MMX vs Earths' rotational sagnac

[chinglu]

Assume an MMX device with long arms.

The arms stretch all the way to GPS satellites.

The MMX device would claim light is measured c in every direction from the origin of the device. However, a GPS hand held unit at that same MMX origin location would claim the earth's rotational sagnac and hence light is not measured c in every direction.

These two experiments contradict each other.

 

[James R]

You're unlikely to be able to understand your error in this example, given that you couldn't comprehend your previous, much simpler error, in your special-relativity thought experiment.

 

[chinglu]

You're unlikely to be able to understand your error in this example, given that you couldn't comprehend your previous, much simpler error, in your special-relativity thought experiment.

You did not understand the math in the previous game. I detected that and chose something I thought you might be able to understand. It is pretty simple.

Already you are not operating on the fundamental issue. Try to stay on the subject. That way, you will learn something.

 

[chinglu]

You're unlikely to be able to understand your error in this example, given that you couldn't comprehend your previous, much simpler error, in your special-relativity thought experiment.

Tell you what.

Prove an object coming toward the rest frame forces the rest frame to conclude time dilation.

Let me see your math. Talk is one thing. Production is another.
I feel pretty good about myself.

 

[James R]

You did not understand the math in the previous game.

Please don't tell stupid lies.

Tell you what.

Prove an object coming toward the rest frame forces the rest frame to conclude time dilation.

That's off topic for this thread.

I'll leave you to your new game.

 

[RJBeery]

Layman's answer: MMX would not make the claim that c is the same in each direction. The reason is because the experiment's acceleration caused by the Earth's rotation (which breaks the constancy of c) is not great enough to notice over the few meters of the traditional MMX apparatus but WOULD interfere with an apparatus many miles in length placed vertically.

 

[chinglu]

Please don't tell stupid lies.



That's off topic for this thread.

I'll leave you to your new game.

Thanks, to be honest, when you were adding phantom times to make your theory true before, I realized the logic would be difficult.

 

[chinglu]

Layman's answer: MMX would not make the claim that c is the same in each direction. The reason is because the experiment's acceleration caused by the Earth's rotation (which breaks the constancy of c) is not great enough to notice over the few meters of the traditional MMX apparatus but WOULD interfere with an apparatus many miles in length placed vertically.

Sure, at first glance, you would be correct. But, the "null results" of MMX has been used to "prove" SR for years.

3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
The speed of light is said to be isotropic if it has the same value when measured in any/every direction.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment (the MMX)
The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther” which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip_tests

 

[RJBeery]

Sure, at first glance, you would be correct. But, the "null results" of MMX has been used to "prove" SR for years.

You put the word "prove" in quotes. Are you suggesting that GPS disproves SR? MMX is testing the Earth's movement relative to the aether, while GPS corrections are due to constant acceleration from the Earth's rotation. It's a bit apples and oranges because SR doesn't work under acceleration; it just so happens that the Earth's rotation isn't fast enough to be detected by MMX at the scale used. Presumably, if the MMX test equipment was scaled up, or the Earth's rotation speed was increased (where is Superman when you need him?), then the MMX would not produce a null result. That being said, the positive MMX result could not be considered to be evidence of the aether, or a failure of SR, as the result would be explained by the Earth's rotation in the same manner that I would imagine GR would predict.

If you're just looking to "disprove SR" I'll bet you could do so by putting a standard MMX apparatus on an accelerating train...

 

[chinglu]

You put the word "prove" in quotes. Are you suggesting that GPS disproves SR? MMX is testing the Earth's movement relative to the aether, while GPS corrections are due to constant acceleration from the Earth's rotation. It's a bit apples and oranges because SR doesn't work under acceleration; it just so happens that the Earth's rotation isn't fast enough to be detected by MMX at the scale used. Presumably, if the MMX test equipment was scaled up, or the Earth's rotation speed was increased (where is Superman when you need him?), then the MMX would not produce a null result. That being said, the positive MMX result could not be considered to be evidence of the aether, or a failure of SR, as the result would be explained by the Earth's rotation in the same manner that I would imagine GR would predict.

If you're just looking to "disprove SR" I'll bet you could do so by putting a standard MMX apparatus on an accelerating train...

MMX tests the change in the speed of light in different directions. It reports a "null result".

GPS does not.

And regardless of the original purpose, MMX has been used to "prove" lorentz invariance. That is its modern interpretation. Note, the earth's rotational sagnac falls within the "claimed" detection methods below.

The first such experiment was led by Charles H. Townes, one of the co-creators of the first maser. Their 1958 experiment put an upper limit on drift, including any possible experimental errors, of only 30 m/s. In 1974 a repeat with accurate lasers in the triangular Trimmer experiment reduced this to 0.025 m/s, and included tests of entrainment by placing one leg in glass. In 1979 the Brillet-Hall experiment put an upper limit of 30 m/s for any one direction, but reduced this to only 0.000001 m/s for a two-direction case (i.e., still or partially entrained aether). A year long repeat known as Hils and Hall, published in 1990, reduced the limit of anisotropy to 2 × 10−13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

 

[RJBeery]

MMX tests the change in the speed of light in different directions. It reports a "null result".

GPS does not.

Yeah...did you read what I wrote? If you tried MMX on an accelerating train it would not produce a null result. MMX is not, even in theory, supposed to work under acceleration. Pointing out MMX results wherein the evidence of acceleration of the experiment was within the margin of error does what, exactly? Are you suggesting that MMX would work under any acceleration? I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[chinglu]

Today special relativity is generally considered the "solution" to the Michelson–Morley null result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

 

[chinglu]

Yeah...did you read what I wrote? If you tried MMX on an accelerating train it would not produce a null result. MMX is not, even in theory, supposed to work under acceleration. Pointing out MMX results wherein the evidence of acceleration of the experiment was within the margin of error does what, exactly? Are you suggesting that MMX would work under any acceleration? I'm not sure what your point is.

Today special relativity is generally considered the "solution" to the Michelson–Morley null result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

I guess my point is I am attempting to remain consistent.

Your posts have nothing to do with mainstream physics opinion on MMX. That is what this thread is about.

I am not even sure why you are posting your opinion column.

 

[RJBeery]

Bro are we having a language barrier problem? You realize that SR isn't valid under acceleration, right? SR, and therefore MMX, will fail under sufficient acceleration! "Sufficient acceleration" in this scenario is directly dependent on the sensitivity of your measuring equipment. Oversimplified Wikipedia articles do not change this fact. If you have a problem with Wikipedia there is a process to change the wording of their articles.

 

[chinglu]

Bro are we having a language barrier problem? You realize that SR isn't valid under acceleration, right? SR, and therefore MMX, will fail under sufficient acceleration! "Sufficient acceleration" in this scenario is directly dependent on the sensitivity of your measuring equipment. Oversimplified Wikipedia articles do not change this fact. If you have a problem with Wikipedia there is a process to change the wording of their articles.

I see you are having difficulty understanding. Mainstream physics claims MMX is null and proves SR. I showed you comments from Tom Roberts website that supports this claim.

Now, let me make sure I have your opinion correct. Are you claiming the mainstream has claimed the MMX is not actually null and does not support SR?

 

[chinglu]

Here I will help you further on the mainstream and lorentz invariance. This is 2009. They believe in a null MMX.

Received 13 June 2008; revised 7 August 2009; published 25 August 2009

We report on the results of a strongly improved test of local Lorentz invariance, consisting of a search for an anisotropy of the resonance frequencies of electromagnetic cavities. The apparatus comprises two orthogonal standing-wave optical cavities interrogated by a laser, which were rotated approximately 175 000 times over the duration of 13 months. The measurements are interpreted as a search for an anisotropy of the speed of light, within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl (RMS) and the standard model extension (SME) photon sector test theories. We find no evidence for an isotropy violation at a 1σ uncertainty level of 0.6 parts in 1017 (RMS) and 2 parts in 1017 for seven of eight coefficients of the SME.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v103/i9/e090401

 

[James R]

chinglu:

Thanks, to be honest, when you were adding phantom times to make your theory true before, I realized the logic would be difficult.

You're in the wrong thread. Nobody else will have an any idea what you're talking about. If you are still confused, go back to the original thread and ask me your questions there.

I ask you now to cease and desist in telling silly lies about what I wrote there - for example your comments about "phantom times". You're starting to become insulting.

 

[chinglu]

chinglu:



You're in the wrong thread. Nobody else will have an any idea what you're talking about. If you are still confused, go back to the original thread and ask me your questions there.

I ask you now to cease and desist in telling silly lies about what I wrote there - for example your comments about "phantom times". You're starting to become insulting.

OK, I will go back to that thread and try to help you out. Where is it?

 

[RJBeery]

Mainstream physics claims MMX is null and proves SR.

You are mistaken on this point. Mainstream physics only claims MMX is null (and that SR is proven) while unaccelerated because the receiving apparatus is in the reference frame.

Now, let me make sure I have your opinion correct. Are you claiming the mainstream has claimed the MMX is not actually null and does not support SR?

It's not my opinion. MMX is not "truly null" because it is always tested on the Earth, which is rotating, even if that rotation cannot be detected. SR can handle accelerating objects but not accelerating reference frames, which requires GR. I'm no physicist, but I can say with a calm conviction that you aren't either if you don't know this.

 

[RJBeery]

Actually, thinking about it, the acceleration of an MMX apparatus due to centripetal forces of the Earth's rotation would probably give a null result regardless of the size of the apparatus as long as it were tested tangentially to the surface. Stand it up, and it would fail...just as your GPS does!

Nevertheless, SR fails under an accelerating reference frame, and this is not an opinion. (Or, rather, it isn't MY opinion...it IS the current opinion of mainstream Physics.)