vuquta

Exactly. This is exactly what I am asking. What are these two "events" when translated into the coordinates of the rest frame. Yes, they will not be simultaneous in the view of the rest frame, but what are they? What are the coordinates in terms of the rest frame that are viewed simultaneous in the moving frame while R1 and R2 are simultaneous in the rest frame. Let's just call the rest coordinates (r/c,-r,0,0)=R1 and (r/c,r,0,0)=R2.

Yes, we are considering only the x-axis. So, it is assumed they are different x coordinates. But, what I am asking, given R1 and R2 are simultaneous to the rest frame, they are not simultaneous to the moving frame. So, when R1 and R2 are simultaneous to the rest frame, what two points are simultaneous to the moving frame when translated to the rest frame coordinates.

Assume the typical co-location of origins and a light pulse at the co-location with two frames in relative motion. The Relativity of Simultaneity contends if two points are simultaneous in the rest frame, then these points will not be simultaneous in the moving frame. Both postulates of SR contend light is always spherical from the light emission point in the moving frame and any point with the associated time value can be translated into the coordinates of the rest frame. So, here is the question. Just consider the x-axis. Say two points R1 and R2 are simultaneous in the rest frame. What two points in the moving frame when translated to the rest frame coordinates are simultaneous to the moving frame when R1 and R2 are simultaneous in the rest frame?

A statement is true if there is an assignment from some given universe that satisifies it. A statement has a very precise definition based on terms and connectives. Here is a statement x² = 2. Here is one with connectives. (x² = 4) ↔ ( x = 2 ) v ( x = -2 ) The first statement is true only if your universe contains the irrational numbers. Thus, the set of rational numbers does not satisify the first statement and so that statement is not true using only the rational numbers. Note how this has noithing to do with proof. The second statement is satisfied (true) by a universe that contains 2, -2 4. A proof is a sequence of operations based on the rules of the first order predicate calculus. So, truth depends on the universe you have and a proof is a syntactic sequence of operations that can be performed by a computer. Godels completeness theorems and incompleteness theorems demarcated the two concepts of proof and truth.

LOL

It would appear as if you understand the origin of the universe what is it?

OK, I like your thinking about these things. I will wait for your response.

OK, if you are able to construct some rules for your system, such that it predicts the current experimental evidence and it is simpler than what is available, then it will fly.

OK, but the universe is accelerating outward, or so the evidence seems to show. If there is nothing beyond the material universe, what is forcing it outward in your model? What are your candidates for dark matter?

OK, so where are your equations for dark matter and dark energy?

Which experiment do you mean. Each experiment of sagnac uses a center of the loop for R. It works for the gyros. It works for the earth. You agree it would work on an earth orbital path except because of the rotation, you cancel it. My thing is something is wrong. For some reason, with your physics credentials, you cannot explain it nor can you provide the math to explain why the orbital sagnac is missing. No problem, neither can I. I was hoping to explore ideas since after debating many, you seem pretty good or I would not waste my time. You are also smart enough to know, as long as you are on the orbital path and shoot light, that sagnac will apply but does not. This has been verified by GPS and by a link from the US to Japan. The orbital sagnac does not exist. Neither does the milky way sagnac for the sun and earth. That is even faster if the CMB is correct. So, I am looking at this and trying to reconclile it. It is as if the earth is stationary except for rotation but that makes no sense either. OK, I think we are done. I

Labs wdo measure the rotation of the earth using sagnac. I did not say there were not examples. Yet, there are others that only measure their specific rotations. Obviously, I was talking about these. Since gyroscopes operate on this principle. Here is a link for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect Further, I would think it is obvious I a not criticizing the science. I just want to apply it ro all rotational paths with some center and cannot. That is the part that is in error. The impact of acceleration on sagac is neglible for the time light takes to hit the ground. I suppose you are now arguing that acceleration is the cause of sagnac. The path and time for light to travel from satellite to ground is almost inertial with very little acceleration. Further, can you show me an inertial frame in this universe as some example, that way I could at least see your point a little. The deviation of the rotational sagnac is so small based on the arc, that it is very close to an inertial frame. Also, while the light travels from the satellite, the earth receiver can move in all kinds of ways based on topography. The arc of the earth for that motion is the least of those deviations. Are you claiming if there is an arc of .000000000001 radians for a motion path, light will experience sagnac for that path and not for one that is perfectly linear? That seems odd. Can you prove this odd assertion? The phase accumulation for two way is (8πAcω/λ)/(c2 – v2). I assure you, you are nowhere near me in math credentials. As such, let's learn physics. Assume your model before of a revolving earth but no rotation. Now, assume light is shot around the orbital path. I know you will agree, sagnac applies. Here are some questions. 1) If the earth then rotates, does the orbital sagnac disappear? Does that imply the behavior of light depends on the motion of the light source? Next assume a satellite is fixed with the orbit of the earth but it does not orbit the earth. Assume the satellite is in front of the earth's orbit. 2) Will there exist a sagnac correction from the satellite to the earth in this case? Now assume this static condition between the earth and the satellite. At one instant the normal rotations of the earth and satellite begin and then at .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds light is shot from the satellite to the earth. Your contention is that the orbital sagnac disappears. Can I see your math for this model as to why the orbital sagnac disappears?

What does this have to do with anything? Does the rotation of the earth have anything to do with the lab sagnac results? The Sagnac shift occurs because SR is false. There exists a reference frame in which light is not measured c. Your problem and mine is why this is not universal. Please supply the math for your case. I assure you, you are no where near me in the math credentials. So like I keep saying supply the math to support why the lab sagnac and earth sagnac exists but not the orbital sagnac nor the milky way sagnac. Simply put supply the equations if you are correct and end this. Warning, if you do, I will knock them apart.

Agreed, all but the lab's sagnac and the earth's rotational sagnac is missing. That is the problem. Do you see this or no.

You are wrong. You cannot arbitrarily set the center of the orbital sagnac for the sun at the earth's center. I could then set the lab's sagnac center center as the earth's center in kind and end up in a Reductio ad absurdum argument. How can you possibly consider the orbital sagac's center as the earth when in fact it is the sun. You are confusing the earth's rotational center with its orbital center. OK, here are your questions. 1) What do you mean by they rotate and relative to what? 2) Which rotation? If there is no rotation, then SR will claim there is no sagnac. If there is a rotation, then SR will claim there is no rotational sagnac because any reference frame always measures c. Either way, like with the orbiital and linear sagnac, SR predicts no shift. 3) SR does not care about the radius. Every frame always measures c. Are you refuting this?

OK, well, if you can offer any math to support your position, let me know. I say that a alot around here.

Aether simply occupies space like any other matter, only we now call it by the more foreboding name of Dark Matter/Energy What kind of math do you have for this?

The sagnac is based on the radius of the loop. And yes, the satellites are orbiting the sun. They orbit the earth which is orbiting the sun. My example showed this clearly on how to set this up. To argue the satellites are not orbiting the sun is absurd and not scientific. You must argue the satellites are not in any way on the orbital path. That is false. Yes, it is conceptual, you argue a satellite is never on the orbital path. That is simply false.

We have been through this. Angular velocity is not sufficient to decide sagnac. You must use the radius also from the center of the loop which is the sun for the orbital sagnac. Then we use mathpages and get a sagnac 65 times greater than that of the rotational sagnac. I would think you would produice some math for your conclusions. Is this not physics?

I realize what I am saying disagrees with the data. It has sunk in. Except I understand the math and therefore, I realize something is wrong. That is why I started this thread. It does not make mathematical sense. I produced that paper that alos saw this. However, that author explained the problem with a local aether frame which I cannot accept without some kind of proof. You are attempting to justify something you cannot mathematically prove. Further, if you let it sink in, the math says of the rotational sagnac exists, then the orbital sagnac should exist. Also, the math says of the orbital sagnac does not exist, then the rotational sagnac should not exist. This is a contradiction. There has to be a correct mathematical explanation.

1) It is about traversing the path of the loop. 2) The hand held unit and the satellite are clearly not on the same rotational loop. 3) Finally the hand held unit and the satellite are more likely on the orbital loop than the rotation loop than the rotational loop for the experiment I proposed. If you provide a proof my statement is false, I will show you why you are wrong. So, you issue regarding radius is a red herring since you are the one that injected the sagnac path.

No, this does not work. While east-west at noon, the light is on the oirbital path more than it is one the rotational path. Clearly, the hand held unit and the satellite are not on the rotational path of the satellite. But, at noon, at the equator, east-west, it is almost a perfect fit for being on the orbital path. Your logic refutes the rotational sagnac more than it does the orbital sagnac for this particular experiment.

This is not true. There exists a time they are on the orbital path. Just take a satellite in front of the earth's orbit. That is on the path. Then the satellite shoots a light. That is just one possibility. This happens also.

It is my interpretation from mathpages that the area enclosed is based on the center of the loop which would be the center of the sun fpor the earth's orbital sagnac. It is an area of a wedge from that center with the arc being the hand held unit to the satellite. Perhaps you could explain your position better. Otherwise, I agree the angular for the oribt is much smaller. Also, if you do not mind, do you see an error in my thing below? Obviously, this is a different issue but I did not want to start another thread. Assume two rigid body spheres of radius r are in relatie motion and when the origins are co-located a light pulse is emitted. When the moving frame views simultaneity of the two rigid body sphere, it fires a laser back to the rest frame origin. In my opinion, these are the equations. Let tl be the time O received the laser light. t1 = time to when O' fired the laser. t2 = time for the laser to travel back to O. Obviously tl = t1 + t2. Also, vt1 = distance the O' sphere traveled when simultaneity occured. Also, ct2 = vt1 since that is the distance the laser must travel to hit O. tl = t1 + t2. Substitute t2 = (v/c)t1. tl = t1 + t2 = t1 + (v/c)t1. tl = t1( c+v)/c. Since we know tl, then t1 is the time when simultaneity occured in the O' frame. t1 = tl c/(c+v). Do you see an error in this calculation?

Well, see that was my point. The orbital has a smaller angular with a faster linear velocity and larger radius. According to mathpages, angular velocity can be omitted for radius and linear velocity. Also according to mathpages, the orbital sagnac should exceed the rotational sagnac . That is the math. But experiments show the orbital does not exceed the rotational. So, I am trying to figure out what is wrong. I cannot find any way to make it work.