The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #701  
Old 03-13-2014, 11:51 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calatin View Post
Thought experiment: If you were a hot dog...and you were starving, would you eat yourself?
Come on, Calatin.
You have done honest, why not stick to that.

If I am wrong, Special relativity does not need you to look like a bunch of children to defeat me.

It should be easy.

After all no one has said I am wrong but I have brilliantly difficult thought experiments to unravel, I am an idiot right?

So if I am the idiot, how come you guys are playing the fool?

Why not just POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN MY LOGIC?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #702  
Old 03-13-2014, 11:57 PM
Truman Burbank Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Mythoughts, you are wrong yet again. I would dare say that nobody who has participated at all in this thread has any thought that proving you wrong to yourself is easy, simple, or even possible.
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 03-13-2014, 11:58 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
But hey, MAYBE you will find one of my arguments and argue with it in an intelligent way that respects truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
I might be a jerk.
You win.
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:11 AM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
wow, because it sure read like you did, ok...
No, that is the only rule and it was in the initial offer to make sure the argument selected was one I genuinely made and not something misconstrued by you.
Essentially I don't trust you to make an honest selection.
and here I thought you were going to lay out a new simple, logical argument - not rely on all the crap you've already posted (that has already been argued to death)

In any event, Every single one of your arguments starts out with a faulty premise - to wit - that SR is 'wrong' and/or that 'light can exceed c' - neither of which have you proven to be true.

Starting with a faulty premise will lead to a faulty conclusion (where that conclusion relies on the accuracy of the premise) - therefore your logic is faulty.

End of thread - bye bye.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post


I am not allowed.

here again you show your lack of reading comprehension - you were instructed not to open 'more threads' on the exact same topic that regurgitated the exact same insanity in that specific forum - you have not been prevented from opening new threads on other topics (or even this one, if you could actually make it 'different') in other forums.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post

This is not trolling, it is opposing personal attacks with a demand for an intelligent debate, or be shamed.

You are unwilling to enter an intelligent debate, so now you are being shamed.

But hey, MAYBE you will find one of my arguments and argue with it in an intelligent way that respects truth.
I really am an eternal optimist.

Come on, stop the excuses and prove me wrong once and for all.
See above - you've been dealt with - deal with it - now, do as you said you would do and go away.

First off - the insults (which calling you a moron is insulting, to morons) are one thing - but using 'name calling to goad someone into a reaction" is trolling.

"shamed" by you callng me "chicken" - pathetic - you are truly pathetic.

Here again, your logic is pathetic.

end of thread - bye bye.

Last edited by simster; 03-14-2014 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:26 AM
pancakes3 pancakes3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Why not just POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN MY LOGIC?
http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac

This is probably as basic a rebuttal to your sagnac loop point as it gets. Are we going to start keeping score?
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:36 AM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancakes3 View Post
http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac

This is probably as basic a rebuttal to your sagnac loop point as it gets. Are we going to start keeping score?
I read that and i don't see anything at odd with my logic.
If you can, please quote the exact line and explain why you think it disagrees with me.

Thanks,

Oh, and I fully accept that if you best me in this while sticking with logic and avoiding math unless you want to go slow enough that I can follow you, then I will leave with my tail between my legs.

So please, do go on.
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:49 AM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
and here I thought you were going to lay out a new simple, logical argument - not rely on all the crap you've already posted (that has already been argued to death)
No, I have asked you to pick whatever you think is easy to win, pick an old argument.

Sagnac would be good, or whatever you like.
If you want me to recreate one, I will.
Quote:
In any event, Every single one of your arguments starts out with a faulty premise - to wit - that SR is 'wrong' and/or that 'light can exceed c' - neither of which have you proven to be true.
No, they don't, that is the conclusion.
Quote:
Starting with a faulty premise will lead to a faulty conclusion (where that conclusion relies on the accuracy of the premise) - therefore your logic is faulty.
Your premise is faulty, I start off with the premise that SR is right and that the speed of light is C except where SR states specifically it is not.
Quote:
here again you show your lack of reading comprehension - you were instructed not to open 'more threads' on the exact same topic that regurgitated the exact same insanity in that specific forum - you have not been prevented from opening new threads on other topics (or even this one, if you could actually make it 'different') in other forums.
What am i meant to answer to this?
On the subject of Relativity i am clear that no more threads will be tolerated and that was the subject under discussion.
And my threads contain insanity, but it does not come from me.

Quote:

See above - you've been dealt with - deal with it - now, do as you said you would do and go away.
You chicken.

No, you know how to make me go away.
Except that requires you to make more intelligent and correct arguments.
As I predicted, you are chickening out.
Quote:
First off - the insults (which calling you a moron is insulting, to morons) are one thing - but using 'name calling to goad someone into a reaction" is trolling.
Only is trying to keep someone on subject in a thread about SR is trolling.
Quote:
"shamed" by you callng me "chicken" - pathetic - you are truly pathetic.
What did you say, pluck pluck?
Quote:
Here again, your logic is pathetic.

end of thread - bye bye.
Hahahahaha!

I gave you all the chance in the world.

And you just exposed yourself as someone who was full of (chicken) s#!+.
And incapable of using logic.

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 12:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:53 AM
Calatin Calatin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Oh, and I fully accept that if you best me in this while sticking with logic and avoiding math unless you want to go slow enough that I can follow you, then I will leave with my tail between my legs.
This statement encapsulates a great deal of why you are meeting resistance on the board. I'm biting my tongue so hard that I can taste the blood.
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:53 AM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
You win.
Yes, yes I do.

I am still using logic and no one else opposing me is (with logic).

No one is able to refute my logic, when they try they are unable to respond to my rebuttal showing them their flaws in reasoning.

Look, if you guys act like childish jerks, so can I (regrettably), if you guys act logical, and reasonable, so will I.

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 12:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 03-14-2014, 01:02 AM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calatin View Post
This statement encapsulates a great deal of why you are meeting resistance on the board. I'm biting my tongue so hard that I can taste the blood.
I don't get your meaning?

That was an effort to appease, not offend.

I was trying to show how readily I will admit I am wrong about it all even if someone just wins one point of logic.

Like giving a slow pitch in the hopes someone will take a hit at it. Win the game if you hit one.

Ok, maybe it seem condescending? was that it?

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 01:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 03-14-2014, 01:45 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Yes, yes I do.

I am still using logic and no one else opposing me is (with logic).

No one is able to refute my logic, when they try they are unable to respond to my rebuttal showing them their flaws in reasoning..
I know. But you have to understand that's just what they've been taught by "Big Science".

In the world of quantum physics today, there is a deeply entrenched belief that you're a trolling douchebag.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 03-14-2014, 02:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Yes, yes I do.

I am still using logic and no one else opposing me is (with logic).

No one is able to refute my logic, when they try they are unable to respond to my rebuttal showing them their flaws in reasoning.
Actually, at least two pages ago, I remember one mentioning the biggest flaw with your reasoning: it's all armchair theorizing which may or may not have any actual connection to reality.
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 03-14-2014, 02:17 AM
Truman Burbank Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Someday, By God, just you wait and see, someone is apparently going to willingly pay him to do 'thought experiments' all day long, and then he'll be a professional physicist. I just wonder why the marketplace hasn't snapped him up already. Or what else a guy has to do to make himself marketable in the field of physics. I mean, besides acquire 'credentials', which is so petty and small-minded.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 03-14-2014, 02:29 AM
Itself Itself is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
Someday, By God, just you wait and see, someone is apparently going to willingly pay him to do 'thought experiments' all day long, and then he'll be a professional physicist. I just wonder why the marketplace hasn't snapped him up already.
Hello Dr. mythoughts,

My name is the Honorable Mr. Itself, I am the Nigerian Minister of Physics. I have found the SECRET PHYSICS BOOKS of Albert Einstien in which he renounced special relativity and stopped using math. I am seeking a reliable, trustyworthy person who is totally a PHYSICIST (but doesn't have any of the credientials that would make him a zealot or an unthinking supporter of the orthodoxy). I cannot move the books out of my country myself because of TIME DILATIONS, but I will gladly let you read them in exchange for a small amount of $500,000,000,000,000,000,000 United States dollars from America. Because youare such an excellent physicist, you can use your LOGIC and NOT MATH to convert the masses and stop Big Science, GMOs, and cigarette comapnies from manipulating the aether. I am also aware that you can create non-physical cosmic energy, and that seems legit.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 03-14-2014, 03:12 AM
Truman Burbank Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Oh shit, that's funny. Well done!
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 03-14-2014, 03:52 AM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Attempt to keep things on topic...

Sagnac effect, from the stationary frame the speed of light around the loop is equal in both directions.

From the rotating frame the speed of light is not equal, the finish line moves, if it moves at near the speed of light one photon is almost stopped while the other is seen to be moving at almost 2 times the speed of light. Multiple Defenders of Relativity have agreed this is true, including Relativity supporter naita and supported by this document pro Relativity document posted by user Pancakes3: http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac

Einsteinian clock synch methods cannot be used for one way speed of light measurements, it will make them equal to 2 way measurements. Wikipedia says so, logic says so, it would not work with sound in a wind tunnel even to give a true one way speed test.

So since that method is quite literally rigged to never give a truthful answer for a one way speed of light, we must use an alternative clock synch method, synch by the signal going around both ways and using the fastest is a crude but effective method. (this requires velocity greater than .5C and preferably higher)

Or sync from a light flash in the center of rotation.

Or slow slow clock transport from the center of rotation.

All these would definitely show the speed of light around the loop to be unequal over even a small portion of the loop.

And if it is found to be unequal over a portion of the loop, it would also be just as true if the loop was astronomical in size, and even if only part of the loop actually existed.

This means that all not perfectly straight motion could be part of such a Sagnac loop (at least momentarily).

And perfectly straight motion simply does not exist.

Hence all real motion could be found to have a variable speed of light with clocks that are synced in any reasonable way.

Relativist supporter Ronald Raygun agreed that these synch schemes would show a variable speed of light over a portion of a Sagnac loop.

You can put a million smoke screen juvenile personal attacks out there, but it doesn't cover the fact that you are unable to solve these or other arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 03-14-2014, 06:45 AM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
BTW in researching my magnetic inertia control idea, I came across papers that claim evidence of electromagnetic near fields propagating instantaneously.

It would be ironic if the one time I wanted SR to be right, it falls flat on it's face and dies.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009076.pdf Both by the same chap

No, I have not read these in any detail.
They would only disprove my idea if near-fields propagated instantaneously.
Though near instantaneously would kill any hope of it being practical.

Note: a near-field is not detached from the source and is not yet a photon.

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 06:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 03-14-2014, 07:21 AM
Smeghead Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Is it bad that I'm having a bit of schadenfreude? I'm a biologist, and we're fighting off idiot evolution deniers constantly. I'm sure physicists have their share of nutballs to deal with, but it can't be anything like what we've got. I have to say, I'm kind of enjoying watching physicist-type people banging their heads against a wall of implacable, unalterable stupid - stupid so stupid that it can't understand just how stupid it is - and not feel obligated to wade into the fray.

WELCOME TO MY WORLD!!
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 03-14-2014, 07:30 AM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
No, I have asked you to pick whatever you think is easy to win, pick an old argument.

Sagnac would be good, or whatever you like.
If you want me to recreate one, I will.

No, they don't, that is the conclusion.

Your premise is faulty, I start off with the premise that SR is right and that the speed of light is C except where SR states specifically it is not.
What am i meant to answer to this?
On the subject of Relativity i am clear that no more threads will be tolerated and that was the subject under discussion.
And my threads contain insanity, but it does not come from me.


You chicken.

No, you know how to make me go away.
Except that requires you to make more intelligent and correct arguments.
As I predicted, you are chickening out.

Only is trying to keep someone on subject in a thread about SR is trolling.

What did you say, pluck pluck?

Hahahahaha!

I gave you all the chance in the world.

And you just exposed yourself as someone who was full of (chicken) s#!+.
And incapable of using logic.
a) you're trying to prove your faulty conclusion - you've assumed 'c is not correct' and 'SR is faulty' - and you are building your arguments to prove it - this is not logical. This is starting with the faulty premise and building a case for it.

If you want to prove that 'c is incorrect' or that 'SR is faulty' - you design an experiment that does that, and you do the work - something you have not done.


in any event you're a troll - I'm done - go pluck yourself.

Last edited by simster; 03-14-2014 at 07:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 03-14-2014, 08:05 AM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
Is it bad that I'm having a bit of schadenfreude? I'm a biologist, and we're fighting off idiot evolution deniers constantly. I'm sure physicists have their share of nutballs to deal with, but it can't be anything like what we've got. I have to say, I'm kind of enjoying watching physicist-type people banging their heads against a wall of implacable, unalterable stupid - stupid so stupid that it can't understand just how stupid it is - and not feel obligated to wade into the fray.

WELCOME TO MY WORLD!!
Oh, physicists get their fair share of kooks too, don't you worry. More unpredictable than garden variety creationists too because you know exactly what arguments a creationist is going to put forward, even which examples & "thought experiments" they're going to use to try and support their brand of shit. It's like they get monthly reminders with updated cheat sheets or something.
Physics kooks OTOH are all completely out there, each from a different barely comprehensible insanity direction (although to be fair, most settle for conclusively proving Einstein was a stoopids with some napkin "proof" they came up with in 5 minutes after 8 Jaëgerbombs). Remember Time Cube ? That's the kind of deep whu?! I'm talking about.

Sheepishly, it's why I sort of whenever Neil DeGrasse Tyson goes on his crucible of stars, we are made of star stuff stump speech. Because... well it's textbook truth for one thing ; and he injects so much passion into that bit of his whenever he does it for another ; that I can just tell every time it gets broadcast on national TV or someone plugs it on the internet a brand new generation of well-meaning but complete nutters mixing grade school understanding of physics, New Age shite, vague undefined all-encompassing "spirituality" and dogged self-importance is born. The man is a charismatic menace.
Reply With Quote
  #721  
Old 03-14-2014, 08:31 AM
Reyemile Reyemile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
It's like they get monthly reminders with updated cheat sheets or something.
That's because the do. There are several organizations dedicated to fighting evolution that provide study-guides for their advocates.
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 03-14-2014, 08:53 AM
pancakes3 pancakes3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Attempt to keep things on topic...

Sagnac effect, from the stationary frame the speed of light around the loop is equal in both directions.

From the rotating frame the speed of light is not equal, the finish line moves, if it moves at near the speed of light one photon is almost stopped while the other is seen to be moving at almost 2 times the speed of light. Multiple Defenders of Relativity have agreed this is true, including Relativity supporter naita and supported by this document pro Relativity document posted by user Pancakes3: http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac

...

Relativist supporter Ronald Raygun agreed that these synch schemes would show a variable speed of light over a portion of a Sagnac loop.

You can put a million smoke screen juvenile personal attacks out there, but it doesn't cover the fact that you are unable to solve these or other arguments.
No. Wrong. You shouldn't take "seen to be moving at almost 2 times the speed of light" to mean that it's moving at 2c.

The answer is simple and non-relativistic. From my link that you cite:

Quote:
The thing shouldn't be interpreted as a change in the celerity of light, supposedly due to rotation (dwelling on this fallacious point is a misguided endeavor which is popular in the pseudoscientific community). It's mainly that the beams must travel different distances to their rendezvous, at a point which will have moved toward one beam and away from the other, by the time they get there !
Basically it's as if two people were are standing, watching a merry go round but not on it. They decide to run around the merry go round and set the brown horse that's directly opposite them as the finish point. As they start running, the merry go round is turning. The one that's running against the rotation is going to reach the horse first. He's not running any faster than the guy running the other way. It's that the finish line is moving to meet him.
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 03-14-2014, 09:33 AM
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
I might be deluded. But that is opinion.
No, it's a matter of verifiable fact, thoroughly documented in extreme detail in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 03-14-2014, 10:12 AM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
I don't get your meaning?
It's like arguing with a stump.
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 03-14-2014, 11:49 AM
Truman Burbank Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
With Stump reveling in victory.
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:00 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
With Stump reveling in victory.
"look how I dulled the axe -- that guy's gonna have to sharpen it for sure!"
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:21 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
I got up early this morning for a drink of water, and when I flicked on the light switch, I got pissed off at how long it took the photons to reach my eyes.

Proof light has a speed limit. Checkmate, Mythoughts!
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 03-14-2014, 01:30 PM
Pasta Pasta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Attempt to keep things on topic...

Sagnac effect...
From my skimming of your past Sagnac effect posts, I gather that you would like to defeat relativity by looking at a beam of light... traveling not in a straight line but in a closed loop... but not by itself but with another beam... and with two detectors... but not located at the same position... and (thus necessarily) with displaced clocks that need to be synchronized... using a clock synchronization approach that you constructed... all while working in a rotating frame... which necessarily means no global inertial reference frame exists for the system.

Is that right? Do you not think that that Rube Goldbergian setup could possibly... just maybe... be complicated enough that simply intuiting oneself through it might lead to a subtle mistake? Is that a possibility?

You've claimed that there's all sorts of evidence that relativity is broken. Why would you want to use this cumbersome and complicated example to prove your point if simpler, more direct evidence exists?
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 03-14-2014, 01:44 PM
Smeghead Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta View Post
You've claimed that there's all sorts of evidence that relativity is broken. Why would you want to use this cumbersome and complicated example to prove your point if simpler, more direct evidence exists?
Let me answer that with this thought experiment...
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 03-14-2014, 02:10 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 21,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
Is it bad that I'm having a bit of schadenfreude? I'm a biologist, and we're fighting off idiot evolution deniers constantly. . . .

WELCOME TO MY WORLD!!
Grin! Sympathies, to be sure; the few creationists who wander into the SDMB are usually stupid as dirt, and not particularly amusing.

Where I get astonished is when there are math cranks! Math is one of the very few fields where the conclusions are proven. Real, solid, meaningful proof. The physical sciences would love to have the kind of certainty that we have in, say, the Intermediate Value Theorem.

And yet...we have no shortage of goofwads who pop up and think they can overturn calculus, redefine infinity, or produce a whole new definition of "number" that changes the entire philosophic underpinnings of our industrialized civilization.

Garden variety creationists, alas, tend to be mean-spirited. They consign their opponents to hell with an astonishing lack of human empathy.
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 03-14-2014, 02:44 PM
pancakes3 pancakes3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta View Post
Why would you want to use this cumbersome and complicated example to prove your point if simpler, more direct evidence exists?
By hook or by crook.
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 03-14-2014, 03:09 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancakes3 View Post
No. Wrong. You shouldn't take "seen to be moving at almost 2 times the speed of light" to mean that it's moving at 2c.

The answer is simple and non-relativistic. From my link that you cite:

The thing shouldn't be interpreted as a change in the celerity of light, supposedly due to rotation (dwelling on this fallacious point is a misguided endeavor which is popular in the pseudoscientific community). It's mainly that the beams must travel different distances to their rendezvous, at a point which will have moved toward one beam and away from the other, by the time they get there !
Yes, different distances.
I have said that.

And the same is true if a light speed test is done with observers in different inertial frames, there are different distances because one finishing line is moving, but in this case that is not considered a relivant under SR.

My point is you can't have it both ways, if the view of the rotating frame is not respected and the rotating observer sees light finish faster around one way than the other, then from his definitively moving perspective the photons must be moving at different velocities, and one faster that he would expect light to be.

Additionally if a clock sync method capable of giving an honest one way speed of light answer is used, he could see this speed on light difference over even a short length.

And if this were grown to astronomical proportions he would barely notice the deviation from straight line motion despite the fact that he is in a rotating frame at near C.
Quote:
Basically it's as if two people were are standing, watching a merry go round but not on it. They decide to run around the merry go round and set the brown horse that's directly opposite them as the finish point. As they start running, the merry go round is turning. The one that's running against the rotation is going to reach the horse first. He's not running any faster than the guy running the other way. It's that the finish line is moving to meet him.
Yes, this is indeed it, and if the merry go round had somehow 2 horses counter rotating, he would see different speeds for these 2 horses, one almost stopped and one at twice the speed.

And if the merry go round was so large it almost looked straight, then you would have a situation where almost but not actually straight line motion would find the speed of light to be different in different directions.

There is no need for the rest of the Sagnac loop to exist, and indeed given the limitation of C you would not know for a long time if it did or did not exist at that moment.
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 03-14-2014, 03:30 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta View Post
You've claimed that there's all sorts of evidence that relativity is broken. Why would you want to use this cumbersome and complicated example to prove your point if simpler, more direct evidence exists?
Because the experimental evidence is not in question, this is a though experiment expanding on not just an experiment tried a hundred years ago, but actually used in technology.

Additionally Special Relativity has a known position regarding this, and that position is at odds with the normal predictions that SR makes with respect to motion effecting the speed of light.

All that needs to be done is to firstly point out that if the time around the total loop is far from equal, with light in the rotating frame seeming to move above and below C depending on direction, then if a synch scheme that isn't totally rigged is used we can prove it in a section of the loop too.

It really is nonsense to have one photon making many complete cycles from the rotating frame while the other is struggling to complete one cycle and then pretend that somehow the speed of light in each section could be equal both ways genuinely, the results for the portion can't dispute the results for the whole loop.

Next all that is needed to grow the loop, this changes nothing important except for lowering the RPM needed to get the Sagnac loop moving near light speed.

Now we have transitioned from a rotating frame that on a human scale looks like rotation, to a rotating frame that without zooming way way out looks very much like an inertial frame.

Except it MUST still find the same results of a smaller loop.

I can dispute SR in many ways, if you want experiments that show it, I listed several and then I also posed superluminal jets and instantaneous near fields also. If you want more I can give you claims of a gravity impulse at 64 times C.
I have shown that the interpretation on many interferometer experiments has been stilted to fit SR.

And I have given many examples of problems with time dilation, length contraction and the like, no one has successfully addressed them, though two at least gave some effort to do so but failed.

If you are ACTUALLY interested, I am willing to go back and make these ones, but IMO the Sagnac effect is as solid as it gets as SR basically admits that it does not follow he constancy of C since rotating frames are absolute motion.

But as no inertial frames exist in reality, SR is out of luck.

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 03:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 03-14-2014, 03:34 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Attempt to keep things on topic...

Sagnac effect, from the stationary frame the speed of light around the loop is equal in both directions.

From the rotating frame the speed of light is not equal, the finish line moves, if it moves at near the speed of light one photon is almost stopped while the other is seen to be moving at almost 2 times the speed of light. Multiple Defenders of Relativity have agreed this is true, including Relativity supporter naita and supported by this document pro Relativity document posted by user Pancakes3: http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac

Einsteinian clock synch methods cannot be used for one way speed of light measurements, it will make them equal to 2 way measurements. Wikipedia says so, logic says so, it would not work with sound in a wind tunnel even to give a true one way speed test.

So since that method is quite literally rigged to never give a truthful answer for a one way speed of light, we must use an alternative clock synch method, synch by the signal going around both ways and using the fastest is a crude but effective method. (this requires velocity greater than .5C and preferably higher)

Or sync from a light flash in the center of rotation.

Or slow slow clock transport from the center of rotation.

All these would definitely show the speed of light around the loop to be unequal over even a small portion of the loop.

And if it is found to be unequal over a portion of the loop, it would also be just as true if the loop was astronomical in size, and even if only part of the loop actually existed.

This means that all not perfectly straight motion could be part of such a Sagnac loop (at least momentarily).

And perfectly straight motion simply does not exist.

Hence all real motion could be found to have a variable speed of light with clocks that are synced in any reasonable way.

Relativist supporter Ronald Raygun agreed that these synch schemes would show a variable speed of light over a portion of a Sagnac loop.

You can put a million smoke screen juvenile personal attacks out there, but it doesn't cover the fact that you are unable to solve these or other arguments.
Like the light clocks perpendicular to and aligned with the direction of travel, this is a rare pearl of a well described thought experiment, even if your conclusion is premature.

Try this follow-up on for size.

We've been placed in a distant spaceship by whatever means, look out at the universe with the port side sensor array and see a pulsar we pick as reference point. In the interest of science we name it P1. We do the necessary measurements with the pulsar as our clock, and determine that according to mythoughtian physics, we have an absolute speed of v, with light speed registering as c+v in one direction and c-v in the other.

As you pointed out and I rashly tried to refute by intuition (dangerous stuff for any user), if we make the distance arbitrarily large, we can make other effects of our possible orbit around P1 arbitrarily small. In mythoughtian physics this means we might as well be moving in a straight line, things should still work out the same, while in an Einsteinian universe simultaneity and synchronisation would rear its ugly head, and tell us synching by pulsar isn't as good as it intuitively seems.

Anyway, we're not Einsteinians, we subscribe fully to mythoughtian physics, and go to sleep happily knowing that we're travelling at v. Yeah, we're easily to please like that. Next morning we wake up and the computer tells us that the instruments in the port side sensor array have all malfunctioned during ship-night, but that the starboard array is now available again. Oh, and our synchronised clocks all stopped during the night as well. Bummer.

Luckily there's a pulsar to our right as well, so we start up our clocks, measure light speed in both directions, and are mildly surprised to discover that we've stopped during the night. Light speed is c in both directions. Then the computer tells us the port side sensors are back up, and that it's puzzled about our log entry on a change of speed since the accelerometers have not malfunctioned and show no change in velocity.

Now given the additional knowledge that we were moving at v at a right angle with respect to to the direction of P1, at a distance where determining if we're on a circular path by geometric means is not an option, (and possibly doesn't matter,) and that we're right on a line drawn through P1 and P2, with a distance to either so large and a velocity so low that our travel during the night makes no practical change in that situation. And given that we're co-moving with P2 with the same velocity with respect to P1. How do you reconcile the differences in velocity measurements? What do you expect will be the result when we compare the clocks synchronized to P2 with the signals from P1?

Do the thought experiment from scratch yourself if you want to. Draw up P1, the space ship S and P2 on a straight line. Cover P2 and think about what you'll be observing regarding P1, cover up P1 and think about what you'll be observing regarding P2.

Can we resolve this by stating the co-moving S and P2 must both actually be moving in an absolute sense.? What then if we'd observed P2 first? Why should one pulsar P1 orbiting the center of the Milky Way, be a better reference than another pulsar P2, also orbiting the center of the Milky Way?

Can we resolve this by stating that S and P2 are the stationary objects, and P1 is the one moving? Then what observations would we expect to make regarding a hypothetical super-pulsar at the center of the galaxy that both S and P2 are orbiting at the same velocity?

Last edited by naita; 03-14-2014 at 03:38 PM.. Reason: Minor clarifications and typo fixes
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 03-14-2014, 03:54 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Yes, different distances.
I have said that.

And the same is true if a light speed test is done with observers in different inertial frames, there are different distances because one finishing line is moving, but in this case that is not considered a relivant under SR.
That's because there are no objective ways of telling one inertial frame from another, and if c wasn't invariant, the differences in distances would vary depending on the frame we chose as preferred. Try it for yourself. It's a bit tricky to do the necessary math-by-drawing that you used successfully earlier, but not impossible.

Rotating frames on the other hand have been shown to be rotating and rotating at a specific speed no matter how you look at it. That's what the Sagnac-effect shows.

Now you believe that you can use the Sagnac-effect to show something profound about flaws in SR, but as I showed in my expanded thought experiment above, that idea is fundamentally flawed.

And yes, everything in the universe is influence by gravity, so perfectly inertial reference frames don't exist, but SR is only the initial idea upon which GR builds, and GR takes gravity into consideration. And where gravitational influences are negligible SR predicts the experimental results we get in reality, just as GR predicts the result we get where gravity is important.

Why don't you go off and rethink this for a while, and come back when your theory at least correctly predicts the precession of Mercury.
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:01 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 33,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
My point is you can't have it both ways, if the view of the rotating frame is not respected and the rotating observer sees light finish faster around one way than the other, then from his definitively moving perspective the photons must be moving at different velocities, and one faster that he would expect light to be.
If the rotating observer actually measures the speed of the photons, he will find that they are traveling at c, relative to his frame of reference. If some non-rotating observer measures photons coming off the rotation, he will find that they too are moving at c relative to his frame of reference. If one set of photons is traveling a longer distance, it will take them longer, but that does not affect their speed, which will be measured as c.

So no one is having it both ways. All observers are having it exactly the same way - anyone who measures the speed will find it to be c. If they change their point of view and measure it from a different frame, it will be c again.

No matter how you change your frame of reference, you will always find the speed of light to be c. If you want to compare the results of measuring the speed of light from two different points of view, it will always turn out that the speed is c. So there will never be a different measurement.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:02 PM
Dr_Doom Dr_Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Damn.

This thread is still going.

I'm afraid to look too closely to see who is yet posting, as I'd surely be caught by the event horizon to which they fell victim.
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:07 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
Like the light clocks perpendicular to and aligned with the direction of travel, this is a rare pearl of a well described thought experiment, even if your conclusion is premature.

Try this follow-up on for size.

We've been placed in a distant spaceship by whatever means, look out at the universe with the port side sensor array and see a pulsar we pick as reference point. In the interest of science we name it P1. We do the necessary measurements with the pulsar as our clock, and determine that according to mythoughtian physics, we have an absolute speed of v, with light speed registering as c+v in one direction and c-v in the other.

As you pointed out and I rashly tried to refute by intuition (dangerous stuff for any user), if we make the distance arbitrarily large, we can make other effects of our possible orbit around P1 arbitrarily small. In mythoughtian physics this means we might as well be moving in a straight line, things should still work out the same, while in an Einsteinian universe simultaneity and synchronisation would rear its ugly head, and tell us synching by pulsar isn't as good as it intuitively seems.
I am not really saying that straight and from our scale very slightly curved lines are the same.
I am saying that SR tries to make different predictions for them, and SR is based on perfectly straight lines, but in reality these do not exist.

Now there is a potential part 2 where if the other truths are accepted as such, then additional 'impossible' perfectly straight motion is added which for an arbitrary period looks indistinguishable from the crve, but SR would make different predictions about it's observations of the speed of light.
Quote:
Anyway, we're not Einsteinians, we subscribe fully to mythoughtian physics, and go to sleep happily knowing that we're travelling at v. Yeah, we're easily to please like that. Next morning we wake up and the computer tells us that the instruments in the port side sensor array have all malfunctioned during ship-night, but that the starboard array is now available again. Oh, and our synchronised clocks all stopped during the night as well. Bummer.

Luckily there's a pulsar to our right as well, so we start up our clocks, measure light speed in both directions, and are mildly surprised to discover that we've stopped during the night. Light speed is c in both directions. Then the computer tells us the port side sensors are back up, and that it's puzzled about our log entry on a change of speed since the accelerometers have not malfunctioned and show no change in velocity.

Now given the additional knowledge that we were moving at v at a right angle with respect to to the direction of P1, at a distance where determining if we're on a circular path by geometric means is not an option, (and possibly doesn't matter,) and that we're right on a line drawn through P1 and P2, with a distance to either so large and a velocity so low that our travel during the night makes no practical change in that situation. And given that we're co-moving with P2 with the same velocity with respect to P1. How do you reconcile the differences in velocity measurements? What do you expect will be the result when we compare the clocks synchronized to P2 with the signals from P1?

Do the thought experiment from scratch yourself if you want to. Draw up P1, the space ship S and P2 on a straight line. Cover P2 and think about what you'll be observing regarding P1, cover up P1 and think about what you'll be observing regarding P2.

Can we resolve this by stating the co-moving S and P2 must both actually be moving in an absolute sense.? What then if we'd observed P2 first? Why should one pulsar P1 orbiting the center of the Milky Way, be a better reference than another pulsar P2, also orbiting the center of the Milky Way?

Can we resolve this by stating that S and P2 are the stationary objects, and P1 is the one moving? Then what observations would we expect to make regarding a hypothetical super-pulsar at the center of the galaxy that both S and P2 are orbiting at the same velocity?
Your questions are good ones, you are going ahead me.

But note that you made only one mistake, you said that this is mythoughtian physics, really this is SR you are describing.

Mythoughtian physics would have the ship entrain the aether with it and the speed of light would always be C in each direction within provided the object entrained it's aether sufficiently which I believe an opaque metal space ship would primarily.

The complications you detail are SR's issues with making different predictions for perfectly straight and imperceptibly curved motion.

The only 'Mythoughtian' component is using a synch scheme that does not defeat any attempt to measure a real difference in the one was speed of light, horses, sound, bunny rabbits, baseballs...

That the speed of light will be measured differently with a sane synch scheme is already established by a Relativity supporter, and since the rigged nature of the Einsteinian scheme is even noted by Wikipedia.

Then the case is clear that this substitution is not only reasonable, it is necessary and inescapable.

Thank you, I appreciate your response being both thoughtful (intelligent) and respectful, it is very welcome.

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 04:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:08 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Yes, this is indeed it, and if the merry go round had somehow 2 horses counter rotating, he would see different speeds for these 2 horses, one almost stopped and one at twice the speed.

And if the merry go round was so large it almost looked straight, then you would have a situation where almost but not actually straight line motion would find the speed of light to be different in different directions.
"Conclusion does not follow the premise"

a) Going around in a circle is not the same as going in 'almost but not quite' a straight line (whatever the hell that means) that would have items on it that could counter rotate in such a manner that they were observable to 'all'.

b) the perception of the moving person (or standing still observer) of the 2 other differently moving objects is due to their perception only - it has no direct impact on the actual speed the items are, in fact, moving.

In other words - in your merry go round scenario - there is no evidence that the little ponies are moving at a rate other than the same rate - them moving in different directions in relation to each other and even in relation to the observers speed of travel may influence the 'percieved' speed by the observer, but has no direct implication on the items ACTUAL speed.

Last edited by simster; 03-14-2014 at 04:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:31 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
But note that you made only one mistake, you said that this is mythoughtian physics, really this is SR you are describing.
It might not be mythoughtian, but it's not SR. In SR light speed would be measured the same either way because one would know using a pulsar as a synchronising device would lead to inconsistent results.

Quote:
Mythoughtian physics would have the ship entrain the aether with it and the speed of light would always be C in each direction within provided the object entrained it's aether sufficiently which I believe an opaque metal space ship would primarily.
Does the Earth entrain the aether? Then why does large interferometers measure the angular velocity of the Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...son_experiment
Reply With Quote
  #741  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:32 PM
Itself Itself is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Where I get astonished is when there are math cranks! Math is one of the very few fields where the conclusions are proven. Real, solid, meaningful proof. The physical sciences would love to have the kind of certainty that we have in, say, the Intermediate Value Theorem.
I think what makes math a bit luckier than other subjects (though not completely immune, unfortunately) about crackpots is the fact that it's so abstract. People experience Newtonian physics everyday, and lots of people are electronics hobbyists. They have a rough understanding of classical mechanics and E&M, and therefore assume that their familiarity intuition works perfectly well with relativity and quantum. Math is less accessible, though. You may have some crackpots blathering on about, say, Goedel's theorem or calculus (which are nontrivial, but don't require much background to understand the basics); you really don't have any random people on the Internet claiming to have a shorter proof of the Kervaire invariant problem or any proof for the Novikov conjecture. You do get attempts to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, because most people understand how to add and multiply integers. For that matter, you see far fewer crackpots attack GR than SR, because the background needed to even state the basic results of GR are more complicated than those for SR. mythoughts has no idea what, say, the stress-energy tensor is; he hasn't even figured out how SR claims velocities add, which is high-school algebra at most.

But do you think crackpots like mythoughts would be stopped by something as weak as logic? They have special, magical insights that only they are smart, open-minded, and intuitive (details are for unenlightened suckers) to understand; yet, paradoxically, they're compelled to preach about those insights on the Internet. People like mythoughts just want to feel special: They want to be reassured that even though they have no training, or education, or understanding of the problem, they don't need any of that. In fact, they're better for it, because they have a deep, intuitive understanding that transcends petty details like math or logic or experimental evidence. They grok the subject; actual experts in it are just caught up in irrelevant minutiae.
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:33 PM
pancakes3 pancakes3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
My point is you can't have it both ways
Well that's probably your biggest failure in understanding Special Relativity. You insist on imposing a single frame of reference as the standard when in fact you can have it as many ways as you can imagine. That's the heart and soul of SR.

If I shoot 2 photons at each other and as a 3rd observer, I can see that the closing speed of the 2 photons is 2c. That's fine. However, from the perspective of either photon, that closing speed isn't 2c. You can't synchronize clocks because the very flow of time changes to make it so.
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:34 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If the rotating observer actually measures the speed of the photons, he will find that they are traveling at c, relative to his frame of reference. If some non-rotating observer measures photons coming off the rotation, he will find that they too are moving at c relative to his frame of reference. If one set of photons is traveling a longer distance, it will take them longer, but that does not affect their speed, which will be measured as c.
You are correct that this is what SR claims.

And you are correct that if Einstein's method of clock synch is used this will be the result when the speed of photons in each direction are measured.

The problem is that Einstein's method of clock synch could not measure the one way speed of sound to differ in a wind tunnel (if sound is used for synch), because the synch method actually make it a 2 way measurement, the synch signal is the other half of the speed measurement
If the speed of light turns out not to be C in both directions after all, then a synch system predicated on the assumption that it is C will self protects against falsifying the premise it was base on. This could be called devious.

This is logically obvious with thought, I have laid it out previously in math anyone can follow.

But you could just take Wikipedia's word for it: " Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed." Wiki on one way speed of light measurements.

It makes one way speed of light experiments inherently pointless as it forces it to be identical to a 2 way measurement.
It does not mean that the one way speed is actually equal.

And in this case since both photons travel the same path and from the rotating frames perspective travel the same distance in very different times, obviously the speed will not be found to be the same if a proper synch scheme is employed.

And Relativity defender Ronald Raygun has agreed that this is true and suggested synch scheme that would show this.

Once t is accepted that the speed of light in a portion of the loop is not equal in the rotating frame, all that is needed is to grow the loop till the curvature is slight.
Quote:
So no one is having it both ways. All observers are having it exactly the same way - anyone who measures the speed will find it to be c. If they change their point of view and measure it from a different frame, it will be c again.
With Einsteinian synch which is unusable to measure the one way speed of light (or anything), sure.
Quote:
No matter how you change your frame of reference, you will always find the speed of light to be c.
It is not C around the whole loop from the rotating frame, is it?
Quote:
If you want to compare the results of measuring the speed of light from two different points of view, it will always turn out that the speed is c. So there will never be a different measurement.

Regards,
Shodan
Again, only with a synch scheme that is known to be invalid at measuring direction variable speeds.

You might as well use a broken clock.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:40 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancakes3 View Post
Well that's probably your biggest failure in understanding Special Relativity. You insist on imposing a single frame of reference as the standard when in fact you can have it as many ways as you can imagine. That's the heart and soul of SR.

If I shoot 2 photons at each other and as a 3rd observer, I can see that the closing speed of the 2 photons is 2c. That's fine. However, from the perspective of either photon, that closing speed isn't 2c. You can't synchronize clocks because the very flow of time changes to make it so.
You are missing the point of my argument.

You are talking about large differences, I am talking about tiny ones, imperceptible ones having very different results (the constance of the speed of light).

Even so if you accept that inertial frames predict something different to rotating (curved) frames, then just realize that in reality there are no perfect inertial frames.

As such Special Relativity's rules about inertial frames never apply to reality.

Last edited by mythoughts; 03-14-2014 at 04:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:55 PM
Itself Itself is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
Even so if you accept that inertial frames predict something different to rotating (curved) frames, then just realize that in reality there are no perfect inertial frames.

As such Special Relativity's rules about inertial frames never apply to reality.
SR can easily handle situations more complicated than just frames moving at constant velocity. (Basically, you just integrate.) You demonstrate repeatedly that you utterly fail to understand the theory you're trying to attack. Maybe you should have read some of those hundred books on relativity you checked out of the library, rather than just using them to burnish your pretend-Internet-physicist credentials.
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 03-14-2014, 05:15 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
It might not be mythoughtian, but it's not SR. In SR light speed would be measured the same either way because one would know using a pulsar as a synchronising device would lead to inconsistent results.
You must agree though that Einsteinian synch is invalid since it could not measure anything to have a different one way speed.
Darts thrown into a head wind or a tail wind would be found to have the same velocity each way if throwing darts up and down wind was used to synch the clocks.

So if Einstein's method can't be used, then can you find a flaw with the pulsar method? A way that is biases the results giving in inconsistent results as you claim?

Imagine we are initially still and positioned perpendicular to the pulsar as we synch our clocks, then after we have synced the clocks we flip a coin and set our spaceship into either forward or reverse and then proceed to orbit the pulsar (move in a slight arc due either to gravity or a technological means).

We now measure the speed of light to be slower in the direction we are heading in and faster in the other direction.

The direction we notice the speed of light to be faster in is based only on our direction and is not biased by the synch scheme.

Even at speed while the pulsar is kept as the center of orbit/rotation the new synch signals from the pulsar would not disagree with the synch established when stationary.

Other valid methods exist as I have mentioned, all make more sense than a rigged scheme that is incapable of giving a one way speed of light reading.
Quote:
Does the Earth entrain the aether?
The mass of the earth does, the air either doesn't, or only does imperfectly.
I suspect that optically transparent materials do a very poor job of entraining the aether.
Quote:
Then why does large interferometers measure the angular velocity of the Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...son_experiment
Because this is in air which has limited ability to entrain the aether, especially for angular velocity (rotation) as the mass of the earth does not come into play.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 03-14-2014, 05:32 PM
Pasta Pasta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,021
That's what I get for asking multiple questions in one post. It is easy to skip the hard ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta View Post
From my skimming of your past Sagnac effect posts, I gather that you would like to defeat relativity by looking at a beam of light... traveling not in a straight line but in a closed loop... but not by itself but with another beam... and with two detectors... but not located at the same position... and (thus necessarily) with displaced clocks that need to be synchronized... using a clock synchronization approach that you constructed... all while working in a rotating frame... which necessarily means no global inertial reference frame exists for the system.

Is that right? Do you not think that that Rube Goldbergian setup could possibly... just maybe... be complicated enough that simply intuiting oneself through it might lead to a subtle mistake? Is that a possibility?
Question bolded for emphasis.

You didn't introduce your Sagnac experiment until post #346. For 345 posts of the thread, you were vehemently arguing that SR was faulty. Why is this thought experiment so central to your arguments now?

In post #625 you listed nine reasons SR is incorrect. I gave short rebuttals to each in post #630. You feigned starting a conversation on each of those (although I have no intention of carrying on nine simultaneous subthreads), but you concluded that post with the statement that you want to focus on just the Sagnac effect, by far the most complicated case of them all and thus by far the one that anyone (including you) could most easily make a mistake on.
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 03-14-2014, 06:14 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythoughts View Post
You must agree though that Einsteinian synch is invalid since it could not measure anything to have a different one way speed.
Darts thrown into a head wind or a tail wind would be found to have the same velocity each way if throwing darts up and down wind was used to synch the clocks.
No I mustn't. We can find that darts thrown into a head wind have a different velocity relative to the Earth because we have faster signalling methods. There is nothing faster than light, so you need to test this in a different way. Aether theory may have appealed to early physicists who had nothing better to build on, but all versions have been refuted by experiments.

Quote:
So if Einstein's method can't be used, then can you find a flaw with the pulsar method? A way that is biases the results giving in inconsistent results as you claim?
Einstein's method is part of a theory that made multiple predictions that have been confirmed by experiment and solved conundrums such as the precession of Mercury, saying "it can't be used" because it doesn't fit with your intuition is childish at best.

Quote:
Imagine we are initially still and positioned perpendicular to the pulsar as we synch our clocks, then after we have synced the clocks we flip a coin and set our spaceship into either forward or reverse and then proceed to orbit the pulsar (move in a slight arc due either to gravity or a technological means).
There's no such thing as "still", except relative to something else. And if you want to dispute that, you need to explain the two pulsar situation I mentioned.

Quote:
The mass of the earth does, the air either doesn't, or only does imperfectly.
I suspect that optically transparent materials do a very poor job of entraining the aether.
Because this is in air which has limited ability to entrain the aether, especially for angular velocity (rotation) as the mass of the earth does not come into play.
So what if you do it in a cave: http://www.signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

No, never mind, I don't really care what you think.

Fact is, although many sources stop at the early and first experiments that killed various aether theories, the results from those merely laid the foundation for countless experiments since. If you actually had a head for physics, you'd be able to look at those and see that evidence against aether theories just piled up through the 20th century. Many of them are consistent with one aether theory or the other, but they're not consistent with the same aether theories. Your, or your cherrypicked sources', critiques of those early experiments are thus uninteresting, since they don't apply to the whole body of evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 03-14-2014, 06:48 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta View Post
That's what I get for asking multiple questions in one post. It is easy to skip the hard ones.

Do you not think that that Rube Goldbergian setup could possibly... just maybe... be complicated enough that simply intuiting oneself through it might lead to a subtle mistake? Is that a possibility?

Question bolded for emphasis.
I do not consider the Sagnac effect to be in any way complicated.
It is far simpler that any other speed of light measurement since there is only one clock required to establish the velocity of photons in each direction relative to the rotating frame.

Obviously photons going each way is required if we are going to compare the speed of light in each direction.

And SR's whole theory is a Rube Goldberg machine, and the clock sync trick it plays is evidence of that.

So, no, I don't think that this could lead to a mistake.
Quote:
You didn't introduce your Sagnac experiment until post #346. For 345 posts of the thread, you were vehemently arguing that SR was faulty. Why is this thought experiment so central to your arguments now?
Many times I have had to make arguments that show different possible conclusions, and show that none of the possibilities line up with SR.

But this becomes messy as people have multiple choices to make along the way, it becomes like a book with multiple choices, multiple endings.
It is inescapable, but easy to just say the logic is flawed and not explain why.

In many cases I was left with the problem that I was not sure what prediction SR would make, and why.

This one is a linear path of logic, there are no presently impossible observers at near light velocities.

Your question suggests that you can see no fault with my argument, and as such the argument must be at fault for confounding you.

Any argument that I present that finds fault with SR will be viewed as being at fault it's self for confounding you, if you are unwilling to accept the possibility that SR is at fault.

If you will ask for an alternative any time you can't explain it away (and I appreciate you aren't employing dishonest objections) then we will just run in circles with different arguments that none can answer.

I am happy to present another one, but I think we need to recognize that if no solution can be found, that is either proof that I am correct and SR is wrong.
Or proof at minimum that I am not the idiot that is claimed since none can solve the problem. Maybe I am wrong but too good at creating arguments others can't fault.
Quote:
In post #625 you listed nine reasons SR is incorrect. I gave short rebuttals to each in post #630. You feigned starting a conversation on each of those (although I have no intention of carrying on nine simultaneous subthreads), but you concluded that post with the statement that you want to focus on just the Sagnac effect, by far the most complicated case of them all and thus by far the one that anyone (including you) could most easily make a mistake on.
I very much disagree that it is the most confusing.

It is one where SR genuinely contradicts it's normal statement on the speed of light, only a little is required to show that this contradiction does not track.

If you want to address another one, then pick one of the others.
I can't guarantee all are terribly suited to an analysis, the increased resistance to acceleration argument is sound logically but very messy to imagine and while i don't think it will be disproven, it does not break SR.

It makes Special Relativity break Newtons 3rd law and with it the conservation of energy.

So would that disprove Special Relativity or 2 other older laws?

Maybe it could be argued that asymmetric gravity waves act as a propellant?
Absurd, but why not? In favour of killing either SR or 2 other theories at once?
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 03-14-2014, 07:56 PM
mythoughts mythoughts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
No I mustn't. We can find that darts thrown into a head wind have a different velocity relative to the Earth because we have faster signalling methods. There is nothing faster than light, so you need to test this in a different way. Aether theory may have appealed to early physicists who had nothing better to build on, but all versions have been refuted by experiments.
And apparently near fields are instantaneous, and hence faster.
But you are being (unintentionally I believe) dishonest here.
Light if it is not moving at C in the CW direction is no longer the fastest signalling method if the CCW direction can get it there faster!

At any rate you have not addressed the argument, that there is with darts various obviously faster signalling methods that does not change the fact that if you use the same thing for signalling over the same path you will find the speed of darts up and down wind to be the same.

The point is it does not work for darts if darts are used over the same path to create synch, and it does not work for light if light over the same path is used for synch.

Your argument doesn't validate the method and it does not change the fact that there are better methods.
It does not show that the other methods are invalid.
Quote:
Einstein's method is part of a theory that made multiple predictions that have been confirmed by experiment and solved conundrums such as the precession of Mercury, saying "it can't be used" because it doesn't fit with your intuition is childish at best.
It can't be used according to Wikipedia.
It can't be used according to some very simple math even I was able to demonstrate.
It can't be used according to logic.

Einstein's method is only valid if the speed of light is definitely C in both directions.
But is it is not will will still make it look like C in each direction.

In other words the method cannot be used in an experiment that challenges that the speed of light is not equal to C in each direction.

Are you arguing that it would give a different answer for the one way speed of light? Actually it could be used IMO, but ONLY if the clock sync was set before the Sagnac loop is rotated.
Quote:
There's no such thing as "still", except relative to something else.
And yet SR here says that the rotation is absolute motion, even though you could be moving in a straight line in a triangle form and suddenly you can see the round trip for the speed of light to be effected by your velocity, literally you could chase one photon around the mirrors managing to keep it in your ship (or around it) by moving very near the speed of light, while the photon going the other direction would pass through your ship in a tiny portion of one leg on the triangle.

If you want a synch scheme, then how about that in one leg of the triangle one photon would hit both sensors at the front and rear of the ship.
The other photon would only hit one sensor and would not hit the other until many rotations of the triangle were used.

Now the triangle is perfectly valid, just harder to have mass doing it with instantaneous changes in direction in each corner which would kill the crew and the spaceship. No longer practical, but not actually materially different to a circular rotating Sagnac fibre optic loop.

Indeed the Sagnac effect works experimentally in such a form.
Quote:
And if you want to dispute that, you need to explain the two pulsar situation I mentioned.
Maybe I didn't understand it, are you saying there are pulsars on each side of the ship?
At any rate you are only pointing out how SR can't make sense of it's own claims, I will give it another read, but I would point out that the ship can't follow a curve around both pulsars in opposite directions at once.

Now I have also shows that this works in straight lines.
Even a straight line should given SR's logic have differences in the speed of light if a valid synch scheme is employed since the straight line could it's self be part of a Sagnac loop.

I am showing that SR is inconsistent in saying that motion does and does not matter all depending of in it ends up completing a loop.

You can't have the speed of light ACTUALLY be C (not addressing measurements with a flawed scheme that must lie by design) in each portion of a loop in both directions as you move around the loop only to have the speed of light differ over the whole loop. The portions must match the whole.
Quote:
So what if you do it in a cave: http://www.signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf
I'll look into it.
Quote:
No, never mind, I don't really care what you think.

Fact is, although many sources stop at the early and first experiments that killed various aether theories, the results from those merely laid the foundation for countless experiments since. If you actually had a head for physics, you'd be able to look at those and see that evidence against aether theories just piled up through the 20th century. Many of them are consistent with one aether theory or the other, but they're not consistent with the same aether theories. Your, or your cherrypicked sources', critiques of those early experiments are thus uninteresting, since they don't apply to the whole body of evidence.
I would argue that SR has a far harder time harmonizing with the results.

But IMO all these would do IF the experiments are not flawed in some way is refine the details of the aether model. It would be was less bizarre than SR at any rate.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.