MMX vs Earths' rotational sagnac

[chinglu]

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.

Another crank. The mainstream has for years used a null MMX to prove SR. I already posted Tom Roberts' statements. I suggest you refute them.

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.

Uh, SR can handle accelerating frames.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf

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.

How do you explain this mainstream result I already posted?

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 10e17 (RMS) and 2 parts in 1017 for seven of eight coefficients of the SME.



http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v103/i9/e090401

 

[RJBeery]

How do you explain this mainstream result I already posted?

As I said

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!

...however I stand by my earlier comment that even testing MMX vertically might possibly still produce a null result due to equipment sensitivity limitations.

Think about what you're saying...you're screaming about this contradiction in Physics and when I present you with an explanation you call me a crank? It almost sounds as if you WANT GPS and MMX to produce an inexplicable contradiction.

 

[chinglu]

As I said

...however I stand by my earlier comment that even testing MMX vertically might possibly still produce a null result due to equipment sensitivity limitations.

Think about what you're saying...you're screaming about this contradiction in Physics and when I present you with an explanation you call me a crank? It almost sounds as if you WANT GPS and MMX to produce an inexplicable contradiction.

All I am saying is your opinion is not consistent with mainstream thought.

If your view is mainstream, prove it.

 

[James R]

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

Here:

[thread=105498]Time dilation[/thread]

Recall that complete explanations of where you went wrong can be found in posts #117, #118, #165 and #177.

 

[chinglu]

Here:

[thread=105498]Time dilation[/thread]

Recall that complete explanations of where you went wrong can be found in posts #117, #118, #165 and #177.

I will train you on this matter there.

 

[James R]

chinglu:

Your arrogance and rhetoric is no substitute for actual refutation of the posts I mentioned. I previously broke off the discussion with you because you obviously had no intention of ever addressing the arguments I made (which, after all, are irrefutable). Further discussion with you is bound to be a waste of time.

 

[RJBeery]

If your view is mainstream, prove it.

James R has the patience of a saint. I do not. I also don't care one way or the other what you believe (no offense). If you think that mainstream physics claims that SR is universally valid you are mistaken, as I said.

The theory is termed "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to the special case of inertial reference frames, i.e. frames of reference in uniform relative motion with respect to each other.

Note that a transmitter on the surface of the Earth and a satellite in orbit are not in uniform relative motion with respect to each other. They are both under acceleration, and by differing amounts due to their difference in altitude. SR tested tangentially to the surface of the Earth *may* hold very nearly true because the acceleration would be perpendicular to the light propagation direction, but I'm only offering speculation on this.

 

[chinglu]

chinglu:

Your arrogance and rhetoric is no substitute for actual refutation of the posts I mentioned. I previously broke off the discussion with you because you obviously had no intention of ever addressing the arguments I made (which, after all, are irrefutable). Further discussion with you is bound to be a waste of time.

I posted over there to help you understand your contradiction. I said it over and over but found a simpler way to express it for you.

 

[chinglu]

James R has the patience of a saint. I do not. I also don't care one way or the other what you believe (no offense). If you think that mainstream physics claims that SR is universally valid you are mistaken, as I said.

Well, I don't care what you think since you don't know what you are talking about. MMX has long been accepted my the mainstream as proof of lorentz invariance.

I posted several links that you are unable to refute. In fact, just to make sure, I ran my posts by a couple of cats. Yes, they undersdtood them as well. So, I suggest you gain at least a small amount of mainstream thought before you even think about having opinions.

Note that a transmitter on the surface of the Earth and a satellite in orbit are not in uniform relative motion with respect to each other. They are both under acceleration, and by differing amounts due to their difference in altitude. SR tested tangentially to the surface of the Earth *may* hold very nearly true because the acceleration would be perpendicular to the light propagation direction, but I'm only offering speculation on this.

Here again, you do not understand basic relativity. The motion of the light source has no bearing on the problem.

Further, acceleration is not used in the sagnac calculation in the mainstream.
Here is a link.
http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/res.../LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf

If you can't understand this, I have others.

In short, your post has no meaningful content.

 

[RJBeery]

Err...why don't you go ask your "cats" if there is acceleration involved in rotating systems; then, find me some examples of Sangac that don't involve rotation. Dude, you're strange! Haha

 

[Tach]

MMX has long been accepted my the mainstream as proof of lorentz invariance.

Nope, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Tach]

Assume an MMX device with long arms.

The arms stretch all the way to GPS satellites.

Why do you think all Michelson made sure that the interferometer was floating on mercury and the arms were anchored to a slb of concrete?

The MMX device would claim light is measured c in every direction from the origin of the device.

MMX doesn't claim anything. Something else does.

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.

LOL. You have no clue. Again. The theory of both the Sagnac effect and of all the GPS explanation is based on the fact that light speed is isotropic and equal to c. Otherwise, GPS would not work. [

These two experiments contradict each other.

Only in your deeply delusional mind.

 

[chinglu]

Err...why don't you go ask your "cats" if there is acceleration involved in rotating systems; then, find me some examples of Sangac that don't involve rotation. Dude, you're strange! Haha

I asked my cats and no, acceleration is not necessary for the calculation of the rotational sagnac. I provided a link for aid, but I see it is beyond you.

I even offered more links.

 

[chinglu]

“ Originally Posted by chinglu
Assume an MMX device with long arms.

The arms stretch all the way to GPS satellites.

Why do you think all Michelson made sure that the interferometer was floating on mercury and the arms were anchored to a slb of concrete?

Looks like a trick question. Because he was afraid the arms would stretch all the way to the GPS satellites and that would prove he was full of crap?

LOL. You have no clue. Again. The theory of both the Sagnac effect and of all the GPS explanation is based on the fact that light speed is isotropic and equal to c. Otherwise, GPS would not work.

Sure, but what escapes your narrow attention is that GPS realizez lorentz invariance is false. Otherwise, the sagnac would not be considered and GPS would not work.

 

[Tach]

Looks like a trick question. Because he was afraid the arms would stretch all the way to the GPS satellites and that would prove he was full of crap?

Nope, this is not the reason. You fail.

Sure, but what escapes your narrow attention is that GPS realizez lorentz invariance

LOL.

is false. Otherwise, the sagnac would not be considered and GPS would not work.

Given the fact that you have shown that you understand neither GPS nor MMX or Sagnac for that reason, the above is another one of your monumental failures.

 

[chinglu]

“ Originally Posted by chinglu
Looks like a trick question. Because he was afraid the arms would stretch all the way to the GPS satellites and that would prove he was full of crap?

Nope, this is not the reason. You fail.

It was a trick question.

Given the fact that you have shown that you understand neither GPS nor MMX or Sagnac for that reason, the above is another one of your monumental failures.

Wow, random typing. You also form words.

GPS shows lorentz invariance is false.
MMX shows lorentz invariance is true.

 

[James R]

I posted over there to help you understand your contradiction. I said it over and over but found a simpler way to express it for you.

Then talk about it over there, not here. You're trolling.

 

[chinglu]

Then talk about it over there, not here. You're trolling.

Yea?

chinglu:

Your arrogance and rhetoric is no substitute for actual refutation of the posts I mentioned. I previously broke off the discussion with you because you obviously had no intention of ever addressing the arguments I made (which, after all, are irrefutable). Further discussion with you is bound to be a waste of time.

 

[phyti]

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

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

The MMX did not test for light speed isotropy, it was testing various path lengths, expecting a delay in recombining signals from the direction of motion, which would show as an interference pattern. The conclusion based on their premise and the null result, the ether had no effect on the experiment. The explanation for no interference was length contraction.
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in 1932 was similar to the MMX but with unequal path lengths. It too had a null result.
Length contraction cannot explain this result.
If interference is not dependent on path length, then length contraction is not a convincing explanation for the MMX.

 

[chinglu]

The MMX did not test for light speed isotropy, it was testing various path lengths, expecting a delay in recombining signals from the direction of motion, which would show as an interference pattern. The conclusion based on their premise and the null result, the ether had no effect on the experiment. The explanation for no interference was length contraction.
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in 1932 was similar to the MMX but with unequal path lengths. It too had a null result.
Length contraction cannot explain this result.
If interference is not dependent on path length, then length contraction is not a convincing explanation.

I would never imply length contraction explains MMX or anything else for that matter.

The failure of the Lorentz length contraction argument with KT (in terms of SR) is that all the equipment is in the context of the moving frame (ECEF), which under SR does not length contract.

So, that original experiment was trying to prove absolute length contraction and failed.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the fact that MMX prove lorentz invariance and GPS with the sagnac correction disproves lorentz invariance in the ECEF frame.