The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 10:40 Jonah Thomas wrote: > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > > >>Recognition of the facts doesn't constitute prejudice. Einstein's >>theory has never been even remotely supported by any believable >>evidence. It is plain nonsense from start to finish, lapped up by >>trendies who like to make out they're smarter than everyone else by >>mumbling the meaningless relativist jargon. > > > Lots of mathematicians believe that SR works adequately within its > limits. > > It isn't plain nonsense, it's a consistent viewpoint that behaves as > advertised. If it gets results that do not fit the reality, those > results must be subtle enough that they have not yet been recognised. > > So at worst it's like ptolemaic epicycles, something that gets the > correct results in a wrong-headed way. And just like the ptolemaic > scholars, its advocates will not switch to something new unless the new > approach is so much better that it's obviously worth the effort to learn > it. > > 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. 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. > > 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?
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 10:23 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > > > >>Recognition of the facts doesn't constitute prejudice. Einstein's > >>theory has never been even remotely supported by any believable > >>evidence. It is plain nonsense from start to finish, lapped up by > >>trendies who like to make out they're smarter than everyone else by > >>mumbling the meaningless relativist jargon. > > > > > > Lots of mathematicians believe that SR works adequately within its > > limits. > > > > It isn't plain nonsense, it's a consistent viewpoint that behaves as > > advertised. If it gets results that do not fit the reality, those > > results must be subtle enough that they have not yet been > > recognised. > > > > So at worst it's like ptolemaic epicycles, something that gets the > > correct results in a wrong-headed way. And just like the ptolemaic > > scholars, its advocates will not switch to something new unless the > > new approach is so much better that it's obviously worth the effort > > to learn it. > > > > 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. > > 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. > > 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.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 10:25 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?
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 10:35 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.
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 12:14
Jonah Thomas wrote: > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>Jonah Thomas wrote: >> >>>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Recognition of the facts doesn't constitute prejudice. Einstein's >>>>theory has never been even remotely supported by any believable >>>>evidence. It is plain nonsense from start to finish, lapped up by >>>>trendies who like to make out they're smarter than everyone else by >>>>mumbling the meaningless relativist jargon. >>> >>> >>>Lots of mathematicians believe that SR works adequately within its >>>limits. >>> >>>It isn't plain nonsense, it's a consistent viewpoint that behaves as >>>advertised. If it gets results that do not fit the reality, those >>>results must be subtle enough that they have not yet been >>>recognised. >>> >>>So at worst it's like ptolemaic epicycles, something that gets the >>>correct results in a wrong-headed way. And just like the ptolemaic >>>scholars, its advocates will not switch to something new unless the >>>new approach is so much better that it's obviously worth the effort >>>to learn it. >>> >>>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. > > >>>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. > > >>>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. |