geistkiesel

Miller used the incorrect equation. the correct equation will have the light reflected back up the trajectory of the down photon. The photon has traveled a total of 30 meters (miller's interferometer) in 30/3x108 seconds, or 10-7 sec. Assuming the earth frame moving at 30,000 m/sec the frame will have moved 30 x 103 x 10-7 = 3mm, if my arithmatic is correct. The beams will be moving parallel to each other just before arriving at the scintillation screen. As Ching-Chuan Su has found that the Sagnac effect excludes influence of the orbital motion of the earth I(using global GPS data), the 3 mm is large by a factor of approxinmately 100. This places the expected offset of motion in the micron range and due exclusively to rotational motion of the earth.

No I mean that the concept of simultaneity as negated by SRT could not be proved, mathematically or physically. In Einsteins gedanken he describes an observer on a train arriving at the midpoint of photon emitters (wrt the staionary frame) just as the photons are emitted. The observer, O, sees the photon approaching from the front of the train before the photon arrives from the rear and concludes that if the photons were emitted from the midpoint of the sources then the photons could not have been emitted simultaneously because the photons did not arrive at his position on the train simultaneously (O has assumed the train's motion in a state of rest). Further, Einstein went on to say that all passengers would conclude the same as the observer. There are a number flaws in the argument. The observer, O, having moved wrt the embankment frame, Ve, will naturally see the arrival of the photons sequentially. However, some passengers to the rear of the observer will see the photons arriving simultaneously at the physical midpoibnt of the photon sources. These passengers, at the instant the photons arrive simultaneously at the midpoint are privvy to the information known to O:the arrival time of the photon at the O position on the train (the inewrtial frame). Therefore the arrival time of the photon from the rear of the train may also contain the arrival time of the photons simulataneously at the midpoint of the sources. The train velocity wrt to Ve can be determined and the O must therefore come to the conclusion that the train is moving, not the embankment. If, as O has determined before any data is received that he will assume the state of rest wrt Ve, the erroneous nature of the problem is foretold. When O is told that passengers on the train observed the simulataneous arrival of photons at the physical midpoint of the sources of the photons what is the responnse of O that justifies his conckusion that the photons must have been emitted sequentially? In order for O to speak the truth of the matter two physiocal events must have occured:1) the embankment must have accelerated to a velocity measured as the relative velocity of train and embankement, 2.) the acceleration of the train originally that provided the original velocity that was initially measured as the realtive velocity of train and embankment must be negated. These two events are both physically impossible conditions to achieve yet we are supposed to believe the mathematical contrivances of SRT as justified substitutions for the reality of observed phenomena, and to discard the rational analytic approaches, such as that performed here, and to adopt a belief in a world described by those who accepted the irrational universe of SRT that iis totally void of any physical basis. Of course the gedanken of Einstein's also places special emphasis onm the observer on the train to the exclusion of the opassengers being able to observe also. Now, anyone reading this thread, watch how any response contrary to that posted here (meaning by those supporting SRT) will not specifically be directed at anything specifically stated here. This is just more SRT. There is no one able to prove SRT, yet there are many able to memorize SRT formulae and the echoes of SRT mantras. If as you say momentum is conserved in all inertial frames then please answer the question: What is the trajectory of the bounced ball assuming the surface on the ground is slightly grainy and hardened granite and the red balls simple golf balls. Also, and unshown, are wind defletors that remove any wind effect on the trajectory of the ball. If the observer has assumed a state of rest wrt the embankment then the surface of the embankment will impose a chip shot effect on the ball which will direct the ball to the rear of the train (the assumed velocity direction of the embankment). On the other hand if the train is the object moving and the embankment at rest, the ball will be directed up back up the trajectory used by the ball in its downward flight. So follow the bouncing ball tell us how momentum is conserved in this SRT scenario. You may use your imagination with the train example here. You pick the train at rest SRT you define a preferred frame, and in this instance you would pick the wrong preferred frame. It was the train that accelerated that produced the relative motion of train and embankment. OK I am fixated on trains and embankments, so what? Are you saying that trains and embankments are exceptions to SRT, but all other relative motion between frames excluding trains and embankments, is adequately described by SRT? So if physics is true in general, yet trains and embankments are not included in that generality, then does SRT have a list of exceptional inertial frames that are described by SRT? It is SRTists with the fixations, such as learned wherever that was. Preferred frames do not square with SRT therefore , say SRT graduate advisors, on many occasions, "preferred frames are out, othewise SRT is out". And so on.

It is this kind of question that, by inference, describes the intrinsic flaws in SRT. Let us assume the electrons are produced from the ionization of hydrogen gas. The electrons are directed into an accelerating beam until a velocity of .99c is reached. The electron then exits the field and is detected by a cascade photomultiplier tube where the output current is proportional to the input enrgy of the electron. Let us perform this experiment with a wide specrum of accelrated electron velocities. The question is how would I know that the electron wasn't decerated to a state of rest? I would know from the reading of the detectors that the frist electron had an energy that was grossly elevated over the electrons that reached lower levels of velocity as described by the output describing all the accelerations. What would you do if asked the same question? Would you entertain giving a response that you really didn't know if the electron was accelerated or decelerated?

This much I gathered, however the use of the 4-dim world is SR structered is it not? The use of the coordinate systems of classical vs. 4-dim imposes ambiguities from the inherent differences imposed by the basic physical assumptions that are contradictory from the get go. Were I to agree that the measure of relative velocity of frame and photon was always c for all uniformly moving frames I wouldn't be in this duiscussion, but i see the opposite. If we observe a duck flying in a straight line at uniform motion from any number of inertial fremes, we will not arrive at a duck version of SR, will we? It is only when we assume the constancy of the relative velocity of frame and ducks that we would construct such a model directly analogous to SR as we know it. Electromagetic dynamics is the only entity in the observeable universe that we make the constancy of the speed of light assumptions and this as an exception to all other motion. Because there was an inherent inability to consider situations and conditions that would allow one to measure the relative velocity of the speed of light measured from the frame, that got us where we are. This is the pnly reason why some discard the concept of absolute space and time. The moving frame is considered a special place in a universe where everthing is moving. Some are taught to reject the ratioanal and the observed and to believe in the mentally constructed which is based on the rejection of even attempting to measure the relative velocity of frame and photon. It has gotten to a point that any measurement of the absloute velocity of any entity is rejected by SR theorists, not from any inherent identifiable error in the experimental arrangement, but from a pure theoretical objection. Theory vs. Experimental results is where the battle is being raged, and all the philosophical rhetoric outlining the problem offers nothing to any resilutuion of the discussion. I trust you can see my objections. If we are told that under no circumstances will any measurement of the relative velocity of frame and photon ever be measuarble as different than c, i.e. c - v, or c + v measuremnts as relative findings, are not true and accurate measurements. I expected no less of a response when I offered the example described in the opening post of this thread. I would think, as I did think, that if there was some intrinsic experimental error in the described system that that error would be so obvious that to point to the error would be a trivial task for the average SR theorist. AS I described the system in the figure I see nothing that includes or discludes SR. The only assumption I made, the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source of light. I see this as used improperly when translated to mean the speed of light will always be measured as C wrt any source. This statement is a direct contradiction of the basis of SR. If the motion of light is independent of the motion of the souerce, then why make a statement that the speed of light will always be emasured as C from any frame. Why insert an exception to the independence piostualte of light? This is an inaccurate meaning of the independent motion of light. No activity of the source will have any affect on the motion of the emitted light. is hoe I read it, but to then measure the speed of light wrt a point on a inertial frame moving at some v > 0 wrt Ve, embankment, that I must then jump thriough the SR hoops and effectively negate the velocity of the frame is too much. Every external observer to the frame making the measurement, from their external position, will come up with a relative velocity Vc - Vf = Vcf < C. The moving observer measures Vc - Vf = Vcf = Vc. The difficulty to engage in that kind of thinking is indeed not easy. The writings I am familiar with state (in many versions), that one must give the learned "rational" thinking process and that what one observes is "not the reality" of the universe, are true statements. To accept SR one must discard rational observations. the two examples you mentioned are from consistent coordinate systems, so if you are talking to the town drunk, or the astronaut, there may be the easiest way to give directions to one or the other. I make the attempt to determine which system is being used.We are in a debate' date=' of sorts, each explaining their own perceptions and attempting to indicate the errors in the other's perceptions, so I agree it is not an easy task. Hiowever, we do agree, there is the bar down the road apiece, where we may all gather and discuss the matter, or we could just let St. Peter sort it all out.[/indent']

What ever the MM results are there is the ever oresent ambiguities inherent in the results. Thje first is the cinsistent finding of the 8km/sec absolute motion (MM and Miller confirmed) together with the imposed error assumed by virtually all reviewers of the MM resuls (Miller included). Th error is the assumption that the orthogonal reflection on the moving mirror "dragez the beam along with the moving interferometer thus creating an extended path length for the reflected beam. Until these questi8ons are fullt answered there is little valyue in using MM to prove one thing or another, or to impose any assumptions regarding SR and classical physics, I have been reluctantly discussing these issues, with little ,if any, direct response. We can discuss the matters of MM all week long, but we are fancifying the progress of the discussions by our speculations.

But look very closely what is being describeac as nonisotropic, SRT states that the relative velocity of frame and photon is always measured as C, correct" The nonisoptropic light motion is merely the recognition that the relative velocity of frame and photon is v - c or v + c. The speed of light wrt some Vf = 0 is still c. Nothing has really changed except the rhetoric. But no one is suggesting that light actually slows down or speeds up for the mere convenience of scientists constructing classical physical models of light motion. But that would be so cool if it did. Swansot. histroically the Saganc effect came from experiments on rotaion. Only through time did the application generalize to not just rotation of circular wheels, but any turning shape was seen to give the same result. But while all this weas going on the mentality was thinking in terms that the system was a rotationall system, until even Einstein suggested that the Saganc unwrap the trajectories of the turning wheel and lineralize the effect. So see the obedient result of that command by AE in the opening post of this thread. I have concluded that the rotational Saganc effect is basically an accelerometer, the linear effect a motion indicattor, meaning uniform motion and perhaps measuring accelerating frame as well..

I hear what you are saying, but I am not quite following the maning of it all. As you have just stated it appears applicabnle to any situation, Atheist, I believe we have an understanding. I would say the same and have in different words: Photons emitted at point A strike parallel vertical mirrors at B and C and are reflected back to point A. Of course we can take this much farther and conclude with the Saganc effect as illyustrated in the opening post. Let us assume the Saganc arrangement in this thread is but a tremporary flash and that there is some constructive uise fore ther dynamics of the whole process that occured only one time, thiat is one emission, one reflection. The process begins, is emplementyed and is concluded and we all go on to the next process or event, the Saganc effect just completed remains but a vague memjory so unremarkable was its affect, This doesn't lessen the propriety of the effect and the affect on existing theories, such as SRT. AS far as I know there is no physical law requiring eternal existence for all inertial frames as a finfdamental attribute of the physical accuracy or application of the frame. In other word a frame as copnstructed as inefficient and dificult to arrange, doe s not negate the status of the frame and thagt it be relageated tot he nearest theoretical trash bin. . I am still cautious on your meaning here as if I have missed something you are trying to say. The fact that the same points on A , B and C can be described by an infnite number of points and coordinate systems does not obscure the conlusions of tthe Saganc effect. If this were true no coordinant system would be safe. All someone would have to do is claim "an infinite number of coordinate points and frames also describe what one has described in formal scientific logic, and that this would effectively nullify the system, But we know such infinity rich states do not give dancing lesson to the host of angels dancing on the head. of a pin. I read a treatise discussing scioentific analysis of the origin of religion and the effect of the scrutiny. One point hammered home consitently the scientific community is able to describe the origins of religion as if that explanation alone would be sufficent to bring about the downfall of religion. If I explain SRT will SRT crumble? If we look at the matter from a sheer "utility " concern, the coordinate system that works apporpriately need never be repalced until a model comes along with such a significant benefit increase that the change becomes mandatory and crucial, absolutely mecessary. The Ptolemy system of prediting the positions of stellar objects did not collapse one week aftyer Gallileo and Kepler publshed their famous documents. Ptolemy lasted approximately 150 years, plus, the reason for the survival after the grand awakening given the world by the K and G was that the Ptolemy system WORKED. Soemhow I think I overkilled this response, What do you think?

But only because the motion was "not detected"., not for any stated theoretical reasons, as far as I am able to determine (AFAIAATD). If there were any inherent systemdatici erriors in MM then the issue remains open. And wouldn't you just predict it, I have found such an error.

Having said all that, J.C., and agreeing as we did, I run into my drunken uncle who got kicked out of SRT school and he mutters something about,"but you and J.C.MacSwell were in realtive motion wrt each other, and the fact is he was stationary wrt the earth frame that you were moving over 200 mph wrt. So what physical reality is there in the use of the infinite number of inertial frames that you are aware if only because an SRT expert told you about these frames? Can you ever see, one of them, touch one of them or have any kind of observation of one of them? Then he took the last few gulps from his bottle of Glenfiddich and keeled over stoned drunk. How do I answer him when he wakes up?

Johnny5, here is a good link to Dayton Miller who performed mopre than 200,000 MM experiments. Also included is an excellent and unbiased analysios of Miller's critic's especially Shanklandland that made an attempt to skuttle Miller's work. Millers 1933 paper is invaluabel. Mine is dogged eared at this time. I keep reading it and finding things hidden. So you want to play the game of physics? See out it is done behind closed doors. This will cut down onn unnecessary speculations re MM, and Sagnac Effects.click for Miller BTW, I do not see the direct Sagnac relationship re MM and Saganc that Swnsont mentioned. maybe I am splitting hairs, but Sagnac linearized is a detector for motion, The two dimensional rotational arrangement is an effective accelerometer, gyroscope. Some functional differences anyway.

I cannot speculate on what you did' date=' re SRT. Can you elaborate so I am able to make a coherent and rational reply? I am especially intersted in the "moving observer's point of view". Thanx [/indent']

Meaning what exactly? Do You seriously believe that Swansont is honestly replying to my posts? He is a PhD level person supposedly offering criticism and comment, corrections, analysis, you know the drill. When he flagrantly does nothing except to distract the thread, what exactly should my attitude be? Should I go along with his scam, and assume mere incompetency? Should I lead the poor man to an island of truth and safety and provide him some security so he can meditate on the philosophuical implications of his navel? I took the time to produce a small and certainly insignificant document on the Sagnac effect. Mr Swansont has done nothing except demonstrating his childish attempts to skuttle this thread. This is how I read it. Make no mistake about it. Your reply to my post suggests I have an attitude problem. Did you offer any comments to Swansont regarding his posts? Even to agree, disagree, offer assistance, point out possible improvements in his view of the inherent physics in the question under scrutiny? No, you just directed your comments to me and my "attitude". One simple question: Do you accept Special Relativity Theory in the light of the Sagnac Implications that are described in this thread? or do you need more in order that you be able to make up your mind, as in making a decision as to what you believe? Or asked another way: Who do you support in the current discussion: Swansont or Geistkiesel. Whether you answer yes, or no please explain your response. Thank you Atheist.

Read the links provided in the opening thread. Why are you lying to the people reading this thread? You are just a petty man Swansont, without anything to contribute, unique or otherwise. Did you read the links I provided in the opening post? Intersting statements. Do you have specific references to any of yoyur claims, any one of them? After all you made some claims, why not support them? The Sagnac effect described in this thread is the issue. If you want to use MM to defeat the thread, then do it scientifically, not with amateurish undocumented, "of what I have read" . Let us in on what you have read. No body cares what you believe. You haven't ever read Miller's original Work have you?. Diurnal effect - this is the same time period in any one particlular year, as discovered by Miller. Read Miller, and quit trying to demonstrate yourself as an incmopetent boob. BULLSHIT. Who showed it, Miller's 8 km/sec, to be an "anomoly" and what is the anomoly? Pure bullshit from you is the answer. Prove that we cannot be moving at other than 30 km/sec. You mean of course 30 km/sec, absolute velocity, don't you? Hear ye, Hear ye. Do you read this world? Swansont has made the unambiguous claim that the planet earth cannot be moving at other than 30 km/sec through absolute space!!! Hear ye . Hear ye. Get another forum to dump your naive trash on Swansong., you are merely trying to distract this thread away from the utter nonsense that SRT has been proved to be. What's the matter, are you a weak minded old man with a lifetime of accepting the stupidity of SRT iwho is s just a tad to tired to accept that your reality has been provided by WIzard of Oz makinghis pronouncements from the secrect post he held behind the curtain? Just go through the choking spell. You will get up in the morning refreshed, a new man, or a man for the first time in your life. Heal yourself pilgrim, heal yourself and you too shall be one who sees. I am unable to take you seriously Swansont. I made the attempt and failed. I will not treat you with the respect you so artlessly demand any further, Do you understand this?