Sagnac and the earth's orbit.

[Jack_]

It's been explained to you already, Jack. Review one of your old threads, instead of sidetracking this one:
[thread=100974]Sagnac and the earth's orbit[/thread]
[post=2541478]Relativity of simultaneity[/post]

You did not solve this issue as I have not brought it up before.

So, why does MMX satisfy SR without a Sagnac and GPS with a sagnac also satisfies SR.

Perhaps I can help you with an IOP article.

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

Now, if you agree with the article, then you will have to agree with a "local aether" model.

This IOP article demonstrates the problem with the two.

But, it raises an additional problem.

I would think you and JamesR would have tossed this in my face, what with you two understanding SR so well and all.

 

[Pete]

You did not solve this issue as I have not brought it up before.

So, why does MMX satisfy SR without a Sagnac and GPS with a sagnac also satisfies SR.

Perhaps I can help you with an IOP article.

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

Now, if you agree with the article, then you will have to agree with a "local aether" model.

This IOP article demonstrates the problem with the two.

But, it raises an additional problem.

I would think you and JamesR would have tossed this in my face, what with you two understanding SR so well and all.

So, Jack, have you figured out yet why the Earth's orbit doesn't produce a significant local Sagnac effect?
When/if you figure it out (you've been given plenty of hints), then it will also be clear why the Michelson Morley experiment doesn't involve a Sagnac effect.

 

[James R]

Ah! Thanks.

If MMX is the Michelson-Morley experiment, then Jack_'s latest error is a simple one. The GPS system needs general relativity, not just special relativity, whereas MMX needs only special relativity. So there's no conflict. Both "agree" with special relativity, of course, because special relativity is a proper subset of general relativity.

 

[Jack_]

No model is ever 'fact', science doesn't deal in 'absolute certainty' when it comes to the physical validity of something. And there's no 'rotting carcas', other than in your mind. Special relativity has more experimental testing than almost anything else in science and it has a pretty elementary mathematical formalism. The reason people like you don't like it is you are naive to think that physics should be intuitive. In fact hacks are often even more naive and think it should be intuitive to them, as if they are the yard stick by which the complexity of the universe is measured.

If they (ie you) learnt to accept there's some things in the universe beyond your grasp then they (you) would make a lot of progress.

Well, as a "hack", my twins thread still forces SR into submission.

Yet, you still support it.

I am glad to see you know SR is not a fact.

Perhaps your will change your terminology and face the facts of the twins thread.

 

[Jack_]

Jack struggles with the meaning of words like 'proof' and 'logic' so its not surprising he struggles with 'theory' and 'fact'.

Careful, you might allow Jack to 'define' his claims into tautologies.

Its short hand for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

This is quite good. You are teaching JamesR MMX.

Now both of you reconcile this with the earth's orbital sagnac.

 

[Jack_]

*Ahem*
This would really be better in another thread.
points -> [thread=100974]Sagnac and Earth's orbit[/thread]

This is a little different.


We are forcing MMX against the rotational sagnac and we have a contradiction.

That thread explored the orbital sagnac as missing which is different and also a contradiction since all sagnacs should exist.

 

[Pete]

Well, as a "hack", my twins thread still forces SR into submission.

Jack, you were banned before for ignoring refutations of your arguments.
Do you want another ban? I suspect this time will be permanent.

 

[Jack_]

Jack, you were banned before for ignoring refutations of your arguments.
Do you want another ban? I suspect this time will be permanent.

What there exists an orbital sagnac?

That was not a thread of disagreement.

But, if you want me banned stop talking to me.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Well, as a "hack", my twins thread still forces SR into submission.

Your claims have been retorted by people, you have simply been unwilling to respond, despite repeatedly being provided with the mathematics you keep demanding.

You had a month long holiday Jack, why didn't you spend that time writing up your work and submitting to a journal? If you're so sure why are you still stuck on these forums with nothing to show for it? Oh yeah, because you know you're a hack but you have to keep trying to convince others (and thus yourself) you're not.

Yet, you still support it.

Your inability to grasp what is little more than a 1st year homework doesn't mean its anyone else's fault but yours.

I am glad to see you know SR is not a fact.

No model is ever fact. Electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, you never can say "This model is fact", only "This model is so close to the way Nature behaves in these domains that our experiments cannot distinguish them". By singling out SR for what is nothing more than a fundamental tenant of science you're demonstrating your dishonesty.

Perhaps your will change your terminology and face the facts of the twins thread.

When you respond to the many lengthy retorts I gave let me know. You never responded to my posts on bundles or proof (yes, proof, unlike you I actually use it correctly) that a Lorentz transformation maps a photon sphere to a photon sphere. Your inability to grasp even that demonstrates how you're incapable of understanding special relativity. The fault is between your ears. You got a month long holiday because you lied, just flat out lied, saying no one had provided you with responses which had infact been provided many many times.

If you're so sure and I'm so wrong submit to a journal. Your continued proclamations while avoiding presenting your work to people who you can't ignore demonstrates you know you're a hack. And it seems that's all you'll ever be. You must be so proud.

 

[Pete]

What there exists an orbital sagnac?

That was not a thread of disagreement.

But, if you want me banned stop talking to me.

:bugeye:
If I wanted you banned, how would not replying to you help?
And what's the connection between your first two sentences and the post they were in reply to?
Jack, our discussions would be much more productive if you could articulate your thoughts coherently.

You should really go and check out the antirelativity.com forums. You would experience much less frustration there.

 

[Jack_]

Your claims have been retorted by people, you have simply been unwilling to respond, despite repeatedly being provided with the mathematics you keep demanding.

You had a month long holiday Jack, why didn't you spend that time writing up your work and submitting to a journal? If you're so sure why are you still stuck on these forums with nothing to show for it? Oh yeah, because you know you're a hack but you have to keep trying to convince others (and thus yourself) you're not.

Your inability to grasp what is little more than a 1st year homework doesn't mean its anyone else's fault but yours.

No model is ever fact. Electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, you never can say "This model is fact", only "This model is so close to the way Nature behaves in these domains that our experiments cannot distinguish them". By singling out SR for what is nothing more than a fundamental tenant of science you're demonstrating your dishonesty.

When you respond to the many lengthy retorts I gave let me know. You never responded to my posts on bundles or proof (yes, proof, unlike you I actually use it correctly) that a Lorentz transformation maps a photon sphere to a photon sphere. Your inability to grasp even that demonstrates how you're incapable of understanding special relativity. The fault is between your ears. You got a month long holiday because you lied, just flat out lied, saying no one had provided you with responses which had infact been provided many many times.

If you're so sure and I'm so wrong submit to a journal. Your continued proclamations while avoiding presenting your work to people who you can't ignore demonstrates you know you're a hack. And it seems that's all you'll ever be. You must be so proud.

you never say anything to my specific math.

 

[Jack_]

:bugeye:
If I wanted you banned, how would not replying to you help?
And what's the connection between your first two sentences and the post they were in reply to?
Jack, our discussions would be much more productive if you could articulate your thoughts coherently.

You should really go and check out the antirelativity.com forums. You would experience much less frustration there.

Sorry Pete, I did not see this thread before.

I am not frustrated.

And what's the connection between your first two sentences and the post they were in reply to?
Jack, our discussions would be much more productive if you could articulate your thoughts coherently.

I will translate.

Our discussions would proceed better if I translate better.

What do you mean by connection?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

you never say anything to my specific math.

Why do you bother saying lies which you know are lies? You know both you and I know what you said is false. Even worse its hypocritical because you never respond to the mathematics I've provided. You just mass quote and then ignore everything you quote, as you just did.

I asked you in my previous post that if you're right why aren't you submitting your work to a journal? You've got a pdf which you claim is right (well done on misusing the word 'proof' again, only demonstrating my point) so why don't you submit it? You have no excuse for deliberately avoiding the review of people you can't ignore. Your posts clearly show you don't believe what you're saying.

 

[Jack_]

Ah! Thanks.

If MMX is the Michelson-Morley experiment, then Jack_'s latest error is a simple one. The GPS system needs general relativity, not just special relativity, whereas MMX needs only special relativity. So there's no conflict. Both "agree" with special relativity, of course, because special relativity is a proper subset of general relativity.

Yes, GPS needs GR for the gravity differential.

However, can you please explain why MMX shows negative results and GPS does not for the rotational sagnac.

Shouldn't the two experiments agree?

I mean, if GR applies to GPS then it should apply to MMX.

 

[Jack_]

Why do you bother saying lies which you know are lies? You know both you and I know what you said is false. Even worse its hypocritical because you never respond to the mathematics I've provided. You just mass quote and then ignore everything you quote, as you just did.

I asked you in my previous post that if you're right why aren't you submitting your work to a journal? You've got a pdf which you claim is right (well done on misusing the word 'proof' again, only demonstrating my point) so why don't you submit it? You have no excuse for deliberately avoiding the review of people you can't ignore. Your posts clearly show you don't believe what you're saying.

Where do you answer a negative MMX result and a positive sagnac result for the rotational sagnac?

Can you explain it?

 

[James R]

However, can you please explain why MMX shows negative results and GPS does not for the rotational sagnac

How does the MMX test the sagnac effect? Explain.

 

[Jack_]

How does the MMX test the sagnac effect? Explain.

It does not and I never claimed it does.

I said the negative results of MMX are inconsistent with the earth's rotational sagnac.

The earth's rotational sagnac should have been picked up in any MMX experiment.

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Top

Tom Roberts lists deadly accurate MMX results that are not picking up the earth's rotational sagnac using frequency but GPS using timing does detect it.

Yet, MMX has long been the cornerstone for validating SR.

Can you or anyone explain this?

 

[Pete]

It does not and I never claimed it does.

I said the negative results of MMX are inconsistent with the earth's rotational sagnac.

The earth's rotational sagnac should have been picked up in any MMX experiment.

Same thing, Jack.
How do you think the Sagnac effect should show up in the results of the Michelson Morley experiment?

 

[Jack_]

Same thing, Jack.
How do you think the Sagnac effect should show up in the results of the Michelson Morley experiment?

I do not know what you mean by same thing.

If two satellites where equidistant to a hand held unit and this distance is r and they emitted light simultaneously, then t = r/c is false for both light pulses. They would arrive at different times based on the rotation of the earth.

Yet, MMX proves it cannot detect any type of differential based on any motion of the earth.

They have even used different length arms and still a negative MMX result.

Why is this not automatically available to your system of logic?

 

[Pete]

I do not know what you mean by same thing.

If two satellites where equidistant to a hand held unit and this distance is r and they emitted light simultaneously, then t = r/c is false for both light pulses. They would arrive at different times based on the rotation of the earth.

Yet, MMX proves it cannot detect any type of differential based on any motion of the earth.

Seems irrelevant, sincehe Michelson Morley experiment doesn't use two synchronized sources.
So, how do you think the Sagnac effect should show up in the Michelson Morley experiment?

Or, are you maintaining that the Sagnac effect is some kind of absolute motion detector?