Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: JM Albuquerque on 17 Sep 2007 21:49 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem news:13eu0remsf929e0(a)corp.supernews.com... > "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message > news:5l7j8bF6oahvU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem >> news:13es33ajmcq075d(a)corp.supernews.com... >>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message >>> news:5l67lfF6kvn6U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> >>>> "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem >>>> news:13eroh42drigfe6(a)corp.supernews.com... > [snip] >>> Its a means of calculating rotation by looking at the interference >>> patterm from two beams of light going in a clockwise and anti-clockwise >>> direction >> >> Yes, I understand that. Basically it's the classical interpretation of >> the Sagnac's interferometer. > > It IS the Sagnac's interferometer > >> First I was wrong about the setup. Now with the correct setup, I have >> no problem to see the problem and use a rotating coordinate system >> to came up with that classical result. > [snip] >> >> I agree, Sagnac's setup measures rotation. Plain classical. > > You mean that SR and classical ether would give the same results. > Ballistic/emission theory is refuted > >> But shouldn't we expect something more then classical ? > > Not when it is correct. Just like MMX gives expected results for SR and > Ballaistic theory, but not classical ether. > >> I have no problem to understand that the speed of light is >> independent of the source's velocity. > > Good > >> The hard to understand (and believe) is that the speed of >> light is independent of the observer's velocity, which can't >> be seen in any classic problem. >> >> So I would like to ask you a question, please. >> If we do the same Sagnac's experiment by means of the >> use of sound waves, instead of light waves, shouldn't we >> get exactly the same result, > > Yes (if it could be done in practice) .. just like you would with a > classical ether. Good. Now I absolutely sure Sagnac is a classical problem. > Sagnac doesn't refute SR or classical ether .. it refutes emission theory > MMX doesn't refute SR or emission theory .. it refutes classical ether. > > Together those two experiemtns refute classical ether and emisisons > theories. We are left with SR (and its equivalents like LET). I presume that your "classical ether" shoud be a stationary ether. From all that I understand, nor Sagnac, nor MMX refutes a stationary ether, so that all that we have to know is that the speed of light is constant. So being, no need of a physical ether. MMX and Sagnac, both refutes the existence of any ether-wind. So we are left with SR ... I'm still not convinced that Sagnac's interferometer doesn't show that the speed of light is in fact dependent on observer's speed. For a rotating FoR its clear now that Sagnac's proves the speed of light not independent on observer's rotating speed. But, of course that rotating FoR don't fit the inertial requirements. Nevertheless, light don't have mass, so I cannot see what a pure mirror reflection has to do with inertia (acceleration) so that Sagnac setup is not inertial.
From: Dono on 17 Sep 2007 22:09 On Sep 17, 6:49 pm, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...(a)clix.pt> wrote: > For a rotating FoR its clear now that Sagnac's proves the speed > of light not independent on observer's rotating speed. > You will need to show your calculations in order to prove that. So, show the calculations.
From: JM Albuquerque on 17 Sep 2007 22:38 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem news:1190081392.288775.32060(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 17, 6:49 pm, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...(a)clix.pt> wrote: > >> For a rotating FoR its clear now that Sagnac's proves the speed >> of light not independent on observer's rotating speed. >> > > > You will need to show your calculations in order to prove that. So, > show the calculations. It's not a matter of calculation. Calculation have been done and I've already commented them. You can see them here: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm This is a matter of brain processing power so that to have a clear picture on what's going on. For this problem you will also need to have some skills on rotating FoR. Then it's plain classical mechanics.
From: Dono on 17 Sep 2007 22:46 On Sep 17, 7:38 pm, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...(a)clix.pt> wrote: > "Dono" <sa...(a)comcast.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:1190081392.288775.32060(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On Sep 17, 6:49 pm, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...(a)clix.pt> wrote: > > >> For a rotating FoR its clear now that Sagnac's proves the speed > >> of light not independent on observer's rotating speed. > > > You will need to show your calculations in order to prove that. So, > > show the calculations. > > It's not a matter of calculation. Calculation have been done > and I've already commented them. You can see them here:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm Yes, I pointed that link to you. > This is a matter of brain processing power so that to have > a clear picture on what's going on. For this problem you > will also need to have some skills on rotating FoR > Then it's plain classical mechanics. I thought so: you are all bluster and have no ability to calculate anything.For your infoemation, fatso: contrary to the stupidity you wrote, light speed is INDEPENDENT of the observer speed.Rotating or not, fatso. :-)
From: Jeckyl on 18 Sep 2007 00:46
"JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message news:5l8p5iF70cqbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem > news:13eu0remsf929e0(a)corp.supernews.com... >>> So I would like to ask you a question, please. >>> If we do the same Sagnac's experiment by means of the >>> use of sound waves, instead of light waves, shouldn't we >>> get exactly the same result, >> Yes (if it could be done in practice) .. just like you would with a >> classical ether. > Good. > Now I absolutely sure Sagnac is a classical problem. What exactly do you mean by a classical problem? If you mean one that could be solved by the classical ether (ie no lorentz contraction etc), then yes .. but that theory is refuted If you mean one that could be solved by the classical ballistic theories, then no, as they don't predict the experimental results >> Sagnac doesn't refute SR or classical ether .. it refutes emission theory >> MMX doesn't refute SR or emission theory .. it refutes classical ether. >> Together those two experiemtns refute classical ether and emisisons >> theories. We are left with SR (and its equivalents like LET). > > I presume that your "classical ether" shoud be a stationary ether. That's waht I mean. .teh calssical ether concept .. the one refuted by MMX ... not the ether of LET with its Loretnz transforms > From all that I understand, nor Sagnac, nor MMX refutes a > stationary ether, MMX refutes a classical stationary ether. It doesn't refute the ether of LET. > so that all that we have to know is that the > speed of light is constant. So being, no need of a physical ether. MNo .. it works jsut as well without an ether (ie just SR) > MMX and Sagnac, both refutes the existence of any ether-wind. I'm not sure if Sagnac says anything about an ether wind .. I think the cyclic nature of it may mean any wind effect would be cancelled out . But all it takes is MMX to refute it, so that doesn't really matter > So we are left with SR ... Yes .. or LET > I'm still not convinced that Sagnac's interferometer doesn't show > that the speed of light is in fact dependent on observer's speed. See the link previously to the math pages, or to otherpost in this newsgruop disccussing it > For a rotating FoR its clear now that Sagnac's proves the speed > of light not independent on observer's rotating speed. eh? > But, of course that rotating FoR don't fit the inertial requirements. > Nevertheless, light don't have mass, so I cannot see what a pure > mirror reflection has to do with inertia (acceleration) so that > Sagnac setup is not inertial. Anyway .. Sagnac is consistent with LET, classical stationary ether and SR. MMX is consistent with LET, SR and ballistic. So Ballistic and classical stationary ether are ruled out. |