Agreed. I was of course not talking about an inertial frame though.
I was talking about rotation.
If the loop (mirrors, or fibre optic) is rotated, then the trip time stops being equal in both directions.
One side is sub C and the other side exceeds C in the rotating frame, which is NOT an inertial frame.
And Special Relativity is fine with this, despite the fact that it now has light moving faster than C in a non-inertial frame.
I disagree, but we will keep that for later.
In other words, yes it is.
Ok, so I guess what I would like you to admit to is if an observer that is rotated with a Sagnac loop knows the length of the Sagnan loop (without length contraction) and sends a photo both ways around the loop, he would firstly find that the equal distance is covered in very different amounts of time by the 2 photons.
And secondly he would note that the faster one did it in an amount of time that would seem to exceed C to him since from a non-rotating frame that photon has not had to go as far to meet back up with the rotating observer.
And secondly the non-rotating observer is suffering from what would probably be viewed as absolute time dilation, making the fast photon seem even faster.
But even without delving into time dilation, this still has light exceeding C in a non-inertial frame.
As that page says, the time light takes to go in each direction from an observer rotating with the loop differs in each direction.
If there had been no rotation both directions would have been measured at C.
Now that there is rotation, one is C plus velocity and one is C minus velocity.
That is (begrudgingly) accepted as true according to SR, I do not need to do the experiment, this has not only been done, but it is in use as an optical gyroscope precisely because it does work as I say.
This is a telling statement. It suggests that your goal is simply to get others to agree with your position. Why isn’t your goal to reach a consensus understanding of the correct position, regardless of whether it is your starting position?
I am not sure what your point is.
There is no time dilation associated with G-force (acceleration).
And there are many claims that General Relativity does predict time dilation from the equivalence principle. Wikipedia says on 2 pages about GR that gravitational time dilation is co-present in G-force (acceleration).
And yet is is not as proven by experimentation.
And as indicated by 2 of my thought experiments.
I will avoid the subject of synchronization for now.
I might attack it later.
What is notable however if that Ronald Raygun suggested a form of synchronization that is reasonable and would measure unequal velocities for light and indeed superluminal velocities.
If it’s methods are flawed, then I could.
But again I want to be significantly better versed in the subject of Einsteinian synchronization than I am at the moment.
My current (poor) understanding is that one Einsteinian method uses light speed signalling methods.
IF this is so, then it would be invalid for detecting differences in light speed obviously as the method of obtaining sync would already allow (conceal) any differences in the speed of light, the clocks sync would be effected by the very thing under measurement.
However I am not certain that this is Einsteinian sync or not, and as such I want to avoid attacking a strawman.
He is a guy on an email list, and if ifself wanted to explain the math in a more verbose style so I could follow it, he would have.
His was simply trying to provide an argument I would be unable to address.
This bit got left out:
The same would be true of the speed of sound if clocks were set into sync by sound signalling, any measurement of the speed of sound even in a wind tunnel would find it to be equal as the clocks would be actually out of sync from the uneven sync signalling, and thereafter any measurement of the speed of sound would show so speed difference even as the air moves by, hence there is no air, and the speed of sound is a universal constant. Or not.
Ok, but honestly, I am not even sure that this is Einstein’s method, so if it isn’t the argument is invalid.
Move on to part two. The closed circuit light speed in a rotating reference frame exceeds c. This is quite obvious and has to be so for it to stay at c in all inertial frames.
You did notice in the description you just linked to that you have to have it complete the circuit, did you not? Otherwise you get light speed c whichever way you measure, and the disagreement becomes one of simultaneity. By the way, the parenthetical begrudgingly does not apply to physicists well versed in relativity for rotating frames.
Or in other words. SR is about the laws of physics agreeing in all inertial frames and there being no preferred inertial frames. You can describe an inertial frame’s velocity, but the velocity is a relative thing and you could describe it with a completely different velocity and it would still be a completely valid description.
A rotating frame is a different beast completely. The rotation is an absolute property of the rotating frame. Choosing different frames to observe it from makes no difference, you still have the same rotation.
That is why Michelson-Morley and later much more accurate experiments have shown that light speed is the same in any direction, even on the rotating and orbiting Earth. And why a rotating loop still tells you how fast it’s rotating.
You’re picking up on differences in terminology and missing out on the equivalences of observation.
GR says that without outside information, you can’t know if you’re in an accelerated frame or experiencing gravity. SR says that due to the constantly changing speeds an accelerated reference frame will have different time dilation at different “heights” along he path of travel. So for the gravitational frame and the accelerated frame to be equivalent, there has to be time dilation in a gravitational field.
Now knowing that, it’s sometimes easier to explain and talk about time dilation in an accelerated frame as if it was gravitational time dilation, and that works perfectly well until some pedant nags about how that isn’t really what’s going on.
It definitely does nothing to disprove SR/GR though.
I was replying to every other time you brought up muons, like:
My point was that GR doesn’t predict the muons to experience time any differently than they do – GR time dilation is based on gravitational potential, not just the acceleration caused by it. An observer rotating at the same angular velocity as the muon, but at a different radius, would experience GR-predicted time dilation depending on whether they were inside or outside of the muon. Clocks on mountaintops, clocks on planes, GPS satellites, etc. all experience GR-related time dilation.
(Someone who knows what they’re talking about: does that make sense?)
I maintain my [DEL][COLOR=Black]suspicion[/DEL][/COLOR] theory that [DEL][COLOR=Black]mytheories[/DEL][/COLOR] mythoughts is only against relativity because [DEL][COLOR=Black]it[/DEL][/COLOR] Relativity won’t shave the nasty, sweaty, smelly, coarse, scratchy, wirey, disgusting, masculine pubic hair¹ off [DEL][COLOR=Black]its[/DEL][/COLOR] her TWAT²!
¹ Since we’ve already been treated to some tidbits of mythoughts more interesting [del]thoughts[/del] “theories” in his posts I [del]thought[/del] theorized a whole thread devoted to one [del]thought[/del] “theory” shouldn’t, in theory, be missed.
² Timey Fucking Wimey Actual Fucking Theory
Of course the real reason Relativity (and a whole lot o’ other “science”) is wrong is because the Earth is concave and universe is, in fact, a hollow sphere as karol has proven³ with [DEL][COLOR=Black]thought[/DEL][/COLOR] actual experiments¡
So now at least it must be accepted that the speed of light can be seen to exceed C in a non-inertial reference frame.
The second part is that in reality all reference frames are not inertial reference frames.
It even says so in one of the pages that Kimble linked to above.
So almost any practical frame is not going to be an inertial frame.
Even the slightest of curves could be describing portion of a rotating frame that is larger than a galaxy.
Hence in practice all real frames (which are non-inertial) can have velocities that exceed C, or in the other direction are slower than C.
If a portion of the loop (portion of a rotating frame) could measure the speed of light over that portion not to be C over said portion depends on the sync scheme which is a complex subject I will only wade into once I believe it is required.
note: Sorry for overuse of the word ‘portion’.
Yes, but even so it exceeds C over the whole loop.
I am happy to wade into the subject of measuring a portion, but only once we are on the same page.
Synchronization is a difficult subject, both because I am under-read in the area, and because I do not deny that some methods will find the speed of light over a portion to be C.
All I can do is argue (once I am fully clear on the methods in the first place) is that they are invalid.
And Ronald Raygun admitted that some means of obtaining sync that are perfectly reasonable and unbiased would find the speed of light to exceed C.
So what is left to do is to understand Einsteinian sync well enough that I can show why it is wrong and explain it.
And again, I am not fully ready for that yet.
Well, it must be kind of begrudgingly since the speed of light does exceed C according to the rotating frame.
So now SR is a theory where the speed of light is never greater than C, except for when it is and that is totally fine…
It is like shooting someone who claims to be bullet proof in the shoulder, you point out that the bullet is inside them and they are bleeding, and they say “nah, I’m fine with it, I’m bullet proof elsewhere, I didn’t specify I was bullet proof there!”.
Special Relativity is a theory where the speed of light is ALWAYS C, well, except there.
But as I have pointed out, inertial frames do not exist in practice at all, not since gravity exists.
And you can’t discount gravity which I can argue about, but it involves black holes… Let’s avoid that for now rather than get sucked into that line of thought.
Sure, I am fully conversant on the concept of an inertial frame.
Sure.
Except now things differ drastically because one object is moving is a perfect straight line, and the other has an inperceivable curve to it.
Though they can barely see a difference, SR predicts wildly different observations for them.
But to go deeper into this I will need to bone up on sync to ensure I am accurately describing Einsteinian methods before I destroy them.
Actually M-M did not show that at all.
A drift was found, but it was too small and in the wrong direction, so it was discounted.
But they were looking for the movement of earth through space and found no evidence for it.
It’s tragic to see a person spend so much time and effort denying what has been proven to the nth degree, rather than channel that energy into understanding said theory.
If MyThought invested a fraction of the effort he spends, trying to disprove what he cannot grasp, into actually understanding what is one of the most logically obvious theories that ever existed - on a par with evolution - he would be both thrilled and embarrassed
But every time I was not talking about gravitational time dilation being disproven, but time dilation from acceleration being disproven, even though it is widely believed.
I may have not been sufficiently clear in that I expected others to have some familiarity with my other posts so I could be brief.
Basically I was not saying what you interpreted, even if your reading of that sentence is understandable taken alone.
There are many people on the straight dope boards who clearly believed as I did that GR does make such a prediction.
Additionally 2 pages on Wikipedia say so.
If GR truly says this happens or has just been widely interpreted to do so by many is more to the point, did I bust GR, or a very common misinterpretation of GR.
The fact that the experiment with Muons was even tried indicates that there was some real belief that GR did predict this result that turns out to be untrue.
I guess you don’t mean me with “Someone who knows what they’re talking about”, but to me no that does not make sense, or at least what your saying is not clear to me. But I doubt it matters since acceleration does not cause any time dilation as proven in experiment, and only the relative velocity covered under SR causes any time dilation.
Or of course TD caused by actual gravity, but not G-force.
But do not most people who discuss things hope to get some agreement?
Who debates things hoping to talk to brick walls?
And if I believe I am correct, why shouldn’t I hope to persuade people of the truth?
Should I prefer people continue to be ignorant and support a theory that is holding science and the world back? Again IMO.
Also while I would indeed be happy to reach consensus should I view that I am in the wrong…
And we have reached consensus with that 1 thought experiment which I admit I was in the wrong, but should I agree with others just to agree even if I do not believe I an wrong?
I have readily admitted when I can work out that I am mistaken.
What is interesting is that this is the only thought experiment that anyone addressed in a detailed fashion, the only one that anyone could solve.
And even though I was not able to follow their mathematical argument (and did not believe in it), I was able to graph it out and soon after come to the same conclusion, that I was in the wrong. I thought I was going to prove them wrong as I was doing it.
So what a co-incidence, the only one I could find a flaw in is the only one anyone else could find a flaw in, infact I believe 2 people (Kimble and Naita) were able to do an analysis that showed a flaw in that one.
The deviations are calculable, and therefore irrelevant to the validity of SR.
Then you should shut up about this argument until you are ready. Which you won’t be, since if you actually understand the issues with synchronisation and simultaneity you’ll stop arguing there’s … no, never mind, you’d probably argue synchronisation is a conspiracy by Big Time™
Do you even know what begrudgingly means?
Even in the cases where some methods give a speed of light faster than c all inertial observers still see it as c. You’re practically arguing that due to the Coriolis effect the concept of straight line movement is flawed.
The effects of gravity are known and can be taken into consideration. Also see my mention of the Coriolis effect above.
Ha ha. Very funny. But please don’t add another thing you badly misunderstand to the pot.
No, at every instance SR predicts the exact same observations for both. Only if you let the rotating frame move full circle or use a synchronisation scheme dependent on the fact that one frame is rotating do you get a difference.
That’s what people who aren’t idiots call experiment error. The relevant measurements have been done again and again and are now confirmed to nearly absurd precision, as has been linked to earlier in this thread.
Because it’s the only one that’s been simple and basic enough for us to wrestle its meaning from your rambling prose. Your descriptions of more complex set-ups are so full of confusing digressions and scientific errors even the most patient have given up on you making it understandable, ever.
Agreed.
But all real world motion has a deviation that could be calculated.
SR would only apply to a universe with only one object to avoid and gravitational caused acceleration.
Hence SR has no real world applicability, as there are no inertial frames in reality.
Yes, you see it is big time, they have their fingers in every pie, they control how long pies even take to bake!
This goes all the way to the top! and the bottom! Also in the middle…
BTW, that is all a joke, did I have to say that?
Sadly, probably yes.
Yes.
There are no inertial observers in the real world.
Correct, and it is. At least while under influence of the earths rotation.
It does not need to be a large or obvious deviation to have a dramatic difference in how SR treats it. ANY deviation from a perfect inertial frame means it can now be seen as a portion or a curve, part of rotation.
They mean that an object does not occupy an inertial frame.
It’s motion is bent (centripetal acceleration) by gravity.
So while it looks straight to us, it isn’t.
I disagree, but this will require that I bone up on Einsteinian sync.
I disagree, I would say it is evidence of drift besides the one they were looking for.
And the drift detected has been continually observed.
Only experiments done under ground have maybe failed to observe this.
At any rate it is a minor point not worthy of further discussion.
