The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 12:14 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>Start off with the articles listed here: > >>http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiment > >s.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 > > 1. Be careful of arxiv articles. Check to see if the results were > published in a refereed journal later. Lots of garbage shows up > since there is no refereeing. > 2. Be careful of papers spending a lot of times on cranks. They are > quoting someone who claims that SR is not self consistent. This > is known to be wrong. > > > > 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. > > Well, it seems you did not understand that very well. > > 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. > > You might want to look up an explaination done by Paul Anderson which > showed Wilson to be a fool yet again. I do not have the link now but > you can search on "paul anderson sagnac" and it will probably show up. > > > > I am not certain that this was all settled a long time ago. > > If you were to very carefully study and understand an explaination > given by a competent scientist, you would see it has been settled. Yes? And the way I tell which ones are competent scientists is that they agree with you?
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 13:22 Jonah Thomas wrote: > 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. You are just being stupid here. Your prejudices will get you into trouble if you want to be a scientist. A scientist has to accept the world the way it is. You want it to be your way. The universe is not going to change for you. > > >>>>>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. It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get > the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. Or maybe the > bad parts are features and not bugs. > > >>>>>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? If you do not understand science, this is not the place for you to start learning.
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 13:24 Jonah Thomas wrote: > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>Jonah Thomas wrote: >> >>>doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>Start off with the articles listed here: >>>>http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiment >>> >>>s.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 >> >>1. Be careful of arxiv articles. Check to see if the results were >>published in a refereed journal later. Lots of garbage shows up >>since there is no refereeing. >>2. Be careful of papers spending a lot of times on cranks. They are >>quoting someone who claims that SR is not self consistent. This >>is known to be wrong. >> >>>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. >> >>Well, it seems you did not understand that very well. >> >> 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. >> >>You might want to look up an explaination done by Paul Anderson which >>showed Wilson to be a fool yet again. I do not have the link now but >>you can search on "paul anderson sagnac" and it will probably show up. >> >>>I am not certain that this was all settled a long time ago. >> >>If you were to very carefully study and understand an explaination >>given by a competent scientist, you would see it has been settled. > > > Yes? And the way I tell which ones are competent scientists is that they > agree with you? When you reference cranks, you will never get anywhere. Feel free to do so but do not mistake that for science. When you study science, you will see how theories get accepted. This would be clear to you if you had actually studied or done science.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 20:32 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921075301.4f722874.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > 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. Yeup. And physicists. > It isn't plain nonsense, it's a consistent viewpoint that behaves as > advertised. Yeup > If it gets results that do not fit the reality, those > results must be subtle enough that they have not yet been recognised. It fits reality far better than the alternatives. So far no experiment has been 'subtle enough' to find a discrepancy with what SR predict within the limits of accuracy of the experiment. And many of those experiments have been ridiculously accurate :) > 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. Indeed. . if something better than SR comes along (though SR is actually quite simple .. though not AS simple as you get with Galilean transforms, but then they are refuted, so they aren't in the running) that gets results consistent with all the experimental evidence for SR, then physics would adopt it. > There are disdvantages to relativity. It takes a long time to learn, The time taken to learn a theory is not in any way a measure of how good a physic theory it is. > and > people with common sense are barred from physics. That is totally wrong. > 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. Indeed we don't. Other than GR (which is more general and includes SR) .. but GR is much more complicated. > When something better arrives it will probably include a degree of time > dilation. It would have to, as that is found to happen experimentally > While it's possible that all the experiments that people claim > involve time dilation are self-delusion, No .. that is not possible to any degree that warrants consideration. > it's also quite possible that > there's something real going on there. Indeed there is.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 21:22
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921083411.4746da3f.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >> >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my >> >> >> >argument> > is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've explained it to you over and over. Emissions theories >> >get> >it> >> wrong because when you analyze them they give a zero >> >phase> >shift at> >> the detector in sagnac. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The only way not to get that is to have strange reflection >> >> >> >properties> for light that alter its speed in exactly the right >> >> >way> >to get the> correct results. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Let's make sure I understand what you're saying. Emission >> >> >theories> > have the light that's emitted in different directions >> >> >from a moving> > source get different speeds. >> >> >> >> >> >> No .. the speed is c. Always c. >> >> >> >> Sorry .. I misread >> >> >> >> Its always c relative to the source. >> >> >> >> > ?? Are you saying that emission theories do not predict that the >> >> > speed of light varies with the speed of the light's source? >> >> >> >> c+v where the source has speed c >> >> >> >> > What I say is wrong about this is that in the original experiment >> >> > (and often even today) you do not start with light emitted in two >> >> > different directions. You have a single beam of light that is >> >made> > to travel in two different directions. >> >> >> >> Yes .. it is split into two different directions and both travel at >> >c> relative to the splitter .. which means in the non-rotating frame >> >it> goes as c+v and c-v .. just as per emission theory analysis >> > >> > Wait, this is new. >> >> Not new at all >> >> > If it travels at c relative to the splitter, then >> > it's going to travel at c relative to every mirror, isn't it? >> >> Yes >> >> > OK, that's >> > one emission theory. >> >> That's the one we've been talking about from the start and the one >> Henry does his flawed analysis on. Only he keeps changing his story >> every time it is shown to be wrong. > > I didn't get that. Repeatedly I said "relative to the source" and nobody > disagreed. > > So if I understand this, the light is continually being absorbed and > re-emitted, and then we have: > > 1. Most inertial theories -- The light travels at the speed of its last > re-emitted source. You mean at c wrt its last re-emitted source > Light in air ought to smear out quickly because the > molecules in the air move at random speeds. Look up extinction. > Sagnac fails because the > light travels at the speed of the moving mirrors? Ah! That explains > Androcles's picture! The light takes time to get to each next mirror, > and in that time the mirror has tilted a little, and so the light in > different directions follows two different paths that are different > lengths. Yeup .. but the speeds are different. So ends up arriving at the same time (or very close to it) .. certainly not enough to get the observed effect. > If his explanation is true it will apply to other theories as well. > > 2. Classical theories -- The light travels at the speed of the aether, > and is emitted from each source at the speed of the aether. So light > takes a different time to arrive at the detector from different > directions. If Androcles's picture is correct it will also travel > different distances. Yeup .. different distances at same speed, so a phase shift. > 3. SR -- The light travels at c relative to the mirrors and also travels > at c relative to each outside observer. It takes different times to > arrive at the detector because time happens at different rates to the > light traveling in different directions around the ring. Sorta .. yes. In any given inertial frame, the light always travels at a speed c regardless of movements of mirrors and sources. |