Absolute zero-velocity measured in Sagnac Effect

[swansont]

Swansont' date=' you do realize that we are not going to resolve the issue of the integrity of SRT by the comparitive posts we have been exchanging? Like Miller confirmed MM, were you aware of this? How do we analyze the MM analogue experiments like the one that was done in a balloon high in the atmosphere? We are treating the issue as if SRT was on trial for murder, when it isn't on trial. I have attemted in the opening post of this thread, to deascribe a system void in Sagnac and. or SRT rhetoric and/or effects. I haven't been succesful so far, . I have just completed some serious thinking on the matter and I believe I have arrived at a solution that is neither , SRT , nor Sagnac.

I will be posting shortiy. [/indent']

 

No, SRT isn't on trial. It's been around for a hundred years, and shown to be valid. "We" aren't trying to resolve anything. You are posting misreprentations of the predictions of relativity, and I am trying to correct them, lest some observer think that your posts reflect reality.

 

To the limited extent your alternate view has made any predictions, they have been shown to be incorrect.

[Johnny5]

You can measure the acceleration of an object using SR, because you can look at things from an inertial reference frame. But an observer in the accelerating frame, who attempts to apply SR, is going to get wrong answers from measurements.

 

Dr Swanson, can you explain why. You are right, under the assumption that the SRT time dilation formula is true, you are right. The frames are not identical.

 

But how would you explain why mathematically?

 

Your discussion would involve derivatives with respect to time of SRT formulas yes?

 

That is what I'm interested in seeing. How you perform the derivatives. which frame do you differentiate time in.

 

Regards

[swansont]

Dr Swanson' date=' can you explain why. You are right, under the assumption that the SRT time dilation formula is true, you are right. The frames are not identical.

 

But how would you explain why mathematically?

 

Your discussion would involve derivatives with respect to time of SRT formulas yes?

 

That is what I'm interested in seeing. How you perform the derivatives. which frame do you differentiate time in.

 

Regards[/quote']

 

As I've noted several times before, this is the sort of thing that someone else has undoubtedly done, and is available somewhere in a book and/or on the internet.

 

Thinsg like this are not something I feel compelled to spend the time to work out or track down, and transcribe for you. If I had a link handy, I'd post it. In the absence of that, you are capable of Googling for information yourself.

[Johnny5]

As I've noted several times before' date=' this is the sort of thing that someone else has undoubtedly done, and is available somewhere in a book and/or on the internet.

 

Thinsg like this are not something I feel compelled to spend the time to work out or track down, and transcribe for you. If I had a link handy, I'd post it. In the absence of that, you are capable of Googling for information yourself.[/quote']

 

Fair enough.

 

I already know the answer, I wanted to see if you did too.

 

It's ok.

 

Regards

[timo]

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.

The correct velocity to be used in SR is 4-velocity. 4-velocity IS absolute. Only the four numbers you describe it with change from coordinate system to coordinate system. A nice example someone posted in this forum (in another context, though) is the absoluteness of the numbers. A One is a One, regardless whether you write it as 1, 2/2, 3/3 or 1³.

 

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 think understanding the experimental results helps.

 

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.

No, I can´t see your objections. What I´ve understood so far is: You have two photons emmited and reflected back to meet each other. Assuming lightspeed to be constant in every frame, different coordinate systems give different time- and space-coordinates for the point in which the photons meet again. So, where´s your problem or the objection to 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?

Both statements are simply the same.

 

 

 

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.

You don´t really have to give up rational thinking. Quite contradictionary rational thinking tells me that the photons must allways meet again in the same point and that because of that the time-coordinates and the space-coordinates can be different. About the "we do not observe the reality"-thing: That´s one of those pseudo-scientific statements that can be watered down to a point where it will be correct. In the strict sense this term seems rather meaningless to me because I neither know what the authors mean by "observe" nor by "the reality".

As a remark here: I´ve never come across a good description of SR. The way I really started understanding it was when I learned General Relativity and applied it to noncurved spaces.

 

 

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.

Same as in your example. The best coordinate system for you is the one in which you don´t observe the mirrors as moving (you may choose whether you want to be the astronaut or the drunk). Using other coordinate systems will make things a bit more complicated (poor drunk being given GPS coordinates) but won´t change the location of the bar/point of intersection.

[geistkiesel]

Experiments demonstrate the validity of scientific claims. The paper cannot both propose a model and claim success without some empirical evidence being presented. And since Su points out the difference between his theory and accepted theory is very small, you can't currently confirm his theory.

I have no major quarrel, however, look at the overall meaning of the paper. The orbital motion of the earth is not measurable as affecting the motion of light, in that an orbital Sagnac device is doomed to failure regarding relative motion of the earth orbiting frame.

This finding goes beyond SR and the Sagnac Effect as it describes a restricted application of orital motion. It is as if the orbital motion is confined to etxraterrtrial events and that the local earth frame can be considered ether based in the sense of the earth gravity affect on the motion of the light and of coure the accelration affectws dueing launch of the SAT. Even considering the claims of light speed variation in some planetraty transmision experiment, with in any local volume the light speed variations are insiginificant.

 

Check something for me on this Swansont. Miller claimed a sun velocity of 208 km/sec in a general southerly heading. If we assume the numbers are fairly accurate (there are simlar figures for different dirctions reported by others) then the orbiting velocity vector is tangent to the orbit trajectory which is basically orthogonal to the sun motion. The rotational motion imposes a daily oscialltion on the orbiting motion.

 

Now when we calulate the net velocity vector of the earth considering the three modes of motion we have v

²

= 208

²

+ 30.64

[sup ]2[/sup]

or a 44192 + 920 =45120 and taking the square root, the net velocity vector is 212.4 where the direction is approximately 8 egrees off the sun direction of motion rotating around the sun trajectory.

 

Calculating distance we use the sun velocity of 208 km/sec x 31558464 sec = 6.56 x 10

⁹

for the sun yearly linear distance. The orbital distance in one year for the earth is 30 x 31558464 =.946x 10

⁹

. the angle in the distance difference is tan-

^-1

.946/6.56 or approximately 8 degrees that checks with the velocity vector.

 

Now, if Su is correct in the statement that the orbital motion is not measurable on the earth bound light motion then clearly the orbital dynamics are uniquely exterior to the earth bound light motion. The huge difference in orbital and rotational speed does not resolve the issue. One would think, linearly, just the opposite is true and that the orbital motion ovewhelms the rotational motion that might be seen sporadically depending on the accuracy of the measurements.

 

If all this be true, even without the assumed 208 km/sec sun vel;ocity dragging all the planets along in a helical evolving trajectory a for all the planets enclosed by Neptune on the outer fringes as the hierarchy of enclosing planets decays stepwise down into the geneal helix.

 

Methinks gravity as we normally consider it is a grossly misplaced concept. If for nothing else the helical sgtructure of solar systems moving helically do not jkbe with a mass centered attraction model of gravity., nor of GHR model of the yrved forceless universe.

 

 

 

But it isn't an actual experiment' date=' is it? Or have you actually done this measurement?[/quote']

No more did I do the experiment in the opening post of this thread gthan did Einstein, or SDavid Bohm et al when they discussed various arrangements of the basic Sagnac arrrangement. The case where the observer is at the physical midpoint of light sources just as the sources emit light is discussed at length by AE. The moving observer sees the light coming from the forward before the light arrives from the rear and concludes the forward light was turned on before the one from the rear, The observer on the moving frame assumes her position state of motion is at rest wrt the embankment.

[/quote=Swansont]

I did point out that the Michelson interferometer is an equivalent measurement, and that everybody not named Miller that does the experiment concludes that we can't measure absolute velocities, because there is no preferred frame that everybody will agree is at rest.

 

Agreement , "everyone" is insignioficant. Using this line of reaoniong no phsicaltheory would ever suffer amendments and we are sitll agonizing over this 'political thread" in the mainstream of science today. Agrrement has nothing to do with it.just ask Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans.

 

See my latest thread proving the absolute zero velocity inertial frame of reference using the postulates of SRT.

 

 

 

I get that Ashby actually worked on GPS, and that the other two are trying to advance alternate theories. Relativity is undeniably part of GPS, as is the Sagnac effect.

 

Hatch is a major technical leader in the company he works for, NavComTech, GPS is his business.

 

You spend much time discussing the linear Sagnac effect as not equivalent to the rotaional Sagnac, yet you say right here and now that the SATs and th receivers are both moving in noninertial frames of reference and that these motions are SRT relevant? It sure seems like a convenience of platforms excuse here is developing. This rotating frame does, another doesn't "include SR, what is the unambiguous rule?

.

Sounds like a double standard of convenience of sorts here . Some rotating frames are inertial wrt SRT some are not? Hmmmm..

 

 

 

 

I can't fathom the misunderstanding that lets one use "spinning disc" as a test bed, and make any conclusion that includes the phrase "straight-line motion."

 

Take your laser into the 30 k km radius orbit and deterrmine the measured variation from straight-line motion of the SAT. Or measure the curvatuire of the earth, home bound. You know don't you thagt the measured surface of the earth is flat?

 

The fatal flaw in Kelly's paper is that he apparently doesn't understand what an inertial frame is. His Sagnac derivation, from what I could tell, is fine, but he concludes that because the rotating observer sees a speed of light other than c, that this applies to all frames. A rotating frame is not inertial, and you can measure absolute rotation. How? By measuring that the speed of light isn't c, which is precisely what the Sagnac effect does! But you can't "unfold" it and make the same conclusion about an inertial frame.

 

No you are in error. he says the measurments of rotaing fromes and linear ones are identical. It was Einstein that suggested "unfoldiong "the rotating circular Sagnac.

 

Here is a Kelly quote:

"Yet another test, done by Michelson [9] (1913), confirms that light travels in relation to the laboratory. In this test he bounced light beams off rotating mirrors, which were rotating at 1800 rpm. He proved from the resulting fringe shift that:

(1) the light does not bounce off such a mirror, as would a tennis ball bounce off a moving racquet.

(2) light does not take up the movement of the mirror; that is, the velocity of the source of the reflected beam coming off the rotating mirror does not have any change in its velocity, caused by that moving mirror.

(3) the light actually ignores the whole rotating apparatus. It moves solely with respect to the laboratory.

This test is a clear confirmation that the conclusions in this paper in respect of Sagnac-type tests are correct. The accuracy of the Michelson test was 1:50."

and another

 

"During the Michelson & Gale test, the earth turned through an orbital angle of 2.3 x 10-10 degrees. So, this rotation is less by 10,000,000,000 than the frame acceptable in the H & K case."

and another,

"

it is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line;….if we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2tv2/c2 second slow.

 

Even though the effect he described is infinitesimally smaller than the Sagnac effect it is the argument of application, from a straight path to a curved path, that is of interest here."

 

and another, testing the Swansont statement regarding inertial frame definitions.

 

"In the original Sagnac test the earth would have turned 2.8 x 10-13 orbital degrees during the test. During a GPS test around the globe at the equator, the earth would have turned by 10,000,000 times the amount it turned during a Sagnac test. Pretending that SR does not apply to rotation, while at the same time applying it daily to experiments like the Global Positioning System, that has a far greater amount of rotation than the Sagnac experiment, is indefensible. We could be forgiven for saying that this is a very biased selection of what is termed an 'Inertial Frame'."

 

and the last for now:

 

"A recent ingenious test by Wang et al. (2003) [23] shows that the Sagnac result is also got by sending out light in a straight line portion of the light path and back again. This is what this author claimed above, but it is so much more convincing when an actual experiment has shown the same thing. Wang achieved the seemingly impossible, by reversing a light beam sent out on a straight line on a moving platform and measuring the difference in time to return."

 

Akso. Kelly amkes the point that many derivations of the Sagnac mathematical models are shape independent. and That the observers can be on the rotaaing disc or the lab, frame the resutls are the same. Your statements regarding the "inertial frame " misunderstanding of Kelly is misplaced.

 

I was absent for a few days so I thought I would catch to sppeed, no pun, up with some varied answers to your post.

[swansont]

I have no major quarrel' date=' however, look at the overall meaning of the paper. The orbital motion of the earth is not measurable as affecting the motion of light, in that an orbital Sagnac device is doomed to failure regarding relative motion of the earth orbiting frame.

 

...

Now, if Su is correct in the statement that the orbital motion is not measurable on the earth bound light motion then clearly the orbital dynamics are uniquely exterior to the earth bound light motion. The huge difference in orbital and rotational speed does not resolve the issue. One would think, linearly, just the opposite is true and that the orbital motion ovewhelms the rotational motion that might be seen sporadically depending on the accuracy of the measurements.

[/quote']

 

 

Su claims that the Sagnac effect should depend on the linear velocity. This is flat-out wrong. There is no linear term in the Sagnac formula - only an angular speed term. To look at the "huge difference" in the orbital and rotational terms, you have to look at angular speed. The orbital term is 365 times smaller than the rotational term.

[swansont]

No more did I do the experiment in the opening post of this thread gthan did Einstein' date=' or SDavid Bohm et al when they discussed various arrangements of the basic Sagnac arrrangement. The case where the observer is at the physical midpoint of light sources just as the sources emit light is discussed at length by AE. The moving observer sees the light coming from the forward before the light arrives from the rear and concludes the forward light was turned on before the one from the rear, The observer on the moving frame assumes her position state of motion is at rest wrt the embankment.

I did point out that the Michelson interferometer is an equivalent measurement, and that everybody not named Miller that does the experiment concludes that we can't measure absolute velocities, because there is no preferred frame that everybody will agree is at rest.

 

Agreement , "everyone" is insignioficant. Using this line of reaoniong no phsicaltheory would ever suffer amendments and we are sitll agonizing over this 'political thread" in the mainstream of science today. Agrrement has nothing to do with it.just ask Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans.

 

It doesn't matter if they did the experiment. The point is that someone did experiments that confirmed or denied the theory.

 

I don't know who Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans are. Are you claiming that they have valid, accepted theories that nobody else has been able to confirm, and when others do the experiment, that they get cntradictory results?

 

Theories get accepted because there is experimental evidence to back them up. They get rejected when the evidence contradicts the predictions. They get modified when that's appropriate.

[swansont]

No you are in error. he says the measurments of rotaing fromes and linear ones are identical. It was Einstein that suggested "unfoldiong "the rotating circular Sagnac.

 

Saying it doesn't make it true.

 

"During the Michelson & Gale test' date=' the earth turned through an orbital angle of 2.3 x 10-10 degrees. So, this rotation is less by 10,000,000,000 than the frame acceptable in the H & K case."

and another,

"

it is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line;….if we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2tv2/c2 second slow.

 

Even though the effect he described is infinitesimally smaller than the Sagnac effect it is the argument of application, from a straight path to a curved path, that is of interest here."

 

and another, testing the Swansont statement regarding inertial frame definitions.

 

"In the original Sagnac test the earth would have turned 2.8 x 10-13 orbital degrees during the test. During a GPS test around the globe at the equator, the earth would have turned by 10,000,000 times the amount it turned during a Sagnac test. Pretending that SR does not apply to rotation, while at the same time applying it daily to experiments like the Global Positioning System, that has a far greater amount of rotation than the Sagnac experiment, is indefensible. We could be forgiven for saying that this is a very biased selection of what is termed an 'Inertial Frame'."

[/quote']

 

Angle doesn't matter. Rotation speed does. As does context; pulling a bunch of quotes together isn't particularly meaningful without the context of the arguments.

 

Akso. Kelly amkes the point that many derivations of the Sagnac mathematical models are shape independent. and That the observers can be on the rotaaing disc or the lab' date=' frame the resutls are the same. Your statements regarding the "inertial frame " misunderstanding of Kelly is misplaced.

[/quote']

 

Shape has nothing to do with whether or not something is in a rotating frame.

[geistkiesel]

It doesn't matter if they did the experiment. The point is that someone did experiments that confirmed or denied the theory.

 

I don't know who Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans are. Are you claiming that they have valid' date=' accepted theories that nobody else has been able to confirm, and when others do the experiment, that they get cntradictory results?

 

Theories get accepted because there is experimental evidence to back them up. They get rejected when the evidence contradicts the predictions. They get modified when that's appropriate.[/quote']

Bruno, the last martyr of the catholic church burned at the stake jan 1600. The Maid, Joan of Arc also broiled for justice sake.

 

I recognize the protocl. But Swansont I also recognize that you and I aren't going to agree on much of SRT vs. Sagnac effect or other. I have a an absolute zero velocity frame on the forum, I would appreciate your input.

 

G

[geistkiesel]

Or' date=' one could use a Michelson interferometer and look for interference as evidence of absolute motion. Wait a moment...that's already been done!

 

As one of you links notes, GPS and geostationary satellites that have to account for earth rotation via the Sagnac effect do not have to account for the linear effect due to the earth's motion, to which they would be very sensitive.[/quote']

You realize that the distance moved by the receivers ia fairly short and the motion is effectively a linear Sagnac Effect/ and indistinguishable from a lineaqr arrangement>.

 

Swanason, After all that coloring I did getting the figure ready for publication here, you have no comment on the generated absolute zero motion? You neither agree, disagree, offer commentss whatever. It is as if you goit stumped perhaps? Do you need any clarification?

 

Basically, Sagnac or otherwise. there are two simultaneously emitted photons moving in opposite directions. each photon draws equivalent straight-line trajectories in equal distances in equal times. Now does not the activity of the photons draw, or define the unambiguous location of an invariant position P , the midpoint of the moving photon wave trains?

If one of the photons reflects back along the outbound photon trajectory afyer moving a distance ct outbound, will not the photon arrive back at the emission point P after moving another reflected distance ct?

 

Bluntly asked: Do two emitted pjoptons wave fronts defeine a unique invariant midpoint ? Aren't all photons not moving in the unverse theoretically defining the modpoints of their repectrive moving wave fronts, huge numbers of physical points in space that define velocity = 0 absolutely?

[geistkiesel]

Because the Sagnac effect depends on the angular speed' date=' not the linear speed. For as much as you've posted on the subject, one might think that you'd know this.

 

Su and Hatch are proposing ether-based theories, which have not been substantiated. Su admits "This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude." IOW, don;t hold your breath waiting for this to be confirmed. You can't use ether theories to attempt to show defects in [/quote']

 

You seem committed to repeating the lack of validity of a linear velocity Sagnac Effect here. Do you arrive at the understanding that Sagnac is not, or cannot be a linear event? A uniformly moving inertial frame moving in a straight line such as described in the opening post of this thread. Like can you prove it to me that this device isn't generating Sagnac Effects?>

[geistkiesel]

It doesn't matter if they did the experiment. The point is that someone did experiments that confirmed or denied the theory.

 

I don't know who Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans are. Are you claiming that they have valid' date=' accepted theories that nobody else has been able to confirm, and when others do the experiment, that they get cntradictory results?

 

Theories get accepted because there is experimental evidence to back them up. They get rejected when the evidence contradicts the predictions. They get modified when that's appropriate.[/quote']

Wang performed a linear Sagnac effect, contrary to your opinion that the SE can not be seen in a linear arrangement.

[swansont]

You realize that the distance moved by the receivers ia fairly short and the motion is effectively a linear Sagnac Effect/ and indistinguishable from a lineaqr arrangement>.

 

Swanason' date=' After all that coloring I did getting the figure ready for publication here, you have no comment on the generated absolute zero motion? You neither agree, disagree, offer commentss whatever. It is as if you goit stumped perhaps? Do you need any clarification?

[/quote']

 

You've posted similar things before, and I commented on them. If there is a time difference between the two frames, you should see an interference pattern in a Michelson interferometer proportional to the speed of the earth. We went through all of that. Posting the same thing all over again isn't going to change the physics behind it.

 

Your presentation is awkward and unclear, as you use your own terms, and I chose not to waste my time yesterday wading through it.

 

You have to put it in terms of: What measurement would someone make to confirm the hypothesis? A though experiment is only that. At some point, an physical experiment has to be done to see if the thought has any merit.

[swansont]

[indent']Wang performed a linear Sagnac effect, contrary to your opinion that the SE can not be seen in a linear arrangement.[/indent]

 

And that is conveniently listed as "to be published" Can you provide a reference one could actually read? Given the quality of the source, I can't assume they interpreted anybody else's results properly.

[swansont]

You seem committed to repeating the lack of validity of a linear velocity Sagnac Effect here. Do you arrive at the understanding that Sagnac is not' date=' or cannot be a linear event? A uniformly moving inertial frame moving in a straight line such as described in the opening post of this thread. Like can you prove it to me that this device isn't generating Sagnac Effects?>

[/indent']

 

Calling it a linear Sagnac effect is like calling a line segement a linearized circle. The Sagnac effect is due to rotation. If you want to linearize it, call it something else, like a Michelson interferometer, which is basically what it is.

[swansont]

Bruno' date=' the last martyr of the catholic church burned at the stake jan 1600. The Maid, Joan of Arc also broiled for justice sake.

[/quote']

 

As I allude to here, being asked to provide experimental evidence is not persecution.

 

Bringing them up in this context is laughable.

[Johnny5]

Has anyone seen Geistkiesel lately, have they been unbanned yet?

 

I finally got Feynman's lectures on physics, and was reading chapter 34, article 7, it was on w, k, and four vectors, and i wanted to discuss it with them.

 

Will they ever be unbanned?

[timo]

"Permanently Banned" doesn´t sounds like it if you ask me.

[Johnny5]

"Permanently Banned" doesn´t sounds like it if you ask me.

 

Any idea why, or what happened?

 

I did a google search on the name 'geistkiesel' and this person has their own website devoted to overthrowing relativity. He is also a member of several other message boards, and generally presents the same argument there too. There is even an email address, but it's not that important to me. It's just that they told me to read 34.7 in Feynman's lectures, they said it would be very informative, but i never got to find out why. I went to the trouble to get the book, but now i am left hanging as to what was so important about chapter 34, article 7.