Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the MMX?

[vuquta]

Dear vuquta,

I feel you completely misunderstood my paper.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dear swansont ,

Can you tell me that the light circle around the Earth orbits, there is no Sagnac effect?

 

Fine, I will take more time.

 

You wrote:

 

Two answers follow:

1) We know that that the Earth’s linear velocity of revolution is

not measurable by the Michelson-Morley experiment on Earth’s

surface. This shows that the linear velocity of the star’s rotation

would also be immeasurable by a Michelson-Morley experiment.

So the speeds of light in each direction are equal. So they can

return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit.

2) Based on the inertial system not following with the star’s rotation,

the velocity of light is 300,000km·s-1 constant relative to

the system, whereas the star rotates, and the counterclockwise

light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time

discrepancy about 0.02%.

 

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

Dear vuquta,

I feel you completely misunderstood my paper.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dear swansont ,

Can you tell me that the light circle around the Earth orbits, there is no Sagnac effect?

 

Fine, I will take more time.

 

You wrote:

 

Two answers follow:

1) We know that that the Earth’s linear velocity of revolution is

not measurable by the Michelson-Morley experiment on Earth’s

surface. This shows that the linear velocity of the star’s rotation

would also be immeasurable by a Michelson-Morley experiment.

So the speeds of light in each direction are equal. So they can

return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit.

2) Based on the inertial system not following with the star’s rotation,

the velocity of light is 300,000km·s-1 constant relative to

the system, whereas the star rotates, and the counterclockwise

light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time

discrepancy about 0.02%.

 

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.

[swansont]

Dear swansont ,

Can you tell me that the light circle around the Earth orbits, there is no Sagnac effect?

 

I can't fathom how you would draw that conclusion from what I've said.

 

There will be a Sagnac effect from the light path around the earth because of the earth rotation. It will be a little over 200 ns. There will be a Sagnac effect from the orbit of the earth, but since that is very close to a straight line path, it will be small — less than a nanosecond. There will even be a Sagnac effect from our path around the galactic core; even though the radius of that path is huge and our speed is even larger than our orbital speed about the sun, it will have but a tiny effect, because the angular frequency is small, and the area term in the equation is the area encompassed by the photon path.

[Xinwei Huang]

Dear swansont ,

 

Now the Earth's rotation around the sun and simultaneously send a clockwise and a counterclockwise light. If the light along the Earth's orbit circle, they returned to the Earth definitely not at the same time, because the Earth's rotation around the sun. This is the Sagnac effect.

 

How much difference in time between clockwise and counterclockwise light back to Earth? It is about 0.628 seconds.

 

China to Japan is about 3,000 km distance. How much difference in time between the clockwise and counterclockwise light from China to Japan? It is about 2000 ns.

 

The two-way time transfer between China and Japan experiment tells us that electromagnetic waves from China and Japan, Sagnac effect size is about 90ns. It is considered to be caused by the Earth's rotation. But why not find 2000ns be caused by the Earth' revolution?

 

We must seriously think about these.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dear vuquta,

 

The answer 1) is correct, but very few people agree with me. The APS's editors did not say I was wrong, and this default that I was right.

 

I also think that MMX can not prove the constant speed of light.The past, many people think so, but they can not make others accept their ideas.

 

Now I raised this issue, which is that people have not thought before. It tells people that SR can not be established.

 

However, the editors of APS does not want that, so they rejected my paper.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

Edited March 27, 2010 by Xinwei Huang
Consecutive posts merged.

[ambros]

I can help resolve this argument, or at least make it less ambiguous. The greatest problem here is that people believe to be talking about the same thing while actually thinking about completely different concepts, and I have simple example that can very distinctively separate who is actually saying what about the speed and properties of light, exactly.

 

=Sensor =============B ..b1 ..b2 ..b3 ..b4 =====
                    |



                    |                    
E------------------->A------->

 

Photon emitter 'E' moves from left to right with arbitrary constant velocity.

When E passes over point 'A' it shoots a single photon in the direction of 'B'.

 

1.) The faster E moves, the greater energy sensor will register upon the impact?

2.) The faster E moves, the further away from B(b1, b2, b3..) photon hits the sensor?

3.) The faster E moves, the more time photon takes to cross AB distance and hits sensor?

Edited March 27, 2010 by ambros

[swansont]

Dear swansont ,

 

Now the Earth's rotation around the sun and simultaneously send a clockwise and a counterclockwise light. If the light along the Earth's orbit circle, they returned to the Earth definitely not at the same time, because the Earth's rotation around the sun. This is the Sagnac effect.

 

How much difference in time between clockwise and counterclockwise light back to Earth? It is about 0.628 seconds.

 

China to Japan is about 3,000 km distance. How much difference in time between the clockwise and counterclockwise light from China to Japan? It is about 2000 ns.

 

The two-way time transfer between China and Japan experiment tells us that electromagnetic waves from China and Japan, Sagnac effect size is about 90ns. It is considered to be caused by the Earth's rotation. But why not find 2000ns be caused by the Earth' revolution?

 

We must seriously think about these.

 

The light does not complete an orbit around the sun. It does not complete an appreciable fraction of an orbit around the sun.

 

The Sagnac effect arises from a path difference due to a rotating frame, i.e. it deviates from a straight path in an inertial frame. The path difference due to our rotation is measurable when the travel is along the equatorial direction. The path difference due to our orbit is negligible.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The APS's editors did not say I was wrong, and this default that I was right.

 

It would be a mistake to think that this is generally true, as it is a logical fallacy. The APS rejected your paper because it is fatally flawed, and did not take the time to point out the mistakes. It was not a matter of fixing a minor error to make the paper acceptable — that cannot happen.

[vuquta]

Dear swansont ,

 

 

Dear vuquta,

 

The answer 1) is correct, but very few people agree with me. The APS's editors did not say I was wrong, and this default that I was right.

 

I also think that MMX can not prove the constant speed of light.The past, many people think so, but they can not make others accept their ideas.

 

Now I raised this issue, which is that people have not thought before. It tells people that SR can not be established.

 

However, the editors of APS does not want that, so they rejected my paper.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

 

Well, then you and I would be in agreement.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I can help resolve this argument, or at least make it less ambiguous. The greatest problem here is that people believe to be talking about the same thing while actually thinking about completely different concepts, and I have simple example that can very distinctively separate who is actually saying what about the speed and properties of light, exactly.

 

=Sensor =============B ..b1 ..b2 ..b3 ..b4 =====
                    |



                    |                    
E------------------->A------->

 

Photon emitter 'E' moves from left to right with arbitrary constant velocity.

When E passes over point 'A' it shoots a single photon in the direction of 'B'.

 

1.) The faster E moves, the greater energy sensor will register upon the impact?

2.) The faster E moves, the further away from B(b1, b2, b3..) photon hits the sensor?

3.) The faster E moves, the more time photon takes to cross AB distance and hits sensor?

 

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

The light does not complete an orbit around the sun. It does not complete an appreciable fraction of an orbit around the sun.

 

The Sagnac effect arises from a path difference due to a rotating frame, i.e. it deviates from a straight path in an inertial frame. The path difference due to our rotation is measurable when the travel is along the equatorial direction. The path difference due to our orbit is negligible.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

It would be a mistake to think that this is generally true, as it is a logical fallacy. The APS rejected your paper because it is fatally flawed, and did not take the time to point out the mistakes. It was not a matter of fixing a minor error to make the paper acceptable — that cannot happen.

 

What does this deviation of a straight path have to do with Sagnac.

[ambros]

 

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.

 

Of course it's SR, and it is exactly the same thing as what you have been talking about in all your previous threads. Anyhow, can you answer those three questions or not? Those are 'yes/no' questions, should be easy.

[vuquta]

Of course it's SR, and it is exactly the same thing as what you have been talking about in all your previous threads. Anyhow, can you answer those three questions or not? Those are 'yes/no' questions, should be easy.

 

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?

[swansont]

What does this deviation of a straight path have to do with Sagnac.

 

 

An object moving at constant velocity is in an inertial frame. The Sagnac effect is a non-inertial phenomenon. IOW, you don't get any phase change from Sagnac in an inertial frame.

[vuquta]

An object moving at constant velocity is in an inertial frame. The Sagnac effect is a non-inertial phenomenon. IOW, you don't get any phase change from Sagnac in an inertial frame.

 

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?

[swansont]

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?

 

Yes, it is about light path differentials, which is why it's the area of the light path that matters in the equation.

[vuquta]

Yes, it is about light path differentials, which is why it's the area of the light path that matters in the equation.

 

Yea, I thought so.

 

This implies your argument against the OP does not logically follow.

[ambros]

Anyway, you did not specify a frame.

 

Everything except emitter is static relative to ground and everything is measured in this 'static' frame of reference called Earth. -- This has everything to do with this thread and with every other discussion about the speed of light. You should eventually realize once you answer the last question too.

 

=Static sensor ======B ..b1 ..b2 ..b3 ..b4 =====
                     |



                     |                    
E------------------->A-------> Moving emitter


Photon emitter 'E' moves from left to right with arbitrary constant velocity.
When E passes over point 'A' it shoots a single photon in the direction of 'B'.
[/Code]

 

Q: The faster E moves, the further away from B(b1, b2, b3..) photon hits the sensor?

 

A: YES, the faster a frame moves, the more the angle in a stationary frame.

 

 

 

Q: The faster E moves, the more time photon takes to cross AB distance and hits sensor?

 

A: YES/NO, "measured path" is supposed to always be c regardless. (?)

 

 

"supposed"? Can you answer the question please, yes/no? -- Hopefully after answering that question you will be fully aware how this has everything to do with SR and with this thread in particular. You are representing the "aether theory", aren't you? You want to prove the speed of light is not actually constant in all reference frames as SR says, right?

 

- Do you know what is the sped of light relative to?

- Does absolute speed require absolute reference frame?

[ajb]

You want to prove the speed of light is not actually constant in all reference frames as SR says, right?

 

Just to be very clear on this, replace "all references frames" with "all inertial reference frames". You are free to use non-inertial fames (coordinates) and in general you will find that the speed of light in not c.

[swansont]

Yea, I thought so.

 

This implies your argument against the OP does not logically follow.

 

How so? The path around the sun better approximates a straight line than the path around the earth, in the time it takes to complete the travel around the earth, i.e. in the roughly 1/7 of a second it takes to do the measurement.

[ambros]

Just to be very clear on this, replace "all references frames" with "all inertial reference frames". You are free to use non-inertial fames (coordinates) and in general you will find that the speed of light in not c.

 

Thanks. That is exactly what anyone should do before engaging into argument - define the terms and make sure both sides understand each other exactly and are actually talking about the same thing. So, let us quickly jump to the very beginning, how do you interpret what Einstein himself said:

 

 

- Any ray of light moves in THE “stationary”* system of coordinates with determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

 

*Stationary: Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of coordinates verbally from others that will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system”.

 

 

MEANING: Photons have constant velocity 'c' relative to Earth...

...or whatever planet you're standing on (Newtonian mechanics holds good)?!

 

Einstein does not even mention "all" frames or "any" frames, nor any relations between some different frames, he defines the speed of light as relative to just one, very privileged frame - THE "static" frame. No other frames are mentioned there and what else -"where Newtonian mechanics holds good"- can mean?

[ajb]

It sounds like by stationary Einstein means inertial. This is implied when he says that Newton's laws hold.

 

Anyway, I would not worry too much about what Einstein said or wrote. We have over 100 years of experience with special relativity and we now formulate it in a way that seems very removed from Einstein's original thoughts.

[vuquta]

How so? The path around the sun better approximates a straight line than the path around the earth, in the time it takes to complete the travel around the earth, i.e. in the roughly 1/7 of a second it takes to do the measurement.

 

Sounds good to me. I agree.

 

How does this strip his argument?

[swansont]

Sounds good to me. I agree.

 

How does this strip his argument?

 

Are you not following the discussion?

 

He is claiming that the orbit about the sun will add a much larger Sagnac phase shift that the rotation of the earth.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Einstein does not even mention "all" frames or "any" frames, nor any relations between some different frames, he defines the speed of light as relative to just one, very privileged frame - THE "static" frame. No other frames are mentioned there and what else -"where Newtonian mechanics holds good"- can mean?

 

No, this is not correct. Einstein discusses a "stationary" frame — he even uses quotes when first discussing this, and at various times afterward. He also discusses another frame, moving at an arbitrary velocity v with respect to the first.

 

Further, he states

 

light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured in the moving system.

 

all in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

[vuquta]

...

Edited March 28, 2010 by vuquta

[swansont]

vuquta, you have been warned before about hijacking threads. You personal quibbles with relativity must be contained to your own (non-closed) threads. This is Xinwei Huang's thread, and your latest post is off-topic.

[vuquta]

Are you not following the discussion?

 

He is claiming that the orbit about the sun will add a much larger Sagnac phase shift that the rotation of the earth.

 

No, this is not correct. Einstein discusses a "stationary" frame — he even

 

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.

[swansont]

30km/sec in a straight light will not see Sagnac.

 

30 km/sec completing a circle will see Sagnac.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

(Strictly speaking, MMX is not sensitive to Sagnac; there is no enclosed area. You need a geometry like a Mach-Zehnder interferometer.)

[vuquta]

30km/sec in a straight light will not see Sagnac.

 

30 km/sec completing a circle will see Sagnac.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

(Strictly speaking, MMX is not sensitive to Sagnac; there is no enclosed area. You need a geometry like a Mach-Zehnder interferometer.)

 

Yea, this is your post.

 

Originally Posted by vuquta 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?

 

Yes, it is about light path differentials, which is why it's the area of the light path that matters in the equation.

 

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.

[Xinwei Huang]

The light does not complete an orbit around the sun. It does not complete an appreciable fraction of an orbit around the sun.

[/mp]

 

It would be a mistake to think that this is generally true, as it is a logical fallacy. The APS rejected your paper because it is fatally flawed, and did not take the time to point out the mistakes. It was not a matter of fixing a minor error to make the paper acceptable — that cannot happen.

 

Now the Earth's rotation around the sun and simultaneously send a clockwise and a counterclockwise light. If the light along the Earth's orbit circle, they returned to the Earth definitely not at the same time.

Please tell me how much difference in time between clockwise and counterclockwise light back to Earth?

If you have walked 100 km to spend 100 minutes, but walk 1 km is not the 1 minute?

 

APS editors have time to say that I was wrong in the past paper, but no time to explain this paper is wrong?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

30km/sec in a straight light will not see Sagnac.

 

30 km/sec completing a circle will see Sagnac.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

(Strictly speaking, MMX is not sensitive to Sagnac; there is no enclosed area. You need a geometry like a Mach-Zehnder interferometer.)

 

 

If the planet’s surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; i.e. clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. But has it ever been detected?

If MMX is not sensitive to Sagnac,so you think that MMX can not prove that the principle of constant Light Speed.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Xinwei Huang
Consecutive posts merged.