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.
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.
With Einsteinian synch which is unusable to measure the one way speed of light (or anything), sure.
It is not C around the whole loop from the rotating frame, is it?
Again, only with a synch scheme that is known to be invalid at measuring direction variable speeds.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s what I get for asking multiple questions in one post. It is easy to skip the hard ones.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll look into it.
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.
No, I haven’t read back through the tomes of this thread to piece together the story. The details are spread far and wide. As a start, I’m not sure if you are rotating the observer or the apparatus. I also thought you had two clocks, but now you say one? If the clocks are at the same location, things are a bit simpler. In any case, I haven’t spent the considerable time needed to go through your arguments because every time I have tried to get into a focused discussion, you derail things to a different topic, and so I am now loathe to devote the time, as I predict I will end up equally unsatisfied with your approach to discussion.
Since you don’t care and I do not care to argue about experiments, just thought experiments my analysis will be brief.
The image seems to indicate that the cave is in a hill, and as such it is not entirely below the average surface of the earth for that area.
If does inform that the aether is not as readily entrained as I might have guessed.
But is does not involve aether moving through the core of the earth either.
Just a bit of dirt.
Now I find this surprising because I found evidence that an electrical Sagnac effect does not exist assumably because wire is not opaque.
So now I am left to ponder if metal is more effective at entraining the aether than dirt, which sounds reasonable.
Preferably both, but the Observer is definitively rotating/moving along the loop.
One is required to show with no synch issue that the speed of light around the whole loop is different in each direction for the observer moving with/around the loop.
2 is required only for the resistant to prove that the speed of light is different over a portion, but I will make a clockless argument later probably, it requires recording the order in which photons and stationary markers pass by a point or 2 on the rotating disk and by putting it together the result would be clear.
But I would need to work on my presentation of it.
I have stuck with the Sagnac loop for many many pages now as my preferred theory and it will stay that way, unless you demand another one.
Let’s say you and a friend are sitting on a disk rotating at near the speed of light at positions 3 and 4.
You sit there and you record each time a CW photon passes, each time a CCW photon passes and each time a non-rotating marker at zero degrees is passed you record that too.
Now since the disk is rotating CW you are chasing the CW photon around.
So let’s propose that at first you record the CCW photon (you are at 3 O’clock)
Then you record the zero marker (the 3 O’clock position has moved 270 degrees)
Then soon after you would record the CCW photon again.
Then you will again detect the CCW photon next (180 degrees away).
Then the zero marker.
Then the CCW photon again.
And again.
Then the zero marker.
Essentially you will detect the CCW photon almost twice for every time you pass the marker at zero degrees.
Finally you see the CW photon for the first time.
And then after many many more passes of of the CCW photon and half as many passes on the zero deg lab rotation marker you see the CW photon after if has finally completed one revolution.
If we now compare notes with your friend, you would see the way movements were recorded, the way that in between you’re recording the CW photon and your friend recording it at 4 O’clock position means many passes of the CCW photon are recorded and about half as many recordings of the zero deg marker.
If the CCW photon passes many times while the CW photon is between 3 and 4, then clearly we have an answer which is fastest.
Now granted this is not an actual speed measurement, and it would not work in a straight line, if we add clocks back in but ignore synchronization we would still be clear about velocity differences and we have the order things happen in.
If we now try this in a partial Sagnac loop test (no full loop repeats), we would find we could measure the difference in light speed WITHOUT clock synch, as the order of events would give us an inherent minimal synch.
In short no genuine synch scheme could mistake a photon that completes 100 cycles for moving as fast as one that only completes one in that same time.
While looking for something I found this claim that the one way speed of light has been measured with slow clock transport and been found to be uneven (anisotropic).
Which implies it was faster than C in one direction.
This is the second paper on the experiment that rebuts objections.
Just shared it for those who are genuinely interested.
BTW, I am not the one who wanted to get into an argument based on experiments, but there is a lot of experimental evidence that supports aether, and or disproved SR.
Here is another, Dayton Millier:
“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.
“I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)
“You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”
—** Albert Einstein**, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
Interesting:
The anisotropy of the speed of light at 1 part in 10^3 has been detected by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al. (1964), Torr and Kolen (1984), De Witte (1991) and Cahill (2006) using a variety of experimental techniques, from gas-mode Michelson interferometers (with the relativistic theory for these only determined in 2002) to one-way RF coaxial cable propagation timing. All agree on the speed, right ascension and declination of the anisotropy velocity.
Well, Einstein is the president of physics, so anything he said in non-technical letters 60 years ago with no context and no references to any experimental details, theory, computation, or any specifics whatsoever is totally equivalent to decades of experimental data and analysis. (Also, Miller’s experiment was not a success, so the hypotheticals Einstein mentioned are irrelevant…but whatever, you obviously don’t care.)
You just cited the “Orgone Lab” and Free Republic. There are no words.
Do the experiment with two darts taking different paths, most of which are perpendicular to each other, and you’ll have evidence of the wind. That’s what Michelson-Morley is. Se figure four here for a very simple animation showing you how it works, with zero math.
If there’s no evidence of wind, assuming the speed is the same both ways is the most reasonable conclusion.
Which is why Michelson-Morley and the century of following experiments with steadily increasing precision doesn’t use or require a clock and shows there is no preferred direction and thus no reason to believe in a differences in the one way speed of light.
Rotation being absolute motion doesn’t require Einsteinian relativity, it’s follows from Newtonian physics. Do you want to negate the laws of Newton as well?
Relativity already has an answer to that. Rotation is absolute motion, high speed observers are time dilated, and simultaneity is relative. Your inability to grasp these concepts is not a valid refutation of their applicability to reality.
Yes, that’s why I called them P1 and P2 and mentioned explicity that they were on opposite sides of the ship. SR can make perfect sense of its own claims. You’re the one who can’t. And of course the ship can’t follow a curve around both pulsars at the same time, but the thought experiment was a refutation by reductio ad absurdum of your claim that if you just made the loop big enough the calculations applied to straight line motion. I flawed claim you repeat right here.
No, what you’re showing is that if you start with the assumption that SR is not real and center of rotation synchronisation is the correct way of synchronisation, you get contradictions. That’s not valid logic for refuting SR. To refute something you have to show either that the assumptions are wrong or that they lead to contradictions, you can’t substitute the assumptions for something else.
Now unlike SR the assumptions of aether theory have been experimentally shown to be wrong. A stationary aether should have given a different result for Michelson-Morley and subsequent experiments. An entrenched aether should have given a different result for a sagnac loop only rotated by the rotation of Earth. You can bitch and moan all you want about the experiments not being done at the center of the Earth where the aether is surely entrenched (hyperbole, not meant as an accurate portrayal of your views), but on the surface of the Earth, inside buildings and just under ground, in air, vacuum, glass and fiber optic plastics, there is neither a stationary nor a moving aether.
No, you’re not, you’re showing that if you replace parts of SR with assumptions you find more likeable, you get contradictions.
Yes I can, all I have to do is acknowledge the simple Newtonian fact that rotation is absolute. Then I get to pick between two choices. Either I acknowledge my motion as absolute, in which case central synchronisation is out the window, or I acknowledge that in a rotating system the laws of physics change. Coriolis force, centrifugal force, directional bias to the speed of light.
Do you understand how rotation is special even in Newtonian mechanics? Does that mean Newtonian mechanics is flawed?
And your argument would be flawed and your opinion counts for shit. Aether theory just doesn’t work, there’s no way to reconcile both the sagnac loop and Michelson-Morley (and descendants) with any possible Aether theory.