving aor at ret, the photons wioll always wrrive simultaneousl bact at the phusical MP after the MP has moved a distance 2vt + vt'Absolutely not to your question. Remember the title of the thread:proofof absolite zero velocity. This means b defeinion that any point P that is at absolute rest, absolute zero velocity will reain invariant .That is a point P is at absolure rest if it is not moving. A physical frame of reference such as you have described has not coem close t the definition, probably because as you say the arguments are covoluted. So allow we to straightened them a bit, Two photons are emitted simultaneously from the emitter, The absolute xero poingt absolute zero velocity is defined and located by gthe movng pjotns, AS the phootns move in straight-line trajectories, unless acted on by external forces. AS the photons are emitted opposite to teach other the photons define an invariant line in space, The line is not moving because the photons motion is isotropis and constant in space and time. the continued motin of the photonwave trains provide a contonuous definioton and location of the midpoint of the two photons' motion. When we focus on the point P in space which from the instant the photons were emtted the physical frame becomes usless and insignificant of having any affect on the invariant point P. In general, any two moving wave trains or photons define an absolutely zero velocity oiut inb space.If after a time t one of the emitted photons is reflected back in the direction of the outgoing photon, the reflected photon will arrive at the point P after having traveled another distance ct. -- will arrive exactly at point P. Were the point P, not invariant and if the point moved then the back reflected photon would not arrive at the point P, which is not found to be tbe case.And Mr. Swansont, please make note of the claim that here, that the invatriant point P defjned by the midpoint of the moving photon wave trains is not a physical massive thing, The point P is just that an abstravcrtion defined by the constant motion of the photons.Now, to your question and your figure.The question you ask will be answered purely from the objective hand of the laws of physics and specifically various postulates of light,We will determine of your frame is at rest with respect to absolute zero velocity or if the frame is in motion.First, the photons are emitted at the physical; midpoint of the frame, the halfway point halving the LR duistance. The clocks we have installed at poihts L and R measure the arrival time of the photons at L and R. The clocks at L, P and R have been synchronized with mechanical switches set in the stationary frame of reference that start the three clocks simultaneously counting from zero.What can the observer tell us?From his position observing the photons emitted, we know absolutely nothing regading the frame motion. When the photons arrive at L and R the arrival sequence is crucial in determining the state of motion of the frame wrt absolute zero. which is the point in space,from which the photons were emitted, which if the frame is in motion, that point isdefinitely not the midpoint, MP, on the pysical frame, If the platform is moving from L to R direction the L clock will record the L photon arriving at L first, then the R phioton arrives at R,later.The motions of the photons then ar all directed in the direction of the physical midpoint,The Observer is restricted in reviewing the test data.When the photons arrive, simultaneously at the physical miidpoint MP (as I have renamed your point P to avoid confusion) the moving observer may now review the data and determine any states of motion of the physical inertial frame with wrt the point P.t' derivedI have derived the term for t' the extra time required for the round trip of the photons when the physical frame is moving with respect to P (and, only coincidentally, moving wrt the stationary platform). We construct he t' term using he zero velocity point in space. After the L phioton has reflected back fromL, after being duly recorded there, tyeh L photon has arrived at P and the is distance 2vt from the physical midpoint MP, which is oving away. there fore the L photon must cross the distance 2vt to arrive at the MP and in this time the physical frame is moving so the photon has an extra small distance to cross vt;, to arrive at MP. simply said ct' = 2vt + vt'from which t' is determined t'= t(2v) /(c - v). Or, since t' is a measured quantity, the cvlocity of the fdrame wrt P is,v = ct'/(2t + t').Did Swansont's emitted photons arrive simultaneously at the physical midpoint of his inertial frame moving wrt v(P) = 0.Now you answer your iown question: If t' = 0, v = o, otherwise if t' > 0 the physical frame is movinmg at velocity v wrt the invariant point P.If you trace the distances the two photon moved you will see that the photons moved the same distance in the same amount of time and ergo the photons are duty bouind to arrive simultaneously at the MPalways, under the same test,conditions, though any velocity v will suffice..If, for some unknown reason the physical frame were moving wrt P and the photons arrived simultaneously at L and R then the photons could not arrive simultaneosly at MP with anyvelocity.. This is easiest seen looking up from the point P (invariant in spatial location) and use the stationary frame as a measure. If the frame is at rest wrt v(P) = 0, then and only then will the emitted photons arrive simultaneously at L and R and if arriving simutaneousley at Land R the photons can return to the physical MP simultaneoulsy if and only if, the physical frame is at rest wrt v(P) = 0.If the frame velocity v(f) is > 0 wrt v(P) = 0 and the photons have arrived simultaneously at L and R then there isno waythe photons will arrive simultaneoulsy at MP. The only way the photons arrive simultaneoulsy at L and R when the v(f) > 0 is if the photons were either not emitted simultaneously or were divereted from the stragtht-line trrajectory during their time of flight. Tricksters would be doing thisSawnsont, I suspect you have a word or two to discuss the moving oberver's perspectivehere and perhaps want to suggest that he "sees" the lights ariving simultaneously at the L and R clocks. Not so, I mean 'not so' he "sees" anything except the emission of the photons. The L and R clocks are sufficiently far away at any distance from from MP, such that the observer must wait until the data that includes the arrival times at L and R arruves at MP.. Any assumption that his frame of reference is at rest wrt v(P) =0 before the arrival of the data is pure speculation.Also, Swansont, and you can appreciate this more than most in this forum, if the speed fo light is deterimined wrt to v(P) = 0, absolutely, then the measured speed of light will be measured classically as c. SRT effectively negates the motion of inertial frames when making the measurement of the speed of light wrt themoving frame[the postulate remember]. SRT effectively guarantees the measured v = c for light by assuming the physical frame at rest.Now what is the result when making the measurement when the reference is really at rest? Another ball game that's what.Whether your physical frame is moving or not under the conditions you described the photons will always arrive simultaneously back at the physical frame MP. Notice from the expression for the velocity, that the MP to L and Mp to R distance is not significant in determining the velocity of the frame. parameter in the experiments or tests.Let us see what happens when the moving observer assumes a state of rest wrt the embankment. Hencanot see the photons arriving at aL and R and I have seen no analyses of this particlul;ar condition where the moving observer actually measures the photon arrival at L and R. However, the photons will arrive siultaneously back at the MP while the Observers assumptions are totally insignificant tothe coutcome. Th e moving observer will measure thge round trip times of the L anad R photons he will idscover thediscrepenacy inround trip arrival times compared to the test done in the stationaary frame of referfence . The discrempancy is in the measuresd tr' time whoich SRT has tried to purloin as its own when SRT claim the clocks run slower on the moving frame and that accounts for the t' > 0, when this clearly is not the case.0 -
It doesn't matter if they did the experiment. The point is that someone did experiments that confirmed or denied the theory.
I don't know who Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans are. Are you claiming that they have valid' date=' accepted theories that nobody else has been able to confirm, and when others do the experiment, that they get cntradictory results?
Theories get accepted because there is experimental evidence to back them up. They get rejected when the evidence contradicts the predictions. They get modified when that's appropriate.[/quote']
Wang performed a linear Sagnac effect, contrary to your opinion that the SE can not be seen in a linear arrangement.0 -
Because the Sagnac effect depends on the angular speed' date=' not the linear speed. For as much as you've posted on the subject, one might think that you'd know this.
Su and Hatch are proposing ether-based theories, which have not been substantiated. Su admits "This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude." IOW, don;t hold your breath waiting for this to be confirmed. You can't use ether theories to attempt to show defects in [/quote']
You seem committed to repeating the lack of validity of a linear velocity Sagnac Effect here. Do you arrive at the understanding that Sagnac is not, or cannot be a linear event? A uniformly moving inertial frame moving in a straight line such as described in the opening post of this thread. Like can you prove it to me that this device isn't generating Sagnac Effects?>0 -
Or' date=' one could use a Michelson interferometer and look for interference as evidence of absolute motion. Wait a moment...that's already been done!
As one of you links notes, GPS and geostationary satellites that have to account for earth rotation via the Sagnac effect do not have to account for the linear effect due to the earth's motion, to which they would be very sensitive.[/quote']
You realize that the distance moved by the receivers ia fairly short and the motion is effectively a linear Sagnac Effect/ and indistinguishable from a lineaqr arrangement>.Swanason, After all that coloring I did getting the figure ready for publication here, you have no comment on the generated absolute zero motion? You neither agree, disagree, offer commentss whatever. It is as if you goit stumped perhaps? Do you need any clarification?Basically, Sagnac or otherwise. there are two simultaneously emitted photons moving in opposite directions. each photon draws equivalent straight-line trajectories in equal distances in equal times. Now does not the activity of the photons draw, or define the unambiguous location of an invariant position P , the midpoint of the moving photon wave trains?If one of the photons reflects back along the outbound photon trajectory afyer moving a distance ct outbound, will not the photon arrive back at the emission point P after moving another reflected distance ct?Bluntly asked: Do two emitted pjoptons wave fronts defeine a unique invariant midpoint ? Aren't all photons not moving in the unverse theoretically defining the modpoints of their repectrive moving wave fronts, huge numbers of physical points in space that define velocity = 0 absolutely?0 -
It doesn't matter if they did the experiment. The point is that someone did experiments that confirmed or denied the theory.
I don't know who Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans are. Are you claiming that they have valid' date=' accepted theories that nobody else has been able to confirm, and when others do the experiment, that they get cntradictory results?
Theories get accepted because there is experimental evidence to back them up. They get rejected when the evidence contradicts the predictions. They get modified when that's appropriate.[/quote']
Bruno, the last martyr of the catholic church burned at the stake jan 1600. The Maid, Joan of Arc also broiled for justice sake.I recognize the protocl. But Swansont I also recognize that you and I aren't going to agree on much of SRT vs. Sagnac effect or other. I have a an absolute zero velocity frame on the forum, I would appreciate your input.G
0 -
To all who dare: This thread is not a disertation claiming any QM inclusion. The topics are QM in scope and there are many obvious similarities in problem recognition, but this isn't QM, so I will not be responding to QM responses unless critically relevant.Nonllocal force centers are localized in the chasnnel obstructions of Stern_Gerlach segments when performiong standard S-> T -,> S trransition experiments.The following is part instructional (we all need to pseak the same lanuage) and part formal descriptioon of physical systems. The transitions are seen in the sideview of the segments (3rd and 4ty figuress_ segment. However, for those unfamiliar with SG transitions, The first two figures indicate the transition of the first and second expression below,:S-> T -,> S,S-> T + B-> T andS-> S + B --,> SThe Rules of transition can be verified in Feynman's "lectures on physics" Vol III chapter 55. We differ only in the interpretation of the totality of the description of the science. The first transition shows the S to T to S transition where the particle state is first polarized into one of three possible T spin states and when exiting the T segment the particle reforms to the +S state. The segment spin state of the particle returns to the +S state, say we are using +S as a test vehicle.Then the T state must contain some information about the prepolarized state of the particle before entering the T segment. Now the particles move in one of three directions, wrt the T z-axis: up, down or horizontally wrt the T segment z-axis.
Some describe this transition as if the "wide open" segment was not present.This 2nd transition is identical to the first with the exception that the 2nd T segment has obtructions inserted in the middle and lower channels.In words the first trahsitons says the +S state particle is polarized to a T state when entering the T segment and reforme to the +S state when exiting the Tsegment. The second is almost the same except the added + B signifying the additions of blocks, or obstructuions.The particle state will become a permanent T state when passing through the plane of the obstructions.It is the obstructions that causally determine the permamnet change of state of the spin particle. But as the particle that survives does not directly contact the causal agent obstructions, the action on the resultant state of the particle is considered due to nonlocal/local force exchanges. We will use this language until proved that the causal elements were indeed local only, just obscured don't count in tthis.,The S --> S + B-> S is identical in physics to the S -> T +_ B -> T. In both cases the polarized state of the particcle in the Alien to domestic transition and domestic to domestic transiton of the S -?> S experiment are preserved permanently as the particle passes through the plane of the obnstructions, Withiout the obstructuions the particle state resolves to the original +S state. when exiting the T segment in field free space. Unlike the magnetic compass needle uising the force of the earth's maghnetic field to reorient the pertubed needle, thr spin 1 particle retuirn to e the pre-polarised state in field free space.Therefore there are unobserved existence critical elements of the observed spin state that are not expressed in the state vector function Y(S) = +S. There nmust be the reference to the nonlocal existenece critical elements of the S -> T transion (the nexess. nonllocal existence critical spin elements)
The figure below is largely instructionsal but uselful in udenstanding SG state transition rules thag have no analogue in QM, Again:this ain't QM.
The last two figures are introductory rules of transitions that are very simple as the number of various states are limited.. Once learning the drill, thye use of the proper transition rules find applicatuion in viertually every aspect of physics not touched by nonlocal modeling attributes,.
Remember the whole point of this threrad is the decription and location of nonlocal force centers.I will discuss the falsity of assuming the spin states of the partiucles are generated in the heat of the tungsten filament and also the revival of the modified rigidly attached randomly oriented spin state vector model discarded from incosistrency wrt SG tyransition results.[/size]Here is a ghraphics rich, math poor descripton of the most basic trasnsitions.
The spin states are the oriented magnetic spin vectors, The particles have to be polarized to the whim of the SG segment, and then the gyroscopic activity returns when the original spin state reforms or when a new state is formed after discarding the old.
0 -
I think I'm getting tired' date=' but - huh - light doesn't really travel in straight lines in a gravitational field..? It curves, but it does go straight as it crosses the falling elevator (frame), if spacetime (in that volume) doesn't curve too much..?
Actually, doesn't time vary way more than space in a weak field like the Earths..?
There must be a simple diagram...[/quote']
You will never measure the unambiguous nonlinear trajectory of a photon.SR/GR are hardly perceptible concepts and never measured, but a measured zero velocity frame of reference? Easy as pie.Two photons are emitted simultaneously in opposite, or even nonparallel directions. The photons' trajectory in the crossed axes case will intercept perpetually at the emission point of the photons. If any photon is reflected 180 degrees back along the outgoing wave front trajectory after moving a distance ct since the instant of emission, the photon will retirn to the emission point exactly afer traveling another distance ct whatever the rest of the universe is doing or observing friom their point of view.What about the universe and all the particles moving in relativemotion wrt each other? No problem, the zero velocity frame of reference is just another inertial frame, and the only frame that reasonably is actually measured properly re the the relative velocity of frame and photon with respect to an actual frame at rest, absolutely. The shortest distancwe between two theoretical points is to consider the measure of relative velocity of frame and photon as, Vc + Vf = Vcf , or = Vc - Vf = -Vcf . The c-v and c + v do not add velocity components to the speed of light. The c - v and c + v are forever expressions of relative motion between frame and photon.The infinity of motion is easiest observed from the radiation from the solar surface or below. Whatever the sun-earth distance, the measured angle between adjacent arriving wave fronts is always zero. It is only when one "steps back" and takes a look at the big picture do nonparallel concepts enter the mental discussion. iI the picture is confusing and one suggesting a real angle > 0 between adjacent wave fronts then prove to your self two items" " Prove you will not measure the curvature of the planet with any local earth bound meauring scheme other than flat and prove to yourself that the photon stream arriving from the sun is immeasurably other than that model gthagt stacksthe radiating photons in an nonflat geomegtry.The earth surface is always measured flat.The SAT trajectories deviqate immeasurably from intertial frames of reference. . Conjuring up a gross picture of circular motion does not mean a SAT trajectory can be measured other than a straight line in the SAT bound frame of reference.What is the absolute zero velocity reference frame, a joke? The absolute zero velocity inertial reference frame is a reference frame defines an infnite numver of points along the trakjectory of emitted photons that does not move wrt x, t, period. Have you ever observed an invariant point P in space thati snot moving? Have you ever taken an invariant spatial point to dinner and discussed the matttter with her intimately?In the Ching_Chuan Su paper Dr. Su informs us thatg the orbital motion of the earth around the sun is not subject to any measurement providing a significant result. The rotational motion of the planet at .464 km/sec is measureable within the earth bound system, In other words the rotational motion of the earth is measurable. If one accepts the reality of the statement tahthe orbital motion is not subject to Sagnac Effect analysis informs us that the current "gravity sucks" model of the plantary force providing equilibrium and complex stellar motion patterns. such as solar system models based on eternally evolvong helical solar system constructs require a drastic overhaul.I suggest that one's direction of enquiry include the stabalizing forces within the turnng motion of he solar system is directly and acausally related tothe maingtenance of gthe conservation of angular m,omentum.TYhe motion of the orbit of the planet is of extra-terrestral significance only and requires the balancing interplay of many massive contributions of stellar objects to maintain nondeviant angular momentum conditions.The force of gravity that throws one back to the ground when gtrying to polrvault tio the moon is from angular momentum considerations retricted to locval effects, as opposed to distant stellar effects. I got as far as consdering the surface of the planet as manifestin a tangential angular velocity component oriented in any angle wrt the flat earth surface. I broke down, but didn.t cry when I was unabkle tio see how a tangential angular momentum could be maintained by certainl fictional motions.The stacking of electrons in the familiar chart does not mean the static structure of the electrons in an atom can be gleaned from the combined condition of Mendeleyev's Chart. After all, atoms and molecules are different and certainly no combined condition as seen in the Mendeleyev descripotion is reeasonably forth comiong soon.When an electron is radiated fron adecaying atom there is no demand or clue even that the decay scheme is the result of a unique mode of force. Here, however, one must consider the total mass of Uranium, for instance in ferreting out information, and not juist to please the statistical expressions of the mathematical models. The mass of a hunk of Uranium affects the bulk activity.Prooof: The critival mass for a nuclear explosion is somewhere arounf 80 kg. Otherwise if less than this amount exists in a localized volume intended to explode, then if everything else is equal, the uraniium will not expliode in a chain reaction a la Almadgordo, and Trinity, release of energy, but you will get very nasty and dirty radiatively speaking in the immediate area.The gravity secret is best resolved in the transformation of a "sucking gravity" model to one based on the maintenance of the angular momentum of the evolving helical structure describing our moving solar syustemRepeat to Angular Momentum/Velocity Players: consider maintenance of a total angular momentum centered solar system model; When gyroscopes conserve motion (i.e. angular momentum) are the force exchanges always processed through local avenues of application or are action at a distance modes inferred? take some time to develop the model and all will be completed with equilibrium. Or are forbidden orthogonakl forces applied?[/indent
0 -
So it seems to me that relativity of simultaneity in GR really speaks to the irrelevance of actual simultaneity as opposed to a true sense of events occuring simultaneously as the causal structure of reality' date=' at least within GR models, is bounded by the speed of light.
But the immeasurability of simultaneity aside, haven't things like quantum entanglement and the Aspect experiment shown us that through non-locality things can be causally linked which aren't bound by the speed of light? Wouldn't that paint a picture of a universal 'now' in which events are truly simultaneous throughout all frames of reference, and that the apparent effect of relative simultaneity is merely due to maximum velocity and thus propagation of events through the causal structure, in most instances, being bound to c?
That's not to say that QM doesn't appear to undermine causal determinism in other ways (although I don't believe it does through any other means than incomplete understanding), but relativity of simultaneity appears to me more to be a problem of observation and not an inherent property of the universe itself...
Or perhaps I'm just scared to discard the idea of "now"[/quote']
Bascule,your understanding of simultaneity is just fine. I used the gedanken Einstein used in his book "Relativity" to see through the simultaneity problem. It took me some time to see that AEs example included an almost hidden reference that the passengers were looking at the photon motion assuming the train was at rest and the embankment moving. There are some obvious flaws in AEs conclusion.. The assumption that the frame is at rest and the embankment moving is not justified by any laws of physics, even the equivalence principal. The assumption of the rest state is arbitrary and the observer on the moving frame could just as well have assumed he was moving.The Observer O is at the midpoint of the photons just as the photons are emitted. Then O moves and sees the photon coming from in front first, then passengers behind O see the photons arrive simultaneously at the stationary midpoint, then the photon catches up from nehind. All thsi sequence coul dhave been plotted out by the moving observer as a schematic of a possible resolution of he problem..Once the First photon has been detected the rest is predictable, the midpoint is known to O . The A photon from behind is moving symmetrically with the forward photon. O claims that despite the information that the photons were emitted simultaneously, O insists that from his frame the photons were emitted sequentially.When O sees the data collected by two moving observers at the A and B position just as the photons were emitted, both clocks are synchronized and the data is made availabkle to O, who must now conlcude the photons were emitted simultaneoulsy in the moving frame of reference other wise the photons would not have arived simultaneously at the midpoint as verified by passengers at the location on the train giving them a view of the photon arrival at the midpoint. If the photons were emmitted sequentually they wouldn't arrive at the midpoint at the same instantI don't see how Einstein got away with the gibbrish for so long."Now" is a three letter word. There are events ocurring all over the universe right now, that doesn't mean that all the events are open to us for scrutiny, but the negation of simultraneity is not implied for this lack of inforamtion.I see SRT as a negation of the concept of motion. Set the frame motion to zero,and then measure the speed of light wrt the frame, wow set the frame to zero motion and the relative velodity of frame and photon will always be c..
0 -
Johnny5,
Thank you for the comments. I wanted this to be a two, three paragraph proof but it got away from me. I had intended a contraqdiction proof, by assuming that no localized point in space could be determined then show the converse. Let's do that. There is no unique point in space that is possibly invariant as defined by the location of physical processes.
Two photon are emitted in opposite directions from each other at t = 0. As the photons are moviong at the same speed they move the same distance in equal times. Likewsie, as the distance to P from both photons is the same the point P is defined continuously as the midpoint of the photon wave fronf expanding as independent photons. As the photons move in a straight-line until acted on by an external force, and no external force being found here the trajectory of the two photons will be maintained along the same straight-line. The distances traveled also being identical establishes the invariance of the point P. If after moving a distance ct the left photon say is reflected back to the zero point and the initial photon vector, while p has moved from the original point of emission. If the photon reflects back on the same trajectory , which by definition is a straight line, then the continued straight line must be invariant as any deviation from the straight line would mean the constancy of direction is not maintained and the straight line woul d be broken. The return to the starting point of the initial velocity vector is a return to the emission point defined as P. But P was assumed to have moved, which, by the laws of light motion the straight-line trajectory is preserved the invariance of the point P along any line drawn through the midpoint except on the photon trajectory, If motion of p was along either of the two photon;s uniique trajectory space, then at least one of the reflected photon will overrun the moved pont P before arriving back at at the start of the initial photon vector. However, the simultaneously reflected photons each equal distance from the point P must necessarily arrive back at reflected photon emission point. An invriant straight line plus the equality of equal motion in equal time insists the point P is determined for all time remaining in the universe. Even perturbations of the photon trajectory will only obscure the location of the point, bot nothing wll move the point. hence the assumption that the point P is variant is diosproved and the invarianc of the emission point of the photons is maintained. QED[/indent]
0 -
The proof of the absolute zero velocity inertial frame is focused on the simple statement that the inertial frame should be proved invariant in absolute space and time for some delta t > 0. This proof is not subject to agreement by any number of scientific thinkers as the proof is transcendent to the mental dynamic of the signifcance of any "acceptance" protocol.The use of two widely understood postulates of light iare incorporated in the proof
- First is the postulate that the motion of light is independent of any motion of the soutrce of the light and second,
- the speed of light is a constant c measured form any inertal frame of reference,and
-
included in these postulates are the understanding that,
- an emitted photon will travel in a straight-line trajectory, potentially eternally, or until acted upon by and ouitside force and likewise,
- light travels equal; distance in equal times.
As stated above we need but discover some delta t where a localized point in space is spatially invariant for sonme delta t >0.-
Two photons are emitted simultaneously in opposite directions from each other. The motion of each photons expanding wave fromt moves frome the emission point P such that P remains the continuously defined invariant point P. In deep space far from perturbations of nny kind, the P remains defined for the duration of the longevity of the invariant straight-line trajectories of equal length of the two photons motion distance.
-
One of the photons, say the one moving to the left, wrt P, is reflected after moving a distance ct 180 degree back along the outgoing trajectory. After the completion of this second ct leg of travel, the L photon has arrived back at the point P and if the Right moving photon R were reflected at the same time as the L photon the photons would arrive at P sinmultaneously. However, either , or both of the photons can be used to localize and find P at any time.
-
Assume the frame is moving, wrt the embankment, and coincidentally moving wrt P. The reflector/ clocks are located equal distances from P on the Left and right ends of the inertial frame. When the photons are emitted simultaneously from the emission point the L photon heads to the in coming L clock and is recorded arriving at L after moving a distance ct, wrt the point P . L is reflected back another distance ct and is located at point P instantaneously and is located a distance 2vt (v unknown at this instant) from the physical midpoint of the photon sources which is heading away from L (P is also 2vt from the physical midpoint at the same instant L has moved 2ct)
- After the initial distance of ct traveled by the R photon it is located the small distance 2vt from the R clock as the L photon was later after moving a distance 2ct. Here R is heading towrd the on coming physical midpoint of the moving frame a distance 2vt + 2vt' from the physical midpoint (L is 2vt away from the physical midpoint here where both photons have moved a distance 2ct wrt P. containing the reflector and emiission point and
- finally the photons converge simultaneously at the physical midpoint measuring the total time difference of the round trip of the photons as t' wrt the stationary and moving conditions of the test.
It is coincidental that the point P can be referenced in the moving or stationary frame of reference withouit changing the results of the photon motion tests.The small distance the photon must travel crossing the 2vt distance, that added on vt', accounts for the final frame motion after moving the inital distance 2vt when the photons were moving the distances 2ct each.The coordinated motion of frame and photon are classically derived and beautifully coordinated. Rememebr the t' and v expressions are all measured on the moving frame. All motion and times are measured wrt the constant invariant motion of the photons moving in the directions indicated, or when the frame was at rest wrt the embankment.What is the measured velocity of the speed of light wrt to the physically constructed zero velocity emission point P, as maintained and accounted for in space and time without error or deviation? The answer is the speed of light wrt P is c, eternally, at least in the local conditions observed here.What could a moving observer O have to consider to vary the results stated here? Absolutely nothing. O sees events as they unfold, not before. Therefore , any considerations that O might have regarding the state of motion of the moving frame is purespeculation and will have to wait until the significant data is gathered in one spot and analyzed.First, O sees the simultaneous emission of the photons at the physical midpoint of the frame and nothing else, yet. Because he is unable tio distinguish any motion in his train compartment (or space ship) his assumption that he is at rest wrt to the embankment is premature at the instant the photons were emitted.The photon arrives at L before the R photon arrives at R, by a time t'. This data only reaches O after the photons arrive back at the physical midpoint of the moving frame, simultaneously. The data is time tagged with the arrival times at L and R as well as the arrival time of the photon a time t' greater than that when the test is done in the stationary frame of reference.the t' s derived from ct' = 2vt + vt' the distance the photon has to cover to arrive at he moving clock froma a distance 2vt from the clock.t' = t(2v)/(c - v)If t' = 0 there is no motion, If t' > 0 motion is assured.This shows a measurable delta time for velocities much less than SR could ever hope to measure, Likewise, the classical t' here is much more selective than the SR time dilation formulae in units of velocity. This is seen in the v/(1 - v) factor that increases in the t' expression (assuming the unit speed of light) faster than at lower velocities than the SRT gamma. Velocity ,then is seen asv = ct'/(2t + t')A reminder to every one still with us here right now: the postulate of light that assures us of the independent motion of light, assuming no velocity components of the moving frame of treference and the measurment of the realtive velocity iof the speed of light with respect to the interial frame of reference the zero velocity of the invariant point P. are the attributes of light motion that allow for thias omple classic analysis of light motion..Now what does any observer have to do with changing these results? Nothing,absolutely nothing.All earth bound meaurements of relative velocity of object and embankment always is preceeded by an intial acceleration of the object, never the embankment, that provides the velocity later termed as the 'relative motion' of object and frame and embankment. For massive objects the embankment refrerence frame is a perfect absolute zero velocity reference frame. Motion measured wrt to any point on the surface of the planet can be used as reference point. Any measurment of frame andf photons wrt the embankment can be cnducted with any degeree of accuracy desired or budgeted for, The motion of all points on the surface of the embankment can be corrected for in any measuremnt. A point moving on the equater for instance is moving at a speed of .464 km/sec. A photon of light that is measured wrt the moving earth frame will have it turning motion 360 degrees /(24x 3600) or at a rotation rate of .004 degrees/sec. Any error due to acceleration effects of the embankment can easily be detected. Rotational motion without acceleration affects do not distract from the inertial characterstics of the rotating frame of reference, as there are no acceleration effects measurable on the embankment surface. and similalry for the orbiting SATs that can and are treated classically as if the frames were purely inetial.Likewise, in accord withe zero velocity frame of reference described her in simplicity all planetary motion significantly affecting any physical result can be corrected for by eliminating the acceleration affects due to earth motion when and if such accelerations are ever found.The plan was to describe a reference frame in no measurable motion v > 0 as defined by the independency and constancy postuilates governing the motion of light. The emitted photons moving in a straight line wrt P at constant and exactly equivalent speeds proves the invariance of the point P wrt anything in the universe. P i s a unique position in space to the exclusion of all other points in the physical universe. That the rest motion is defined by the motion of light itself will incite some to claim the negation of the absolute zero velocity of the point P. But these are the lost sheep we return to their classical fold.Here is a summary below of three gedankens discussed in the literature not in terms of the Sagnac effect, but as a bases for supporting the SRTin terms of simultabneity for the most part. Those assumptioon of frame at rest is the bugaboo of SRT. The ssoner one sees theat SRT is purely a negation of the conceptf physical motoons. How else to meaure the relative sopeed fliught of ftrame and motion as C when the frame us preseumed at rest, i.e. the motion is negated by SRT theory.I am especially fond of the example B whre the moving Observer sees the forward photon before the one arriving from the rear. Like the desciption in the example of the proof the Observer can make no rational conclusion regarding the assumptions of the moving observer's frame of reference.. We assume the moving observer has conducted thousands of tests like the one described here so we aren't going to allow some technically ignorant geek to make the assumption of motion before the datas is acquired. This is a basic protocol of experimenntal physics . Physical conclusions are made form the experimental results of physical data. acquisition.Be aware that the example gedanken below are constructed with a shorthand in miond. The last stage of the photon moption in case A is expanded to indicate the physical nature of vt, vt' and ct and the invariance of the point P. Like some have suggested in this forum, study the classical view and you shall be free.
0 -
Experiments demonstrate the validity of scientific claims. The paper cannot both propose a model and claim success without some empirical evidence being presented. And since Su points out the difference between his theory and accepted theory is very small, you can't currently confirm his theory.I have no major quarrel, however, look at the overall meaning of the paper. The orbital motion of the earth is not measurable as affecting the motion of light, in that an orbital Sagnac device is doomed to failure regarding relative motion of the earth orbiting frame.This finding goes beyond SR and the Sagnac Effect as it describes a restricted application of orital motion. It is as if the orbital motion is confined to etxraterrtrial events and that the local earth frame can be considered ether based in the sense of the earth gravity affect on the motion of the light and of coure the accelration affectws dueing launch of the SAT. Even considering the claims of light speed variation in some planetraty transmision experiment, with in any local volume the light speed variations are insiginificant.Check something for me on this Swansont. Miller claimed a sun velocity of 208 km/sec in a general southerly heading. If we assume the numbers are fairly accurate (there are simlar figures for different dirctions reported by others) then the orbiting velocity vector is tangent to the orbit trajectory which is basically orthogonal to the sun motion. The rotational motion imposes a daily oscialltion on the orbiting motion.Now when we calulate the net velocity vector of the earth considering the three modes of motion we have v2= 2082+ 30.64[sup ]2[/sup]or a 44192 + 920 =45120 and taking the square root, the net velocity vector is 212.4 where the direction is approximately 8 egrees off the sun direction of motion rotating around the sun trajectory.Calculating distance we use the sun velocity of 208 km/sec x 31558464 sec = 6.56 x 109for the sun yearly linear distance. The orbital distance in one year for the earth is 30 x 31558464 =.946x 109. the angle in the distance difference is tan--1.946/6.56 or approximately 8 degrees that checks with the velocity vector.Now, if Su is correct in the statement that the orbital motion is not measurable on the earth bound light motion then clearly the orbital dynamics are uniquely exterior to the earth bound light motion. The huge difference in orbital and rotational speed does not resolve the issue. One would think, linearly, just the opposite is true and that the orbital motion ovewhelms the rotational motion that might be seen sporadically depending on the accuracy of the measurements.If all this be true, even without the assumed 208 km/sec sun vel;ocity dragging all the planets along in a helical evolving trajectory a for all the planets enclosed by Neptune on the outer fringes as the hierarchy of enclosing planets decays stepwise down into the geneal helix.Methinks gravity as we normally consider it is a grossly misplaced concept. If for nothing else the helical sgtructure of solar systems moving helically do not jkbe with a mass centered attraction model of gravity., nor of GHR model of the yrved forceless universe.But it isn't an actual experiment' date=' is it? Or have you actually done this measurement?[/quote']No more did I do the experiment in the opening post of this thread gthan did Einstein, or SDavid Bohm et al when they discussed various arrangements of the basic Sagnac arrrangement. The case where the observer is at the physical midpoint of light sources just as the sources emit light is discussed at length by AE. The moving observer sees the light coming from the forward before the light arrives from the rear and concludes the forward light was turned on before the one from the rear, The observer on the moving frame assumes her position state of motion is at rest wrt the embankment.[/quote=Swansont]I did point out that the Michelson interferometer is an equivalent measurement, and that everybody not named Miller that does the experiment concludes that we can't measure absolute velocities, because there is no preferred frame that everybody will agree is at rest.Agreement , "everyone" is insignioficant. Using this line of reaoniong no phsicaltheory would ever suffer amendments and we are sitll agonizing over this 'political thread" in the mainstream of science today. Agrrement has nothing to do with it.just ask Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans.See my latest thread proving the absolute zero velocity inertial frame of reference using the postulates of SRT.I get that Ashby actually worked on GPS, and that the other two are trying to advance alternate theories. Relativity is undeniably part of GPS, as is the Sagnac effect.Hatch is a major technical leader in the company he works for, NavComTech, GPS is his business.You spend much time discussing the linear Sagnac effect as not equivalent to the rotaional Sagnac, yet you say right here and now that the SATs and th receivers are both moving in noninertial frames of reference and that these motions are SRT relevant? It sure seems like a convenience of platforms excuse here is developing. This rotating frame does, another doesn't "include SR, what is the unambiguous rule?.Sounds like a double standard of convenience of sorts here . Some rotating frames are inertial wrt SRT some are not? Hmmmm..I can't fathom the misunderstanding that lets one use "spinning disc" as a test bed, and make any conclusion that includes the phrase "straight-line motion."Take your laser into the 30 k km radius orbit and deterrmine the measured variation from straight-line motion of the SAT. Or measure the curvatuire of the earth, home bound. You know don't you thagt the measured surface of the earth is flat?The fatal flaw in Kelly's paper is that he apparently doesn't understand what an inertial frame is. His Sagnac derivation, from what I could tell, is fine, but he concludes that because the rotating observer sees a speed of light other than c, that this applies to all frames. A rotating frame is not inertial, and you can measure absolute rotation. How? By measuring that the speed of light isn't c, which is precisely what the Sagnac effect does! But you can't "unfold" it and make the same conclusion about an inertial frame.No you are in error. he says the measurments of rotaing fromes and linear ones are identical. It was Einstein that suggested "unfoldiong "the rotating circular Sagnac.Here is a Kelly quote:"Yet another test, done by Michelson [9] (1913), confirms that light travels in relation to the laboratory. In this test he bounced light beams off rotating mirrors, which were rotating at 1800 rpm. He proved from the resulting fringe shift that:(1) the light does not bounce off such a mirror, as would a tennis ball bounce off a moving racquet.(2) light does not take up the movement of the mirror; that is, the velocity of the source of the reflected beam coming off the rotating mirror does not have any change in its velocity, caused by that moving mirror.(3) the light actually ignores the whole rotating apparatus. It moves solely with respect to the laboratory.This test is a clear confirmation that the conclusions in this paper in respect of Sagnac-type tests are correct. The accuracy of the Michelson test was 1:50."and another"During the Michelson & Gale test, the earth turned through an orbital angle of 2.3 x 10-10 degrees. So, this rotation is less by 10,000,000,000 than the frame acceptable in the H & K case."and another,"it is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line;….if we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2tv2/c2 second slow.Even though the effect he described is infinitesimally smaller than the Sagnac effect it is the argument of application, from a straight path to a curved path, that is of interest here."and another, testing the Swansont statement regarding inertial frame definitions."In the original Sagnac test the earth would have turned 2.8 x 10-13 orbital degrees during the test. During a GPS test around the globe at the equator, the earth would have turned by 10,000,000 times the amount it turned during a Sagnac test. Pretending that SR does not apply to rotation, while at the same time applying it daily to experiments like the Global Positioning System, that has a far greater amount of rotation than the Sagnac experiment, is indefensible. We could be forgiven for saying that this is a very biased selection of what is termed an 'Inertial Frame'."and the last for now:"A recent ingenious test by Wang et al. (2003) [23] shows that the Sagnac result is also got by sending out light in a straight line portion of the light path and back again. This is what this author claimed above, but it is so much more convincing when an actual experiment has shown the same thing. Wang achieved the seemingly impossible, by reversing a light beam sent out on a straight line on a moving platform and measuring the difference in time to return."Akso. Kelly amkes the point that many derivations of the Sagnac mathematical models are shape independent. and That the observers can be on the rotaaing disc or the lab, frame the resutls are the same. Your statements regarding the "inertial frame " misunderstanding of Kelly is misplaced.I was absent for a few days so I thought I would catch to sppeed, no pun, up with some varied answers to your post.0
-
Swansont' date=' You are making the problem more complex than it deserves. When they discuss measuring speeds of lightr other than C, or "non-isotropically" they are not implying the light actually slows down or speeds up they are merely using the expressions c + v and C - v to determine the relative motion of frame and photons. The speed of klight is consgtant, at c, but light travels C - v faster tnaty v, or combines into a relative velocity c + V when frame and photon are moving in oppsote directions to each other.[/indent']Swansont, you do realize that we are not going to resolve the issue of the integrity of SRT by the comparitive posts we have been exchanging? Like Miller confirmed MM, were you aware of this? How do we analyze the MM analogue experiments like the one that was done in a balloon high in the atmosphere? We are treating the issue as if SRT was on trial for murder, when it isn't on trial. I have attemted in the opening post of this thread, to deascribe a system void in Sagnac and. or SRT rhetoric and/or effects. I haven't been succesful so far, . I have just completed some serious thinking on the matter and I believe I have arrived at a solution that is neither , SRT , nor Sagnac.I will be posting shortiy.0
-
Experiments demonstrate the validity of scientific claims. The paper cannot both propose a model and claim success without some empirical evidence being presented. And since Su points out the difference between his theory and accepted theory is very small' date=' you can't currently confirm his theory.
But it isn't an actual experiment, is it? Or have you actually done this measurement?
I did point out that the Michelson interferometer is an equivalent measurement, and that everybody not named Miller that does the experiment concludes that we can't measure absolute velocities, because there is no preferred frame that everybody will agree is at rest.
I get that Ashby actually worked on GPS, and that the other two are trying to advance alternate theories. Relativity is undeniably part of GPS, as is the Sagnac effect.
I can't fathom the misunderstanding that lets one use "spinning disc" as a test bed, and make any conclusion that includes the phrase "straight-line motion."
The fatal flaw in Kelly's paper is that he apparently doesn't understand what an inertial frame is. His Sagnac derivation, from what I could tell, is fine, but he concludes that because the rotating observer sees a speed of light other than c, that this applies to all frames. A rotating frame is not inertial, and you can measure absolute rotation. How? By measuring that the speed of light isn't c, which is precisely what the Sagnac effect does! But you can't "unfold" it and make the same conclusion about an inertial frame.[/quote']
Swansont, You are making the problem more complex than it deserves. When they discuss measuring speeds of lightr other than C, or "non-isotropically" they are not implying the light actually slows down or speeds up they are merely using the expressions c + v and C - v to determine the relative motion of frame and photons. The speed of klight is consgtant, at c, but light travels C - v faster tnaty v, or combines into a relative velocity c + V when frame and photon are moving in oppsote directions to each other.0 -
It will take me awhile to analyze this' date=' but I will.
In the meantime, what does kiesel mean?
Geist means ghost?
Regards[/quote']
kiesel is tranlated literally as "pebbles". Now everybody knows!.Hint I simply broke the motion into convenient segments. The first ct the distance the photon move initially. . vt the distance the frame moves in time t. How far away from the right clock is the right photon after moving ct *the same distance the left photon just moved? Look at the left photon : if d is the distance of midpoint to clock then the left photon has reached vt short of the clock,'s initial position., so then put the right photon also vt short of the right clock, plus the vt the frame has moved when the photons moved a distance ct.0 -
The earth doesn't meet the ball unless in the size of the moon, or another stellar object of comparable size and mass.
Man, I need to brush up on my English... I don't understand a word... well... I understand the words... just not the order... sorry... ima dumas...
Little balls have no effect on moving big balls next to them, but big balls now move heaven and earth when someone's squeezing them..
0 -
You realize your response is unprovable, do you not? The earth doesn't meet the ball unless in the size of the moon, or another stellar object of comparable size and mass.
Conservation of momentum. You cannot change the velocity of the centre of mass of a closed system. If you pick a reference frame where the centre of mass is at rest, it must remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it.
If you mean the Earth/ball example is unmeasurable, you are no doubt correct, but if you sit down where you are standing you will have "raised" the Earth relative to where it would have been otherwise and all other things being equal.
Come on JC MAcSwell, we are talking senssibly here. HJave you had your spot of tea yet? There is no analogue with any physical significance that says I raised the earth to meet me when sitting down. I necessarily closed the distance from my standring position to one closer to the center of the earth, and eveybody knows it did not happen equivalently with me raising the earth, even you know it.One can inject philosphical and theoretical models attempting to equate various symmetrical arangements, but when train stations accelerate and move uniformly while the trains are at rest wrt the train stations one has described a physically impossible conditon to ever produce. Ever. From, the sake of argument I will even grant you any theoretical justification you choose to impose here in the discussion, but what ever science you come up with the fact is "I sat diown to earth", " I did not sit up to earth". trust me on this. JC McSwell.Hey, JC, you have heard of the phrase, "please sit down" have you? You cannot tell me when some tells you to "please sit down" that you actually wait there until the earth 'raises up' to you do you? hey, I may be wrong in all this and if so then I take in the professional neck of my scientific reputation of having made an incorrect statement on such a fundamenmtal issue regarding a matter of physical law. Did Einstein raise the earth when he sat down.Mybe the earth raisers are actually the causal entity of earthquakes and tunamis??
0 -
The rotating ring is an accelerated frame of reference, while the constancy of the speed of light © applies only in inertial frames of reference (uniform motion).I understand, but what if any measurements taken in a turning frame are indistinguishable from uniform motion? may we apply SRT there?0
-
In the earth frame, the ball is moving forward and strikes the stationary earth, exerting a force on it. The earth exerts a backward force on the ball, slowing it down.In the earth frame the train and the ball are both moving forward. The ball will effectively bounce straight up. But if the observer is assuming herself at rest and expects the ball to act accordingly to her assumption; she will be disappointed correct?The observer assuimg a state of rest wrt the embankment cannot do so without violating the conservation of momentum principal. If the moving ovserver does assume a state of rest and drops the ball from the window she quickly learns that it is her frame of refererence that moves wrt to the emabnkment which remains at rest.So much for the equivalence of inertial frames postulate.0
-
As soon as you say "accelerated" you are trying to apply SR to a situation it doesn't cover. It applies to the comparison of inertial frames.SRT covers this condition. I am saying the object that accelerated and produced the motion that is observed as relative motion wrt the embankment is seen in the literature as assumnvg a state of rest wrt the emabnkment, Thses are two conditions of physical impossibility. SRT negates the concept of motion.0
-
It is a neat trick. The opposite has been done with corner reflector cubes on the moon, but over such a large distance the laser spot gets pretty big.
Yes, as I remember 15 km sounds like the order of magnitude of the beam width, striking the moon, still a neat trick to hit the targets approxiinmately 1 square meter.
0 -
The truthful and correct answer is yes' date=' when what happens is viewed from the center of mass frame.
Takes only a second to explain.[/quote']
Regards
You realize your response is unprovable, do you not? The earth doesn't meet the ball unless in the size of the moon, or another stellar object of comparable size and mass.
0 -
Because the Sagnac effect depends on the angular speed' date=' not the linear speed. For as much as you've posted on the subject, one might think that you'd know this.
Su and Hatch are proposing ether-based theories, which have not been substantiated. Su admits "This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude." IOW, don;t hold your breath waiting for this to be confirmed. You can't use ether theories to attempt to show defects in relativity.[/quote']
Wait for what to be confirmed? The paper is confirmation of what it says. You aren't suggesting some "official panel" determines the applicability of scientific claims are you?
I am not trying to find defects in realtivity. I am showing that relativity is not necessary to explain the Sagnac effect. There is a difference you know.
And by the way no one has pointed to any defects in the schematic figure in the opening post of this thread. I wonder why that is?All teh paper stated in teh title was that an absolute zero velocity is achievable. And does not the experiment design demonstartae the simplicity of this?
In this same direction Ashby's paper does not show relativity effects in GPS, thouigh he claism certain phenomena are relativistic. Put Ashby's paper up to Hatch'es, Kelly's and Su's PAper and what do you get? I get that SRT is not intrinsically a part of GPS activity.
Thjis is the belated link that demonstartes that the Sagnac effect is not purely rotational.
Here is the concluding paagraph of the link:
"We have proved that for a general configuration of the Sagnac experiment, and on the assumption that light travels with respect to the fixed laboratory, the difference in time for two beams going in opposing directions to traverse the light path is the Sagnac formula.
To synopsize, the facts of the Sagnac tests are as follows:
1. The light beams are in synchronism when released.
2. The light beams are not in synchronism when they have completed one turn of the apparatus.
3. Any observer on board the rotating apparatus, or stationary in the laboratory, will observe identical fringe shifts. If the observer is in the laboratory, there would be a very small Doppler effect when observing the moving apparatus, but, this is insignificant and will not make any observable difference to the result. There was no Doppler effect whatever, in the original Sagnac test, because the observations were made aboard the spinning disc, and the observation point was at a constant distance from the point of interference.
4. The light is behaving as if it were travelling at constant speed relative to the laboratory. It ignores the spinning of the apparatus. The light does not travel at a constant speed relative to the observer aboard that spinning apparatus. As seen from the mathematical derivation from Figure 2, the light does not go at a speed of c with respect to the observer upon the spinning apparatus. Going in one direction, it measures as going slower than c, and going in the other direction it measures as going at a speed higher than c.
5. Time and distance aboard a spinning disc are identical with time and distance in the stationary laboratory. They are also identical aboard an object that is moving at uniform velocity in a straight line.
Conclusion
The Sagnac effect applies to uniform straight-line motion, just as it does to rotational motion. "
0 -
You accept the consistency of the math' date=' but not the experimental results?
Or not the physical interpretation?[/quote']
I will assume the math is as you say, but I see no real physical connection. In fact I see that the statement effectively negates the concept of motion. In the sense that if you are on a train that accelerated and therefore was in a state of motion wrt the embankment, thagtdid not accelerate and you assume yourself in a state of rest (using the equivalence of inertial frames postulate) and the embankment moving at your initial speed, you have effectively negated your own speed. And more, you have created two impiossibile physical conditions that can never be produced (and therefore cannot be used to verify SRT assumptiosn): You have generated speed in the embankment, and you have negated the motion of the train.
My objections to SRT are nmore than philosophical.
Is it not true that all observed relative motion with earthbound objects and the earth are generated by the acceleration of the object only, and that never is the earth accelerated to generate realtive motion of earthframe anad earthbound object? The acceleration of one of the "twins" in the twin paradox was used to rationalize the lack of reciprocity in that using SRT and the equivalence postutlate one may equally say that either twin aged faster than the other. To me that was an admission of of the weakness of SRT. The equivalence postulate flows from the claim that the relative speed of light is the same when measured from all inertial frames, which effectivley negates the speed of all inertial frames. It may not seem like that mathematically, but physically this is what SRT is doing.
One never sees much discussion that the the speed of light stratement is directed at the relative speed of light wrt frame and photon. When mweasuring the sopeed of light firectly wrt v = 0, the constancy of the speed of light will alwaqyas measure c, which is what the mathematics does in describing the measure of the relative motion of frrame and photon.
0 -
If Miller used the wrong equation' date=' how can you quote his results as being valid?
AFAIK GPS doesn't exclude the orbital Saganac due to nonexistence, it ignores it because it's small - 365 times smaller than the rotational Sagnac because the Sagnac effect depends on angular speed, not linear speed, and so it it excludes itself - the largest the rotational term can be is ~ 200 ns. But the MM interferometer does depend on linear speed, so it is a gross misapplication of results for you to apply the terms of one experiment to a completely different one.
It seems that your thesis is that there should be deflection of the perpendicular beam but not a speed correction. The example I gave before, with the fiber coupling, contradicts that argument. Are you going to continue to ignore this?[/quote']
How can Sagnac exclude Orbital data because it is too small yet detect rotational motion of the earth which is on the order of 1/100 orbital velocity. I claim the MM and Miller's data is skewed by the difference in the error that they and everybody esle used. However, the results are of magitude only. As I remember I was criticizing the use of MM data to explain SRT. In any event MM and Miller's data was consistent even tho both misused the laws of physics in creating the measure of the time of flight for the deflected beam.
You can answeer the question yourself : Does a beam moving perpendicular toa moving mirror reflect perpendicular to the mirror or is that eam deflected in the general direction of the moving mirror [which would impose a component of velocity on the light beam]?
I do not understand what you mean by "speed correction". The interferometer moves a few microns while the beam is deflected and returned in a total of 32 meters total. I took your meaning to be a correction of interferometer speed.
There is only a delay in the signal as the beam is deflected and return as the intrerferometer moves through space on the order of microns when using rortational data anada the orbital data is ignored. MM might depend on linear speed, but how do you assert rotational speed to linear in the MM experiment?
Here is a quote by Robn Hatch regarding the linear vs. rotaional effect of Sagnac:
"In the GPS system a non-rotating earth-centered isotropic-light-speed frame is assumed. Again, the motion of the receiver during the time the signal transits from the satellite to the receiver must be accounted for to obtain precise navigation results. In the GPS context, this effect is referred to as the one-way Sagnac effect and is blamed upon the rotation of the earth. But the receiver must account for its motion during the transit time no matter the source of the motion. It does not matter whether or not it follows a circular trajectory. The critical range which must be determined is the position of the satellite at the time the signal was transmitted and the position of the receiver at the time of its receipt. The path the receiver followed during the time of flight of the signal is completely irrelevant. This is consistent with the argument of Ives [3] that even the original Sagnac experimental results were not specifically due to rotation. Ives suggested an experimental proof designed to show the effect did not require rotation. In a beautiful modification of Ives suggestion, Ruyong Wang [4] has constructed what he calls a Fiber Optic Conveyer (FOC) which directly verifies that linear motion does not affect the speed of light."
Here is the Hatch reference to the claim that the Sagnac effect does not require rotation
0
The "double slit" phenomenon.
in Quantum Theory
Posted