Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: JM Albuquerque on 18 Sep 2007 10:05 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem news:13eum1qefck5sd1(a)corp.supernews.com... > "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? No time dilatation, no lenght contraction and a stationary ether, so to speak. Euclidean geometry, and so on... > If you mean one that could be solved by the classical ether (ie no lorentz > contraction etc), then yes .. but that theory is refuted Yes. > If you mean one that could be solved by the classical ballistic theories, > then no, as they don't predict the experimental results Yes. >>> 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 The stationary ether was not refuted by MMX. The MMX refutes the existence of a ether-wind. Notice that stationary ether is the same has no ether at all, or else, equal to SR. >> 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. Nope, MMX doesn't refute a stationary ether. MMX proves that no ether is needed. >> 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) Yes. >> 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 Sagnac only requires the speed of light constant. Ether has nothing to do with Sagnac. And even if there was a ether-wind, rotation doesn't cancel the wind. Look how tornadoes wind rotate and don't cancel anything out. >> So we are left with SR ... > > Yes .. or LET Let it be. >> 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? Surprised? That's my understanding and my conclusions, so far. >> 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. Yes. > MMX is consistent with LET, SR and ballistic. So Ballistic and classical > stationary ether are ruled out. Classical stationary ether was never rulled out. We simply don't need it, because it's assumed to be stationary locally and everywhere stationary (no wind, never). Again, MMX refutes a ether-wind, not a stationary ether, which in fact in not required once we assume a constant speed of light.
From: JM Albuquerque on 18 Sep 2007 18:23 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem news:1190145242.022251.183690(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 18, 10:52 am, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...(a)clix.pt> wrote: > Good, at least you managed to copy dutifully off the mathpages :-) Yep, I was fishing you... ....and repplying at the same time. Copy-past off course.
From: Jeckyl on 18 Sep 2007 20:57 "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message news:5la4a4F788h1U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem > news:13eum1qefck5sd1(a)corp.supernews.com... >> "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? > > No time dilatation, no lenght contraction and a stationary > ether, so to speak. Euclidean geometry, and so on... Yes .. and SR postulates assumed (speed of light is c in the stationary iFoR) > The stationary ether was not refuted by MMX. > The MMX refutes the existence of a ether-wind. > Notice that stationary ether is the same has no ether at all, > or else, equal to SR. No .. it refutes a stationary ether .. as the labis not staitonary (it on a rotating planet orbitins a sun in motion about a galaxy) .. if the ether were stationary, the earth (and lab) would move in it. It only works with a classical ether if the ether is moving with the labe (eg being dragged around the earth) .. but such dragging was subsequently refuted. > Nope, MMX doesn't refute a stationary ether. > MMX proves that no ether is needed. It doesn't really prove anything .. experiemnts can only refute. You can only say that it doesn't refute emission theory and it doesn't refute (some) ether theories (eg LET). It does refute the theory of a classical ether at absolute rest. >>> 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) > > Yes. > > >>> 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 > > Sagnac only requires the speed of light constant. > Ether has nothing to do with Sagnac. Ether theories (like LET) give a constant speed of light in a stationary frame > And even if there was a ether-wind, rotation doesn't cancel > the wind. Look how tornadoes wind rotate and don't cancel > anything out. The light moves both with and against the ether-wind (if it existed) and so that could cancel out the effect of the wind (ie you get a TWLS measurement). However, I've not done the math to see how much cancelling you get. >>> So we are left with SR ... >> Yes .. or LET > Let it be. :) >>> 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? > Surprised? > That's my understanding and my conclusions, so far. No . the speed of light is c .. that is independant of the observers rotation 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. >> Anyway .. Sagnac is consistent with LET, classical stationary ether and >> SR. > Yes. > >> MMX is consistent with LET, SR and ballistic. So Ballistic and classical >> stationary ether are ruled out. > > Classical stationary ether was never rulled out. > We simply don't need it, because it's assumed to be stationary > locally and everywhere stationary (no wind, never). Aha .. you have a different idea of what is meant by a stationary ether .. you mean an ether that moves so it appears stationary on earth .. yes? > Again, MMX refutes a ether-wind, Yes .. like the ether wind you get due to the earth's movement in a stationary classical ether > not a stationary ether, which > in fact in not required once we assume a constant speed of light.
From: JM Albuquerque on 18 Sep 2007 21:43 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem news:13f0svdqujd9m58(a)corp.supernews.com... > > "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message > news:5la4a4F788h1U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Classical stationary ether was never rulled out. >> We simply don't need it, because it's assumed to be stationary >> locally and everywhere stationary (no wind, never). > > Aha .. you have a different idea of what is meant by a stationary ether .. > you mean an ether that moves so it appears stationary on earth .. yes? Yes. I guess we agree quite fine, thanks.
From: Jeckyl on 18 Sep 2007 22:30
"JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message news:5lbd6nF7f5h6U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem > news:13f0svdqujd9m58(a)corp.supernews.com... >> >> "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message >> news:5la4a4F788h1U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > >>> Classical stationary ether was never rulled out. >>> We simply don't need it, because it's assumed to be stationary >>> locally and everywhere stationary (no wind, never). >> >> Aha .. you have a different idea of what is meant by a stationary ether >> .. you mean an ether that moves so it appears stationary on earth .. yes? > > Yes. > I guess we agree quite fine, thanks. Yeup .. so between MMX and Sagnac, we refute ballistic theory and theories with an ether relative to which the earth is moving .. we're left with theories mathematically equivalent to SR, or theories where the ether moves with the earth. But theories of an ether that moves with the earth (an ether drag) have been separately refuted. That sounds a fair summary then? |