The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 22:26 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:ot3gb5hd7a26176vjeq593bpd45kql0iht(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:35:49 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>> Jonah Thomas wrote: >>> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>> >>Or you do not understand any of the physics done in the last >>> >>century. However, you are free to believe what you want and >>> >>are not bound to believe in reality. >>> > >>> > >>> > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my argument >>> > is wrong? >>> >>> Why are you not willing to do some study on your own? There are books >>> and articles that cover this very well and will give you all the >>> detail that you could want. >>> Start off with the articles listed here: >>> http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Sagnac >>> This was all settled a long time ago. >> >>A link! Thank you. >> >>Looking at your link led me directly to: >> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805089 >> >>I notice that as I search the net I find a variety of papers explaining >>why the traditional SR view of Sagnac is wrong, and proposing new >>explanations. Like, one of them explained that if you line the sagnac >>ring with clocks there is no way that you can calibrate them all to tell >>the same time, inevitably when you complete the circle you will find >>that they have different times. >> >>I am not certain that this was all settled a long time ago. I tend to >>discount the anti-relativity cranks who explain that Sagnac proves >>relativity wrong according to their interpretation of relativity. It's >>harder to discount the papers that explain why the previous explanations >>how SR is compatible with Sagnac are wrong and provide new ones. >> >>I haven't been tracking the ones in refereed journals because after I >>read the abstract then I'd have to pay for the article. > > Here's another proof that SR is wrong...It is obviously correct but the > relativists don't want to know about it. > Renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm There are no proofs that SR is wrong. Only crackpots who don't understand it. Fizeau, when correctly analysed, is one of the experiments that support SR predictions
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 22:29 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921102544.42a25a0c.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > >> > Jonah, you will have noticed that relativists like to hunt in packs >> > like wolves. They can't put up a good argument on their own so they >> > have an unwritten agreement to support each other in bringing down >> > anyone who dares to point out that Einstein was a fake. >> > There are a great many reputations at stake. The main aim of the >> > wolf pack is to waste our time. >> >> Of course we are wasting your time. You want to think you are right >> and we know you are an idiot and a liar. > > I am beginning to wonder why you bother. If you are right, he will never > understand the truth and admit you are right. Are you worried that if > you do not refute him twenty times a day that some naive beginning > physicist might listen to him and be corrupted? The reason we bother is because people like you .. who want to understand physics, but don't necessarily understand it well enough to see this mistake and lies he makes. Those lies and errors need to be pointed out so that they do not stand unchallenged. There is no hope for Henry, who has been posting his lies on these newsgroups for years.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 22:36 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921121143.7c84b120.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas wrote: > >> >>>There are disdvantages to relativity. It takes a long time to >> >learn,>>and people with common sense are barred from physics. >> >> >> >>This is your prejudice talking. Common sense is accepting that the >> >>world is the way it is. Wanting it to be something else is >> >>philosophy. >> > >> > Unfortunately, no. Common sense is accepting that the world works >> > the way common sense says it does. Accepting things that violate >> > common sense requires some sort of uncommon sense. >> >> This is so wrong that it is laughable. The universe does not >> care what your think common sense is. Common sense is another >> word for our prejudices. Anyone who has travelled to another >> country or dealt with another religion will quickly see just >> how culturally defined the term "common sense" is. > > I agree with you completely here. And I consider it something of a > problem that people who have common sense cannot become physicists. Of course they can .. as long as they don't hang onto their prejudices in the face of facts. Common sense for a reasonable rational person is not written in stone .. what may have been common sense to you when a child, is not common sense now. Those who are not reasonable and rational, and too stubborn to change their prejudices in the face of facts, do not become physicist. Henry/Ralph is an example >> >>>But you can't expect >> >>>physicists to switch to something better until about a generation >> >>>after something is known which is clearly better, and we don't have >> >>>anything better yet. >> >> >> >>Relativity has been verified in our frames to parts in maybe 10^15 >> >and>has never shown a problem. Any different description of the >> >universe>has to reduce to relativity in its applicable limit. >> > >> > Of course. And ptolemaic epicycles was verified to the degree of >> > accuracy available. The new approach reduced to epicycles. Just, >> > after they had something that worked better, after awhile nobody >> > wanted to reduce it to epicycles. >> >> You are stretching big time here. Relativity is the simplest >> description of geometry and has in basis in science. Epicycles >> were ad hoc add ons with no scientific background. > > Relativity might not be the simplest geometric description. Or maybe it > is. its the simplest that works > It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get > the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. > Or maybe the > bad parts are features and not bugs. Most likely. >> >>>When something better arrives it will probably include a degree of >> >>>time dilation. While it's possible that all the experiments that >> >>>people claim involve time dilation are self-delusion, it's also >> >>>quite possible that there's something real going on there. >> >> >> >>What is this supposed to mean? >> > >> > Time dilation is probably real, or at least part of it is probably >> > real. So any better theory would probably include some form of time >> > dilation. As a result it would tend to violate common sense though >> > perhaps in a way that was more palatable. >> >> So what does this mean? You are completely ignoring the fact that any >> new theory has to explain all existing experiments as well or better >> than relativity. The number of tests, the range of tests and the >> accuracy of those tests put an incredible limit on the details of >> a theory. It is a waste of time looking for a different theory >> in the range it has been tested. That is why science is pursuing >> looking at ranges where it has not been tested. > > What is this supposed to mean? I think he means SR predicts and explains the results of existing test. So any other theory would have to do the same .. its not going to predict anything measurably different. So in the areas SR has been tested, any new theory would have to be equivalent. So one would need to look at test that have not yet been thought of for where some other theory would give a different result to SR and SR to get it wrong.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 23:24 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >> Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > > > >> > Jonah, you will have noticed that relativists like to hunt in > >packs> > like wolves. They can't put up a good argument on their own > >so they> > have an unwritten agreement to support each other in > >bringing down> > anyone who dares to point out that Einstein was a > >fake.> > There are a great many reputations at stake. The main aim of > >the> > wolf pack is to waste our time. > >> > >> Of course we are wasting your time. You want to think you are right > >> and we know you are an idiot and a liar. > > > > I am beginning to wonder why you bother. If you are right, he will > > never understand the truth and admit you are right. Are you worried > > that if you do not refute him twenty times a day that some naive > > beginning physicist might listen to him and be corrupted? > > The reason we bother is because people like you .. who want to > understand physics, but don't necessarily understand it well enough to > see this mistake and lies he makes. Those lies and errors need to be > pointed out so that they do not stand unchallenged. Oh. You have been helpful to me, for example by stressing the emission theory version that has the light travel in the frame of the fiber optic because it is absorbed and re-emitted very very often. The spamming where you say he's wrong and he says you're wrong and you call each other names does not seem helpful to anybody much, but I get the impression it might perhaps be fun for the participants. It isn't much of a spectator sport, though.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 23:28
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > Relativity might not be the simplest geometric description. Or maybe > > it is. > > its the simplest that works The simplest known to date. > > It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get > > the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. > > There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division ring. > > Or maybe the > > bad parts are features and not bugs. > > Most likely. When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands that it work like that. |