vuquta

May I ask what you are trying to show?

I did not say it did not. I am saying it actually depends on linear velocity and the radius of the loop as mathpages agree. You are claiming it exclusively depends on angular velocity which is wrong. How do you differentiate the satellite to earth as not a straight line? I am saying, the path is right in line with the earth's orbit even more than a satellite to earth is to the earth's orbit. Clearly, that is a straight line and not a loop. Point taken. But, it doies not make it false either. I guess that is true for any theory including SR, no?

Any of them are much larger than the earth's angular velocity. They only need spin once per second for example. That should generate a huge sagnac if angular velocity is the issue. Yes we do have this if the light is shot along the path as I suggested. I said have the light shot east-west. Oh, I failed to mention along the equator at high noon. This light path is along the earth's orbital path. I saw this but he provided a logical argument to show SR does not correctly explain this puzzle. He claims the local dominating gravity creates/implements this "local aether" environment to explain why the orbital sagnac is missing. The point that is clear from the article and my equations is the orbital sagnac is missing and should be there. IOP published the article indicating they also agree it is missing or this article would never have gotten past peer review. However, I think his explanation is silly and he does not produce equations to explain why it is missing. I am simply making the clear point though, if the rotational sagnac exists, and the lab sagnac exists, then the orbital sagnac should exist and angular velocity cannot explain all three of these conditions.

Of course you get less of a shift if you do not follow the full path. But, angular velocity is not the issue. Otherwise, lab based sagnacs which have a much greater angular velocity should be seeing a much greater shift based on your angular velocity explanation. Further, the Total distance of orbit 942,477,780km. Total one way orbital sagnac = 942,477,780( 1/c - 1/(c+v) ) = 942,477,780(v/(c(c+v)) = 942,477,780 ( 30/(c(c+30) ) = .31 seconds. Assume the distance of the satellite to the unit along the orbital path is 10,000 km. Fraction of the total path is 10,000/942,477,780 = 1.06*10-5 . Fraction of total path times the total seconds for the fraction of the total seconds. 1.06*10-5 * .31 seconds = 3.29 * 10-6 seconds. Indeed he does. This is an IOP article. Here are some quotes. This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity Further, in the present common understanding, the null result is extrapolated without direct evidences to rule out the effect of the Earth’s rotation on wave propagation, as in Einstein’s original paper on special relativity where it is assumed that τ = 2Rt/c Here is his explanation of the missing earth orbital sagnac. The discrepancy in the unique propagation frame can be solved by the local-ether model of wave propagation recently presented http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

Yea, but if a satellite is on the horizon in the east and shoots at a hand held unit, then both conditions that the path is in line with the rotational path and the orbital path are both met. So, in both cases, the signal is on the associated orbital/rotational loop. In addition, the entire path is not needed since clearly the rotational sagnac shows up in GPS and the entire rotational path is not travelled by the light beam. So, how would you exclude the orbital sagnac for this case? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I found this paper on the issue. Please check page 172. http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf I am not understanding the explanation.

Here is the problem I have with this analysis. According to mathpages, Δt = 2π R( 1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v) ) where R is is the radius of the loop and v is the linear velocity. The radius of the orbital loop is 93 million miles and v = 18.55 miles per second. So, your conclusions are not making sense. And, the enclosed area is a wedge from the center of rotation. The center of rotation is from the sun for the orbital sagnac. Perhaps, you could do the math and show using mathpages how you arrive at ~1/365.

Here is the mathpages explanation of sagnac. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm You will find your logic flawed. If you need any help with the math, let me know. The rotational sagnac is in fact a part of GPS and calculations must be performed in the hand held unit to compensate. Yet, the orbital sagnac does not show up. This implies light is consistent with Ritz's theory of light whereas the rotational sagnac implies Ritz's theory of light is false. This is a problem.

If the speed of light is independent of the source, then why is the earth's orbital sagnac missing from the GPS calculations. The earth's rotational sagnac is included.

Agreed. However, when O and O'1 are co-located, light is at two different locatations under the calculations of SR. That is the problem. If you refute either calculation, then you refute SR. Agreed both frames disagree on the location of light when O and O'1 are co-located. So do you. I am simply saying under SR, they are both right. If either are wrong, then SR is false. If both are right, then SR is false. Not true. LT only maps frame to frame. You need the light postulate in the frame to conclude light proceeds spherically fron the light emission point. No, this does not work. You can do this math yourself. Lenght contraction and time dilation does not explain these differentials. If then did, then we would have absolute simultaneity with events but different times and distances. Not true. I have two frames by the co-location of O and O'1. I must invoke LT to convert coords frame to frame. Do you know another way under SR?

Here is C++ code than implements the Euler rotational matrix. void CUtil::EulerAngleTranslation( double x, double y, double z, double a, double b, double c, double * ptransx, double * ptransy, double * ptransz ) { a *= PICOVERSION; b *= PICOVERSION; c *= PICOVERSION; *ptransx = (cos©*cos(a)-cos(b)*sin(a)*sin©)*x + (cos©*sin(a)+cos(b)*cos(a)*sin© )*y + (sin©*sin(b) )*z ; *ptransy = (-sin©*cos(a) - cos(b)*sin(a)*cos©)*x + (-sin©*sin(a) + cos(b)*cos(a)*cos©) * y + (cos©*sin(b)) * z ; *ptransz = (sin(b)*sin(a)) * x + (-sin(b)*cos(a)) * y + (cos(b)) * z ; } (x,y,z) is the original point in degrees. (a,b,c) is the Euler angles.

I applied LT. How is that mixing frames. The light postulate in O' says light hits O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located and that time is r/c. LT say that time should be at O'2 when t = r/c ( 1 + v/c ). Could you explain how I violated LT or the postulates of SR specifically with math? Well v is not 0, so why does this matter? Well, SR is an axiomatic theory. That means you must always apply the postulates when drawing conclusions or you are outside the theory. Let me give you an example where you cannot use LT to decide a problem. Assume an observer in a frame is at (-r,0,0) and light is flashed at (0,0,0). When will light reach (-r,0,0)? When will it reach (r,0,0)? Lt cannot give you this answer.

Sure do. But, that presents a problem for SR. The time calculated by LT is r/c (1+v/c). So, when O'2 is hit, SR says the time in the O frame is (r/c (1+v/c),0,0). Yet, O'2 is hit when O and O'1 are co-located and that time in O is r/c. So, LT is confused on how to correctly decide the time also. If step 2 is (r,0, 0) for both frames that would imply absolute simultaneity. x = ( x' + vt')γ. x' = r/γ and t'=r/(cγ). x = ( r/γ + v(r/(cγ)))γ. = ( r + rv/c) = r ( 1 + v/c ). y=0 z=0 No, v is not zero since it is the relative motion between the frames.

As I have said, the readings on the clocks do not change the fact they are co-located. In addition, they disagree on their locations. I never disagreed. But, this is a straw man since none of this affects the outcome. The observers agree light hits O'2, but disagree when that happens, and where O'2 is when that occurs. This is where you go wrong. You use LT to map back and forth between the frames. You are attempting to isolate the frames as if there is no type of transformation between them. So, your argument works very well only if LT is false. Is that your contention now that LT is false? So, since everything has been translated into the system of O, how do you explain that light is located at (r,0,0) and at (r (1+v/c),0,0) in O when O and O'2 are co-located? You also failed to mention, when O'1 and O are at the same place, they disagree on the location of light in the stationary system of coords. Since there was a common light emission, they would be measuring different light speeds when the stationary measurements are used. Now, you mentioned length contraction. Well that coorresponds to time dilation as well. Hence, (r/γ) / (t/γ) = c. So, light should travel a length contracted distance but at a time dilated interval still making it c. But, that does not explain the distance differential. When I said common instant or whatever, I meant, one can at that common place calculate all the truths of SR. That is what I did. Further, since I have show time dilation, I would not expect the clocks to read the same. For example, Einstein said for any interval in the stationary frame of t, that cooresponds to an interval t/γ. Therefore, when t elapses in O and t/γ in O', these translate to the same instant. See how that works under SR? You can have the same instant but different clock readings. This is what Einstein said, Is he wrong? Here I will lay out the argument quoting which part of SR I use. Light is a distance r in the O frame after light emission. SR Conclusions 1) O and O'1 are co-located when light strikes them. (LT) 2) Since O is struck by the light, then light is located at (r,0,0) in the O coordinates. (Light Postulate) 3) Since O'1 is struck by the light, then light is located at (r/γ,0,0)/O'2 in the coordinates of O'. (Light and Relativity Postulate) 4) Since light is located at (r/γ,0,0) in the O' frame, then light is located at (r (1+v/c),0,0) in the stationary frame. (LT) Therefore, when O and O'1 are co-located, light is located at (r,0,0) and at (r (1+v/c),0,0) in the stationary system of coordinates. (All of SR) Please feel free to indicate which part of SR you are refuting.

I posted the following. As you can see, I agree the time on the clocks will be different. I am not nor have I said the time on their clocks are the same. I am only showing they have a common endpoint and this you cannot refute. If I chose to do so, I could have arranged an observer at (vxγ/(1+γ),0,0) in the stationary frame and one at (-vxγ/(1+γ),0,0) in the moving frame. Then, and I am sure you can do the math, t'=t=r/c. But, the same conclusions follow. One observer in the O frame will be located at r/c. The other observer will be located at (vr/c + r/c)γ when transformed with LT. Let me know if you need help with the math.

No, this is wrong. 1) Absolute simultaneity would conclude light is located at (r,0,0) in the context of both frames or light is located at (r(1+v/c,0,0) in both frames. 2) The co-location is a common point in time where everything under SR should calculate correct inside both frame and mapped with LT back and forth between the frames. Though the clock readings are different for the frames at co-location, there can be no dispute they are co-located. 3) SR should be consistent with its conclusions at this co-location of the frames. So, I am not depending on absolute simultaneity, in fact I am depending that SR calls this false. This is how I am able to force SR to confess light is located at (r,0,0) and also located at (r(1+v/c,0,0) when O and O'1 are co-located. Now, if you are somehow calling the co-location of O and O'1 some kind of absolute simultaneity, then you will need to take that up with SR because that is what SR concludes. Specifically, what rule of SR are you claiming I am violating, the light postulate, the relativity postulate or LT? Oh, did you ever say where O'2 is located in the coords of O when O and O'1 are co-located?

I can ignore time. The co-location is at a point in time and not an interval. Are you now arguing O and O'1 are not co-located? Well, they are and I showed that. This strategy allows me to calculate everything based on the co-location of the two. The, based on the relativity postulate, i.e. the rules of physics are the same from both frames, I calculate everything at that common instant, which is different times on the two clocks, using the rules of SR. Since SR must apply at all times in any frame, I am on solid footing. Yes, this is correct for O since the light is located at (r,0,0). But, according to the SR postulates in O', light is in fact located at O'2 when the two are co-located. You have already agreed light is at O'2 when the two are co-located. Otherwise, SR is false in O'. Hence, light is located at both positions under the rules of SR. This suggests you are refuting LT. LT is suppsed to transform coordinates regardless of the existence of observers. If you refute LT, then you refute SR. So, this does not apply. This is SR. If light strikes O'1 and O'1 and O'2 are equidistant from the light emission point in the frame, then by the light postulate in the O' frame, light is at O'2. So, this is not my assumption, this is SR's I guess you are refuting the light postulate. OK, all the above we are in agreement. OK, have you used LT before? If light strikes a point in a frame, then LT is used to transform this into another frame which I did. All I did was apply the rules of SR using LT. Can you explain why you believe either LT is nonsensical or my application of LT is nonsensical? In physics, the Lorentz transformation, named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, describes how, according to the theory of special relativity, two observers' varying measurements of space and time can be converted into each other's frames of reference. It reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation Perhaps you can indicate the location of the O'2 observer in the O frame when O and O'1 are co-located. I agree the ordering of events can be different frame to frame under SR. My statements are not really my statements, they are the postulates of SR. I apply the postulates in the O frame when O and O'1 are co-located and then I apply the postulates in the O' frame when O and O'1. I find that forces light to hit O'2 at the co-location. I then apply LT to O'2 to map it into the O frame. So, the use of LT allows frame to frame mapping or observer to observer mapping. Yes and then LT is used to convert these observations into the context of other frames. I brought the coordinate of O'2 into the stationary frame using LT. Light is at O'2 and hence it is r(1+v/c) in the stationary frame when O and O'1 are co-located. What should be happening here in case you do not know is that when O and O'1 are co-located, if LT worked properly, then O'2 should map to (r,0,0). Well, this is not what is happening. Again, O cannot refute light is at O'2 which is r(1+v/c) when O and O'1 are co-located. Otherwise, light hits O'2 at co-location and also after co-location which implies two light spheres in the view of the O frame.

The purpose of the co-location is to set the timing between the frames. Thus, when O and O'1 are co-located, in the stationary frame, SR says light is located at (r,0,0). At the co-location of O and O'1, the primed frame asserts light is at O'2. Then, you convert the location of O'2 into the coordinates of the O frame and you find light located further down the x-axis in the O coords than is (r,0,0) forcing the light that hit O'2 to be faster than the light that hit (r,0,0). What I did is eliminate SR's relative time arguments to analyze its true conclusions by creating this co-location. We find a contradiction to the light postulate in the stationary frame with regard to O'2 since O cannot refute light hit O'2 at the co-location without refuting SR. You have agreed O and O'1 are co-located based on the setup. You have agreed when O and O'1 are co-located, (r,0,0) is hit with the light. You have agreed when O and O'1 are co-located, O'2 is hit with the light. You have agreed O'2 is further down the x-axis than (r,0,0) by any possible calculation under SR. You have also agreed this places one light sphere at two completely different positions in one coordinate system when O and O'1 are co-located. You have not disagreed the light that hits O'2 must be faster than the light that hits (r,0,0). Everything stated above is according to the rules of SR. The last thing you said I believe is that an observer can view two different light speeds in it own coordinates. I posted the light postulate to refute that position. Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Note, the light postulate does not allow for multiple speeds of light in the stationary system of coordinates.

We are talking LT concluding one position for light in the coords of O and O concluding something different. You are wrong in your statement. This is not an observer issue This is an SR issue. One part of SR concludes light will not be at O'2 and another part concludes it will be at O'2. So, instead of using observers, use the logic of SR as I am. Yes, and I produced a light wave in the stationary frame given to me by LT that proves the speed of light > c. Are you refuting LT? What???? Nope I never have applied absolute simultaneity. Like I said I do not care. I am not an aether person. I applied SR and showed if absolute simultaneity is true then SR is false. Also, if absolute simultaneity is false, then SR is false. Are you able to resolve this without refuting one of the postulates. I have already asked you this. I already know you cannot.

OK, according to O, light hits O'2 after co-location. But, according to O'1, light hits O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located. Are you now refuting this SR conclusion? Why does SR make two completly different claims for one light sphere? I did not assume anything about the light strikes being simultaneous. I dont care one way or the other. I simply pointed out the fact there is no way to satisfy both postulates in this example. If there is simply be specific as to how this can be done. We also know if they are not simultaneous in both it leads to a contradiction as well. That is what we have been doing here. We have been assuming they are not simultaneous frame to frame and arriving at contradictions.

I have the length contraction argument convered as well. Since O'2 is located at (r/γ,0,0), then O views the distance as length contracted and hence, O'2 is located at (r/γ²,0,0) in the coords of O. Since the light sphere is r from the light emission point in O, then t = r/c. Since O'2 is moving relative to O, then O'2 is located at vt + r/γ² = vr/c + r/γ². It must now be shown vr/c + r/γ² > r and then O'2 is still further down the positive x-axis making the speed of light ≠ c for the light that hits O'2. c > v vc > v² vc + c² > v² + c² vc + c² - v² > c² (vc + c² - v²)/c² > 1 vc/c² + (c² - v²)/c² > 1 v/c + 1/γ² > 1 vr/c + r/γ² > r Hence, since O'2 is further than (r,0,0), then the speed of light that hit O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located > c. It does not matter whether they are in the same frame of reference. You can use length contraction and/or LT to convert one frame's coordinates into the others in order to standardize. If you cannot convert one fram'es coords into the other's then LT is false and hence SR is false. Further, if light is not at the same place in the coords of O and neither can be refuted, then I am OK with that. But, that implies light traveled further to strike O'2 than did the light that hit (r,0,0) in time t=r/c in the time of O. This implies the light is faster than c that hit O'2 in the coordinates of O. So, if we refute that light hit O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located, then we refute the relativity postulate. If we agree light hit O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located, then no matter how you calculate, LT or length contaction, O'2 is located further than (r,0,0) in the stationary system of coordinates. Hence, the light hit O'2 in time t=r/c is faster than c which contradicts the light postulate since it traveled further than (r,0,0) in time t=r/c. The light postulate says: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I am sure under SR length contraction does apply when viewing a moving frame's metrics. Two things. 1) The is the relativity postulate: the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Hence, both frames must be viewing a spherical light wave and not one length contracted since the behavior of light is independent of the motion of the light source. 2) I mapped the position of O'2 using LT back into the stationary system of coords. LT is supposed to compensate for length contraction. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged On which part do you disagree?

Nope, they are not in the same frame. But, that are at the same place. Under SR, how can two observers at the same place disagree on the position of the light sphere in one coordinate system given light is a universal constant c for both frames. Light must be at the same place for these two observers in some chosen coordinate system. If it is not, then the rules of physics are different for the two frames.

You have not explained why SR arrives at two different conclusions for the position of the light sphere in one coordinate system when O and O'1 are co-located. This implies the theory cannot decide on the proper location. You cannot use a preferred frame so you must accept both answers. Let me give you a simple comparison. Where is the car when it reaches an observer. It is at a distance 80 miles and it is at a distance 60 miles. You have not refuted that light is a distance r ( 1 + v/c ) and a distance r in the coords of O when O and O'1 are co-located. v ≠ 0 v/c ≠ 0 1 + v/c ≠ 1 r ( 1 + v/c ) ≠ r So, we do not have an illegal step yet light can only be at one place with two observers at the same place. Yet, SR claims it is at two different places. Yes, each frame has its circle. That is the problem. That implies light must be at two different places when O and O'1 are at the same place. This is the part you have not justified under SR. But, you can prove this is you can prove v = 0. Otherwise, it is false. Do not forget, the observers are at the same place. Also, if light is at two different locations and you already confessed O cannot refute O'1, then light is at r ( 1 + v/c). Now, since r/c elapsed in the O frame and O cannot refute light is at r ( 1 + v/c) then then speed of that light is r ( 1 + v/c)/(r/c) = ( c + v ). This refutes the light postulate in the stationary frame. Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ It is the case that reality says light cannot be seen at two different locations but you are confusing reality with SR. Let's review what you have confessed. This places light at (r,0,0) and at (r(1+v/c),0,0) in the coordinates of the stationary frame according to two different observers, and there is nothing in SR that says that these two observers must agree. The light is at r(1+v/c) in O coordinates, but it's due to the O' observer. And you are wrong about this statement. The observer in O calculates one location, regardless of which coordinate system it is expressed in. This is completely false. O calculates a location in its own system. Any other system will assign different coordinates to this location. That is SR. But, LT is supposed to be bijective and hence, there should be no disagreement of the location of the light sphere. With this exercise, we see that there is. If there is a disagreement on the location of the light sphere, then O will have to measure this light at a different speed contradicting the light postulate.

Well, I did not apply the postulates incorrectly. If you think I dfid, please be specific as to how. Further, you have not refuted any conclusions along the way. If you think you have, please apply the postulates to prove the refutation. I am afraid this is completely wrong. Light emerges spherically from the light emission point in the stationary frame. By the relativity postulate and the light postulate, light emerges spherically from the light emission point in the moving frame. Either observer is seeing a perfect light sphere at the origin under SR regardless of the motion of the light source. So, there is no such thing as an SR observer seeing a non-sphere as light. Actually it is evidence. It is a physical model that cannot be satisified by SR of which LT and SR are supposed to map any light event correctly. It is impossible for SR to describe this physical situation without a mathematical contradiction. For example, do you need to do an experiment to show 1 ≠ 0? I am OK with this statement. But, this does not resolve the fact that SR calculates two different light positions in the stationary system of coordinates when O and O'1 are co-located. By the relativity postulate, O cannot refute the conclusion and LT calculation of the O' frame which places light at a different position than does the O frame all in the coords of O when O and O'1 are co-located. The reason light is located at two different place and now you agree, is because of the LT calculation of O'1. Further, this places light more specifically at (r,0,0) and at (r(1+v/c),0,0) when O and O'1 are co-located. LT is supposed to correctly map from the O' observers to the O observer. Obviously, it does not.

Let's see, I included only points in the domain of LT. I then applied the postulates of SR and no others. No, I did not include artificial constraints. Can you explain why two observers at the same place in relative motion will draw different conclusions about one light sphere? If light is a constant c to both frames and the relativity postulate is true, then two observers at the same place should draw the same conclusions about one light sphere unless the relativity postulate is false. If the two observers were on a light phone, each would contend light is proceeding spherically from the light emission point in the frame. Therefore, we cannot exclude this scientific evidence and this is consistent with SR. Hence, the O observer cannot refute light is at O'2 if it is at O'1 when O and O'1 are co-located. This places light at (r,0,0) and at (r(1+v/c),0,0) in the coordinates of the stationary frame. Can you take a position as to why this is false since that is what you are saying. Please derive your conclusions from the two postulates of SR.