vuquta

So, why the negative MMX and positive Sagnac?

Agreed. Given the clock in the moving frame is time dilated at the light emission point, that clock will elapse t/γ when the stationary frame elapses t. In particular, when the clock in the stationary frame elapses rγ/c, the clock in the moving frame elapses r/c. If you disagree, then there is no point in proceeding.

I am reviewing the discussion. It is also a discussion on the interpretation of MMX and Sagnac. These concepts are in the paper of the OP. So, I asked you why the results of MMX are null but not sagnac. You said it was a result of the circular path. I also showed a sagnac experiment that was a rotating square and hence straight lines paths. Then, you agreed that was not true. If these concepts are not in the domain of this discussion, please tell me and I will find something else to do.

It means the light path is precisely the absolute path between the emission point in the frame and the light receiver. Oh, Einstein made the following claim: As such, he claims the light sphere by LT translation is also spherical in the moving frame after LT translation. He chose an arbitrary point (x, y, z) on the light sphere x² +y² +z² =c² t² , which is a sphere, translated it and correctly said ξ² + η² + ς² = c² τ². So, he is claiming LT preserved the light sphere again by asserting "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system" after LT translation. This requires like the stationary light sphere for all (x,y,z) on the light sphere c² t² is a constant, to make his assertion, it would need to be the case that for all (x,y,z) on the stationary light sphere, c² τ². AFTER translation by LT. But, by using (x,y,z) on the light sphere equal (r,0,0,r/c) and (x,y,z) equal (-r,0,0,r/c), we find different values for c² τ². and hence LT did not preserve the light sphere as Einstein claimed he proved.

First, I did not say LT fails. I said LT is not consistent with time dilation combined with the measure at c logic. So, are you contending if the clock at the origin of light emission reads r/c, then it is false that light proceeds a distance r in all directions? That means the measure at c logic of SR is false.

I did not say the frame traveled at c. Where did you get this? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged While we are on the subject, have you figured out yet, SR requires each frame's light emission point is valid and they diverge after light emission? That implies multiple light spheres.

What does the earth's rotation have to do with anything? The Sagnac effect is seen in GPS with GPS satellites moving relative to the rotation of the earth. So, apparently, it is a relative thing, since the earth is rotating. But, how then do you establish zero rotation?

What I was talking about is mostly known as 'aberration effect' and is fundamental to measuring and analyzing the speed of light. Interersting. This is generally used to prove the speed of light is constant in the vacuum of space. Why do you say the gravity field? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not necessarily. If the setup is like this with O' and T' moving, r the distance between the two: Moving target T' O' O such that in the coords of O', T' is located at ((-vγr)/(c(γ+1)), y, 0) then t'=t.

Please open your own thread on this and I will discuss it with you. In this thread, I just wanted to make sure my views on SR's velocity composition equations were correct. I am satisified with that.

1) Light does not travel in a circle for the ring interferometer. It is a collection of straight lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac_interferometer.png 2) The earth is in motion around the sun. If you insist, it is moving relative to the sun although it is virutally absolute at 30km/s. The ring interferometer is in motion relative to the earth at say 30 km/s. You have not explained this. Finally, are you claiming light is isotropic in the vacuum of space which has been verified. I ran into a good modern paper last week showing this astronomically but forgot to save the dm link for later reading. And you are saying light is also isotropic to the earth which we know is moving. How is that?

Yea, this is your post. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=553647&postcount=36 So, you confessed it is about light path differentials and not the circle. How do you explain this now? Otherwise, the OP has a point against SR.

You are not following the argument. He is comparing frequency interpretations of the earth's orbit and sagnac. The earth is in orbit around the sun at 30km/s and yet no difference is detected in MMX. Distant star light aberration shows this is the pseudo absolute motion of the earth or the aberration pattern would be strange. On the other hand, a star that rotates with an equal earth radius at 30 km/s sees non-MMX results called Sagnac. You yourself claimed it is light path differentials in Sagnac, which is the standard interpretation. So, how do you resolve this? The earth moving at 30 km/sec in orbit sees null results for MMX yet a rotating earth at say 30 km/sec would see non-null results for MMX.

Yes, well he also claimed that needed to be proven later and not simply assumed as true. Einstein: We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity. At the time t = τ = 0, when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. If (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave, then x² +y² +z² =c² t² . Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation ξ² + η² + ς² = c² τ² The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.5 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ He claimed the above is the proof of logical consistency. He stated the requirement for the logical consistency of the light postulate and the relativity postulate is the spherical light wave in the stationary frame must be spherical when translated by LT in the moving frame. He made the statement, "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system." Here is what he did. He started with a point (x, y, z) that was struck by the spherical light in stationary K. He performed LT on that point. He then claimed in moving k, ξ² + η² + ς² = c² τ² . This is in fact true for any arbitrary light beam. Thus, he claimed he proved the spherical wave in K is also spherical in moving k, based on the equation above. But, for the spherical light wave in K to be spherical in k, c² τ² would need to be constant for all (x, y, z ) attained by the stationary light sphere after translation by LT.*This is easily proven false by considering (r,0,0,r/c) and (-r,0,0,r/c) in the stationary frame and translating them using LT. Hence, he committed the logical fallacy, dicto simpliciter. Therefore, the light sphere in K is not spherical in k when translated by LT Hence, the light postulate and the relativity postulate are logically inconsistent. Here is a picture of the LT calculated light sphere from the view of the moving frame. http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/04e0a878a2.gif The yellow circle is the stationary light sphere. The yellow rays are the LT calculated light beams. The yellow rays do not constitute a sphere. Therefore, his compatability proof is false.

...

Sounds good to me. I agree. How does this strip his argument?

They are not compatible and here is why. I will disprove SR. Einstein argued the following. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ He claimed the above is the proof of logical consistency. He stated the requirement for the logical consistency of the light postulate and the relativity postulate is the spherical light wave in the stationary frame must be spherical when translated by LT in the moving frame. He made the statement, "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system." Here is what he did. He started with a point (x, y, z) that was struck by the spherical light in stationary K. He performed LT on that point. He then claimed in moving k, ξ² + η² + ς² = c² τ² . This is in fact true for any arbitrary light beam.Thus, he claimed he proved the spherical wave in K is also spherical in moving k, based on the equation above. But, for the spherical light wave in K to be spherical in k, c² τ² would need to be constant for all (x, y, z ) attained by the stationary light sphere after translation by LT.*This is easily proven false by considering (r,0,0,r/c) and (-r,0,0,r/c) in the stationary frame and translating them using LT. Hence, he committed the logical fallacy, dicto simpliciter. Therefore, the light sphere in K is not spherical in k when translated by LT Hence, the light postulate and the relativity postulate are logically inconsistent.

What a good post. I wonder why you misinterpreted my posts. You have correctly identified the problem in physics between continuity and quantum. Those on the side of quantum will naturally see precision since all their equipment is finite. They therefore assume reality is quantum. In reality their theory is a self fullfulling prophecy based on the finite ability of real world measure. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How do you validate the bold above with a finite experiment? You cannot just say it.

Yea, I thought so. This implies your argument against the OP does not logically follow.

Yes, the circular pattern is non-inertial. Are you suggesting it is not about the light path distance differentials which just happen to be circular?

What? You have not been following it then. Anyway, you did not specify a frame. But, the faster a frame moves, the more the angle in a stationary frame. But, the "measured path" is supposed to always be c regardless. What does this have to do with this thread?

Well, then you and I would be in agreement. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is not SR. SR is ballistic in the sense a moving light source will shoot and the light angles in the direction of travel. Here is an example of this ballistic behavior from the view of the stationary frame. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What does this deviation of a straight path have to do with Sagnac.

Fine, I will take more time. You wrote: I find one interesting. I do not like any of your conclusions. I had not thought of 1) before. You are correct. This implies SR is Ritz's theory in which case light "rides" with the motion of rotation or so it would seem. Rotation with MMX, no matter what speed, cannot show a frequency difference with MMX. No question about it, light lights rides the direction of motion with MMX. I am not talking Sagnac that requires a statiinary frame and a rotating frame. But, I told you this already that MMX does not prove a constant speed of light because frequency and light speed are not the same thing. Your thought experiment only verifies this fact. Please think about that. You have not proved anything about the constant speed of light with this. But, your 2) is not clearly stated. Please state this better and I will think about it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Fine, I will take more time. You wrote: I find one interesting. I do not like any of your conclusions. I had not thought of 1) before. You are correct. This implies SR is Ritz's theory in which case light "rides" with the motion of rotation or so it would seem. Rotation, no matter what speed cannot show a frequency difference with MMX. No question about it, light rides the direction of motion with MMX. But, I told you this already that MMX does not prove a constant speed of light because frequency and light speed are not the same thing. Your thought experiment only verifies this fact. Please think about that. You have not proved anything about the constant speed of light with this. But, your 2) is not clearly stated. Please state this better and I will think about it.

I read your paper. I posted this in another forum as you are dumping this everywhere. Carefully read my comments. I read RPenner's attack on this poster. Rpenner claimed Sagnac. That effect is local to the measuring device and the rotation. This poster is claiming a distant planet is rotating and "delivering light pulses" to earth. This is called planetary aberration combined with light aberration. This is well documented except there is some question on the location of the planet in my mind. In any event Rpenner's statements have nothing to do with this post. In addition this poster is attempting to equate a constant frequency of light to a constant speed of light. It is also well documented these two are not logically equivalent.

I have considered MMX and the constant speed of light. MMX is consistent with Ritz's theory which is not a constant speed of light. I showed you many links. I would assume you would consider this. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged btw, that thread you locked, i never posted anything like that here. If so, can you explain?

You do not get it. MMX does not show that. The Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, “Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time”, Phys. Rev. 42 400–418 (1932). This uses an interferometer similar to Michelson's, except that its arms are of different length, and are not at right angles to each other. They used a spectacular technique to keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001°C, which gave them sufficient stability to permit observations during several seasons. They also used photographs of their fringes (rather than observing them in real time as in most other interferometer experiments). Their apparatus was fixed to the Earth and could only rotate with it. Their null result is consistent with SR. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip_tests There are two different arm lengths. Two different arm lengths with a common output with null results is not measuring speed, it is measuring a constant frequency. You cant use MMX to prove anything about a constant speed of light.