Sagnac Limit

M

MacM

Registered Senior Member
James R,

Have been thinking again. - <Smile>

Just curious if you have an answer to these questions. Will be on vacation for a week and will deal with the hate mail upon return:

QUESTIONS:

1 - At what radius does the Sagnac effect suddenly go to zero?

2 - Is not linear motion also just a special case of rotary motion (i.e. r = Inf) as is SRT a special case of GRT?

3 - If the SAGNAC effect is 100% prominent at multi-light year radii, what justification can you claim for SRT EVER being effective since ANY deviation from true straight would constitute a radial motion and hence light velocity would no longer appear constant?

Any aerodynamic, electrostatic, magnetic or gravitational forces, etc would deviate motion from TRUE linear (even though immeasureably so) and hence the constancy of the velocity of light would no longer be true according to known data.

These questions are prompted by recent studies and testing which suggest that the 2nd postulate is invalid.

Google: http://www.google.co.uk/search.....&meta=
 
MacM
The link is broken.
By second postulate you mean the invariance of the speed of light over all frames I take it. :)
The SAGNAC effect is predictable under your UNIcef (spell) concept if I understand it correctly. One thing I don't understand though is the difference between Lorentz and the SR concept that you have proposed in the past. The two concepts seem identical to me.
 
Vern said:
MacM
The link is broken.
By second postulate you mean the invariance of the speed of light over all frames I take it. :)
The SAGNAC effect is predictable under your UNIcef (spell) concept if I understand it correctly. One thing I don't understand though is the difference between Lorentz and the SR concept that you have proposed in the past. The two concepts seem identical to me.
Click to expand...

Actually they are closely related or simular. The difference is a preferred frame in Lorentz such that the "Reciprocity" issue vanishes. That is in Lorentz one is considered at rest and the other has motion and you cannot reverse the status.

BTW it is UniKEF - (Universal Kenetic Energy Field).

Thanks.
 
MacM said:
The difference is a preferred frame in Lorentz -- snip --
Click to expand...
Ok I see your point and I suspect that the Lorentz version is the reality. But through the years I've never found a way to describe the difference between the two concepts.

We both know there is a profound difference, however. Just can't describe it.
 
The profound difference:
We find that the concept of variant space-time vanishes and relativity phenomena is at odds with SR in the Lorentz concept.
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
MacM
The link is broken.
By second postulate you mean the invariance of the speed of light over all frames I take it. :)
The SAGNAC effect is predictable under your UNIcef (spell) concept if I understand it correctly. One thing I don't understand though is the difference between Lorentz and the SR concept that you have proposed in the past. The two concepts seem identical to me.
Click to expand...

Lorentz Relativity is based on the axiom of one universal stationary reference frame.

Einstein Relativity is based on the axiom of an unlimited number of individual reference frames ( one per observer ).

Still sound the same to you?
 
CANGAS said:
Lorentz Relativity is based on the axiom of one universal stationary reference frame.

Einstein Relativity is based on the axiom of an unlimited number of individual reference frames ( one per observer ).

Still sound the same to you?
Click to expand...

Nope. LR is more correct than SR - :)

BTW: Really interesting how such a valid pragmatic question about physics gets shoved into pseudoscince.
 
Fafnir665 said:
Omg MacM still posts here?!
Click to expand...

:) Thought I would see if anybody had learned anything. Seems they likely haven't.

BTW: Have any of you physics experts seen the latest study that shows Black Holes don't actually exist? Seems there are practical physical limits which preclude their formation (I think I suggested that more than once - Mathematics not restricted by pragmatics is not physical reality guys- wake up).
 
Funny. I wrote a response to this, but it seems not to have appeared. Oh well.
 
Very briefly, MacM, the point I made in my reply was that effects such as the Sagnac effect rapidly become insignificant at large distances.

Essentially, you're making an argument very similar to the folllowing:

"Space cannot be free of Earth's gravity anywhere, because according to Newton's law of gravity, the Earth's gravity never goes to zero at any finite distance from the Earth's centre. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak of a place in space at which the Earth's gravity has no effect. The Earth's gravity is '100% effective', even at very large distances."
 
James R said:
Very briefly, MacM, the point I made in my reply was that effects such as the Sagnac effect rapidly become insignificant at large distances.

Essentially, you're making an argument very similar to the folllowing:

"Space cannot be free of Earth's gravity anywhere, because according to Newton's law of gravity, the Earth's gravity never goes to zero at any finite distance from the Earth's centre. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak of a place in space at which the Earth's gravity has no effect. The Earth's gravity is '100% effective', even at very large distances."
Click to expand...

Nice try but it really has no relationship to the issue of v<c and v>c as viewed by a moving observer in non-linear motion. That affect does not dimenish with radial distance - i.e. a solid state gyroscope or GPS, planetary orbits or galatic motion.

Back to the drawing board JR.
 
MacM:

MacM said:
Nice try but it really has no relationship to the issue of v<c and v>c as viewed by a moving observer in non-linear motion.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that it did.

Back to the drawing board JR.
Click to expand...

It's your drawing board, not mine.

I simply posted a polite response to your opening post, seeing as it was addressed to me. If you prefer not to discuss the matter after all, so be it.
 
James R said:
I don't recall saying that it did.

It's your drawing board, not mine.

I simply posted a polite response to your opening post, seeing as it was addressed to me. If you prefer not to discuss the matter after all, so be it.
Click to expand...

Funny nor do I recall saying I didn't wish to discuss it. :bugeye: I do prefer that your responses be technically applicable and not intended to brush off the question without answering it.

As I said the Sagnac affect has no indication of deminishing over distance as you suggest. The Sagnac affect is a logical consequence of a light velocity based on some absoute system and is inconsistant with v=c in all frames as claimed by SRT.

That is the question, not some other issue i.e. - gravity which is known to be inverse square.
 
Last edited:
Hello MacM, et al.

I guess it all boils down on how you view the movement of light energy through space.

If you view the movement as a continuous/particle then you get into v+c and v-c postulates.

If you view the movement as steps involving the transfer of energy from the electric field to the magnetic field and back again then "c", the speed of light, is related to the rate of the energy transfer between the electric and magnetic fields. The rate of energy transfer is independent of the motion of the source or the receiver. This allows Sagnac effects (circular and linear) to be observed.

:)
 
Well, for a long time I've thought that special relativity meant that if you are in a moving object like a rocket, the speed of light that you measure will be the same no matter how fast you are going, when measured against the frame that you are passing through. Your rocketship does not, not in the closed box scenario, define a new local frame anywhere but within an extremely small distance from its component atoms. It is transparent to the local frame that is passes through.

This interpretation still leaves Einstein's special relativity intact, and I think interprets and explains it correctly. Sometimes the breakthrough is in actually understanding a rule of physics rather than repealing or altering it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top