-
Robert Sungenis (follower of the Hippie Council) has uploaded a new film on his youtube channel yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbcLf1cDHVA&t=5359s
The film explains how and why geocentrism is proven empirically by modern science.
-
He is soooo smart. But he couldn't figure out he was in the wrong religion for 19 years after he left the Catholic Church as a young man.
He holds a "doctorate" from Calamus International University in the Republic of Vanuatu, a noted diploma mill (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Diploma_mill).
Assorted wild beliefs
- Sungenis promotes the idea that the moon landings never happened (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax). He believes that "Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon) in 1969."
- He believes that the United States (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/United_States) government is actively producing crop circles (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crop_circles). He thinks that "crop circles can be made from space with lasers or plasma projectors," and that NASA (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NASA) would simply have to "put a digital pattern in a laser/plasma projector aboard a satellite and then shoot it down to earth, and presto, you have a crop circle." The point of such an exercise? "It gets everybody talking about UFOs (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UFOs)… getting our minds off the Bible (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible) and Christ (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christ) by making it look like neither are true."
- He believes that Al-Qaeda was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories). He instead blames Israel (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antisemitism), suggesting they probably used low-yield nuclear weapons (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons).
- Sungenis claims that dinosaurs co-existed with humans (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human-dinosaur_coexistence) but that there's a conspiracy (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory) to suppress the evidence.
- He believes that God (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God) is directing him to promote geocentrism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geocentrism). He is currently promoting a book (Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_Was_Wrong,_The_Church_Was_Right)) and a film (The Principle (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Principle)) that promote the idea that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System.
Anyone with half a brain would run away from this guy. He is literally a carbuncle on the rear end of Tradition.
Hey, here is a great idea. Lets promote conspiracy theories so by this means we will convert the world to Catholicism.
-
He is soooo smart. But he couldn't figure out he was in the wrong religion for 19 years after he left the Catholic Church as a young man.
He holds a "doctorate" from Calamus International University in the Republic of Vanuatu, a noted diploma mill (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Diploma_mill).
Anyone with half a brain would run away from this guy. He is literally a carbuncle on the rear end of Tradition.
Hey, here is a great idea. Lets promote conspiracy theories so by this means we will convert the world to Catholicism.
I wouldn't even trust him, if he rejected the Conciliar Sect and his PhD was in Astrophysics imparted by Copernicanian Professor Steven Hawking teaching from the Chair of Alchemist Isaac Newton at Cambridge.
But he is simply right with Aether and Geocentrism proven by the experiments of Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac and Airy.
Can't trust noone in these times.
-
The moon landing never happened. AlQaida was a cover story for 9/11. If you believe the establishment explanations for these two "events", you will believe anything , and that's the point , of course. They are training modules for mass mind control and it's working.
-
This is a brilliant video. It shows us how the Earthmovers used Albert Einstein to find a way out of the M&M test that showed the Earth is not orbiting the sun. Einstein's theories were based on frauds and have been falsified many times. I especially liked the moving illustrations that show without any doubt that stellar aberration and parallax can be attributed to either heliocentrism or geocentrism so were never proofs for heliocentrism as claimed up to this day..
Now it is over 100 years since science itself admitted geocentrism was never proven wrong. We know why science and scientists will never acknowledge geocentrism as a probability, but why didn't the Catholic Church takle on board these findings also? For centuries the Church has been ridiculed over its defence of biblical geocentrism, so why didn't churchmen respond when science had to admit the evidence was more for geocentrism than heliocentrism?
Well I will tell you why, for hadn't Pope Pius VII with his imprimatur for heliocentric books in 1820, put the Catholic Church behind heliocentrism 'as understood by modern astronomers' as a truth. Indeed this same pope decreed that anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED. In other words, to admit the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V was never falsified, that would have shown the Church contradicted a true teaching of previous popes at the highest level.
Now we are talking about the Church of Pope Saint Pius X, a pope fighting the effects of that U-turn as it created Modernism in different spheres. He had his man appointed to the Vatican Observatory, yet the Jesuits in that observatory never said a word except confirm all the heliocentric cosmology. This was a time when Monsignor Abbe Georges Lemaitre the cosmologist was pals with Einstein who was the one who admitted Geo is a viable as helio. So, why did Fr Lemaitre ignore what would have stopped so many centuries of criticism of the Catholic Church and science?
That is what is at stake here in this video. I would love to have tied JP2, admirer of Einstein and his Relativity, to a chair and made him watch it.
-
Now we are talking about the Church of Pope Saint Pius X, a pope fighting the effects of that U-turn as it created Modernism in different spheres. He had his man appointed to the Vatican Observatory, yet the Jesuits in that observatory never said a word except confirm all the heliocentric cosmology. This was a time when Monsignor Abbe Georges Lemaitre the cosmologist was pals with Einstein who was the one who admitted Geo is a viable as helio. So, why did Fr Lemaitre ignore what would have stopped so many centuries of criticism of the Catholic Church and science?
That is what is at stake here in this video. I would love to have tied JP2, admirer of Einstein and his Relativity, to a chair and made him watch it.
Many credibility problems with Einstein.
He was a Zionist for sure, who collaborated with American zionist (Baruch, FDR, Oppenhiemer et al) using US taxpayer funds to make the Jєω's "Golem" bomb. Nuking Catholics (Nagasaki) for dramatic experimentation, along the way.
Albert Einstein Link (https://antizionistleague.com/scrapbook/Jєωιѕн-influence/science/albert-einstein/)
(https://antizionistleague.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/albert-einstein-was-a-fraud.jpg?w=210&h=128) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMTQFFFeOVs#at=18)
Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a Jєωιѕн Marxist physicist from Germany. He is the inventor of Einsteinism, the concept of pervasive fallacious, plagiarized and unscientific works. His writings, including for example his popular 1924 book, contain the theft of intellectual property, e.g. plagiarism of the Lorentz-transformation, plagiarism of the mass–energy equivalence, E = mc 2, and plagiarism of Gerber’s ground-breaking work on the speed of gravity.
Einstein makes several wrong predictions of “new physical phenomena” such as the prediction that clocks will work at a faster rate when placed in a weaker gravitational field, a prediction that is obviously wrong as for example an hourglass will work at a slower rate when placed in a weaker gravitational field. Einstein undeservedly received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. In 1887, Heinrich Hertz discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily.
In 1905 Einstein published the paper explaining experimental data from Hertz photoelectric effect. It was actually Hertz discovery that led to the quantum revolution yet Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for “his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”.
(https://antizionistleague.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/crossdressing-einstein.jpg?w=150&h=113) (https://antizionistleague.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/crossdressing-einstein.jpg)
QUOTES
“The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting.”……it is hoped that by war’s end, they will largely have been killed off.” – Albert Einstein
Nikola Tesla gave a scathing analysis of Einstein’s relativity theory calling it a “Magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king”…’, (New York Times, 11 July 1935, p23, c.
John Murray Cuddihy said, “Einstein was motivated by a desire to distort and destroy Western science.
-
E rev around S :cheers:
-
This is a brilliant video. It shows us how the Earthmovers used Albert Einstein to find a way out of the M&M test that showed the Earth is not orbiting the sun. Einstein's theories were based on frauds and have been falsified many times. I especially liked the moving illustrations that show without any doubt that stellar aberration and parallax can be attributed to either heliocentrism or geocentrism so were never proofs for heliocentrism as claimed up to this day.
Yes, many people can't even grasp Galilean relativistic kinematics, and believe in all sorts of false proof against geocentrism. Sungenis makes things comprehensible.
Indeed this same pope [Pope Pius VII] decreed that anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED.
I can't believe this one. Could you please quote Pope Pius VII?!
-
Good docuмentary.
I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton. I have a copy of Principia, but I'd like a critical guide through it.
-
Sungenis makes things comprehensible.
He makes things simplistic and incorrect.
-
Good docuмentary.
I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton. I have a copy of Principia, but I'd like a critical guide through it.
I don't know of such a guide.
But the core problem consists in Newton's interpretation of his bucket experiment (Principia, Book 1, Scholium, "If a vessel, hung by a long cord, is so often turned about that the cord is strongly twisted ...").
This is discussed by Mach. (Mach, Ernst (1960). The Science of Mechanics; a Critical and Historical Account of its Development.)
-
He makes things simplistic and incorrect.
We discussed things before. Sungenis' new film quotes a guy who did the maths for your dynamics problems, his papers can be found online.
Luka Popov "Dynamical description of Tychonian Universe"
Abstract. Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual
motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual
revolution of the Universe around the fixed and centered Earth. This can be performed
by postulating the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous
motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.
-
We discussed things before. Sungenis' new film quotes a guy who did the maths for your dynamics problems, his papers can be found online.
Why do you accept Popov's papers?
-
Anyone with half a brain would run away from this guy. He is literally a carbuncle on the rear end of Tradition.
I guess I must be numbered among those with “half a brain.” Because, like Sungenis, I believe that the moon landing was probably a giant (diabolical) hoax. I think this belief is based upon testimony of current officials of NASA themselves.
I believe, like Sungenis, that it is highly plausible that crop circles might be generated from space by governments on earth, (viz. The US?)
I, like Sungenis, believe that Al-Qaeda did NOT do 911. Israel was likely very much involved in the event, and they could very well have used small nuclear devices to accomplish the deed. It was obviously an inside job. Although nano-thermite seems to be another plausible candidate, as well.
That dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with humans is not implausible, IMO.
That the Church either promoted heliocentrism, or, at the very least, did little to refute the theory, seems to square with the facts historically. So Sungenis is not off base on this issue either.
That God may have prompted Sungenis to promote geocentrim is a matter we can not really comment on with much authority.
And, although Sandy Hook has not been brought up on this thread, I will simply state that the whole thing was a giant gun control conspiracy and government-staged psyop which backfired on them. I identify with the findings of James Fetzer, Wolfgang Halbig and others.
So again, count me among the half-brainers.
-
Yes, many people can't even grasp Galilean relativistic kinematics, and believe in all sorts of false proof against geocentrism. Sungenis makes things comprehensible.
I can't believe this one. Could you please quote Pope Pius VII?!
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today [non-violent], even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo references: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl; eds., Copernico, Galileo e la Chiesa. Fine della controversia (1820). Gli atti del Sant’uffizio (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp.300-301; translation from Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science,
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed [1822] that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo references: A. Fantoli: Galileo; For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.
-
Good docuмentary.
I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton. I have a copy of Principia, but I'd like a critical guide through it.
The Principia:
‘Rumours of the coming masterpiece had flowed through Britain the first half of 1687,’ writes Westfall. ‘When the young Swiss mathematician, Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753), arrived in London in the spring, he found intellectual circles aflutter with expectations of the book, which would, he was assured, remodel natural philosophy [no, resurrect pagan philosophy]… Almost from the moment of its publication, even those who refused to accept its central concept of instant action at a distance recognised the Principia as an epoch-making book.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
The Royal society of London published Isaac Newton’s tome amid universal praise. Supposedly a work of pure physics and mathematics, it was of course a pot-pourii of plagiarised physics, astronomy and mathematics used and made comply with a new cosmology determined from his incomprehensible alchemic studies and conclusions. In order to hide his secrets, or its incomprehensible physics, Newton deliberately made his Principia undecipherable in many places. Indeed it is on record what he told his friend William Derham: ‘And for this reason, namely to avoid being baited by little Smatterers in Mathematicks, he told me, he designedly made his Principia abstruse.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn2)
‘Newton’s major work, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, was published in 1687 [Edmond Halley paid all the costs] and all the indications are that the publicity channels of that period were carefully orchestrated to ensure that it appeared with the maximum impact … This is remarkable in view of the fact that it is certain no one understood it at the time, and it is doubtful if anyone has ever understood it since. “Across the channel John Locke [3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn3) set himself to mastering this book. Since he wasn’t a mathematician he found the demonstrations impenetrable.” It is far more likely that he found them so because they were impenetrable. “Not to be denied he asked Huygens [the Dutch mathematician] if he could trust the mathematical propositions. When Huygens assured him he could, he applied himself to the prose and digested the physics without the mathematics.”[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn4) In other words Locke’s acceptance of Newtonian physics was not based on mathematical proof but blind trust. This was indeed a new and streamlined scientific method.’[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn5)
Besides Huygens and Locke, other famous names voiced their inability to make neither head nor tail of the Principia. According to Westfall, Gilbert Clerke (1626-1697), a mathematician and philosopher who had published a number of minor works at the time, wrote to Newton saying he despaired of understanding the Principia. Professor Morris Kline, a modern writer on mathematics informs us: ‘the Principia is extremely difficult to read and is not at all clear to laymen, despite statements to the contrary. The greatest mathematicians worked for a century to elucidate fully the material of the book.’[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn6) Many others in the wake of the Principia did their calculations that showed Newton’s maths were useless.
‘Elsewhere in Kästner’s Anfangsgründe, he launches a direct attack on Newtonian mechanics. In section 237, he says, “Kepler found from the observations that the planets go in ellipses around the sun, which lies at the focus of these ellipses. Regarding this, Newton showed that this would happen if the planet were driven or pulled around the sun by a force which varied inversely as the square of the distance. I consider his proof of this to be inadequate.” He proceeds to derive Newton’s “inverse square law” from the principle of elliptical motion. He then says, Newton had assumed a conic section, and derived his law from that (as Abraham Kästner [1719-1800] had just done), but he had not shown that an inverse square “force” would produce conic section motion.’[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn7)
Had Kepler’s ellipse been the true orbit of planets, such problems might never have arisen. Interestingly, when scholars like Kästner, Boulliau, Ward, Streete etc., found fault with Newton’s universal gravitation maths, none of them questioned the truth of elliptical orbits in a heliocentric Solar System. Did none of them ever hear of Domenico Cassini’s and the Paris observatory’s findings that orbits are Cassinian ovals and not ellipses? Here again we see their Keplerian, Newtonian heliocentric certainty was built around the false idea that orbits are ellipses. Is that science or scientific jugglery?
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) R. Westfall, op. cit., p.469.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref2) Richard Westfall: Never at Rest, p.459.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref3) The philosopher John Locke (1632-1714), Freemason and alchemist, a friend of Isaac Newton, said to have influenced the Masonic structure of America.
[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref4) R. Westfall, op. cit., p.470.
[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref5) N.M. Gwynne, op. cit., p.13.
[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref6) Morris Kline: Mathematics in Western Culture, Penguin Books, p.230.
[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref7) Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007.
-
Why do you accept Popov's papers?
I read them. It's basic vector calculus.
-
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today [non-violent], even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo references: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl; eds., Copernico, Galileo e la Chiesa. Fine della controversia (1820). Gli atti del Sant’uffizio (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp.300-301; translation from Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science,
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed [1822] that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo references: A. Fantoli: Galileo; For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.
Thank you, cassini.
The decree says that the Holy Office must not deny permission to publish certain heliocentric works. So that's what you meant by "anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED."
No punishment though for those who try to stop heliocentrism by showing how ludicrous the "proofs" are.
-
I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton.
Ernst Mach's book Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung can be found on archive.org (http://www.archive.org/stream/diemechanikinih03machgoog#page/n6/mode/2up). The PDF download link is here (https://ia802205.us.archive.org/19/items/diemechanikinih03machgoog/diemechanikinih03machgoog.pdf).
An English translation The Science of Mechanics can also be found on archive.org (https://archive.org/details/sciencemechanic01machgoog/page/n7). The PDF download link is here (https://ia802703.us.archive.org/22/items/sciencemechanic01machgoog/sciencemechanic01machgoog.pdf).
The book has sections about the achievements of Gallileo, Huygens, and Newton, followed by criticism of Newton, starting at Chapter II, Section IV, page 201.
-
Good docuмentary.
I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton.
Isaac Newton was born to his widowed mother on 4th Jan. 1643 [Gregorian calendar], a year after Galileo died. When he was about four-years-old his mother, for financial reasons, got married again to an Anglican vicar. Both then abandoned Isaac, leaving him to be reared by his grandparents. This left him psychologically scarred for life. At school, Newton was a loner, often bullied, but a bright boy, excelling at Latin, the language of the learned, and maths, always an easy subject for the young Isaac. One of the first books that he read, we are told, was The Mysteries of Nature and Art by John Bate. This work inspired Newton to be a great natural philosopher. Curiously, Isaac had a fascination for the sun from an early age. He would make and collect precision sundials and preferred their accuracy to the clocks of the day. When he was 18 years-old, Newton went to Trinity College Cambridge where he studied logic, ethics and rhetoric. These were Aristotelian at the time, and reflected the geocentric view of course. There he remained for the next twenty-eight years, first as a student, then as a lecturer. By the time Isaac Newton and the Royal Society of London were finished however, Trinity College had abandoned the geocentric order and adopted a heliocentric one instead.
These days, if not for the last 300 years, Sir Isaac of the Royal Mint is nearly always portrayed as a learned theist, a staunch Christian philosopher, a Biblicist who devoted his life’s work to God. What is not made clear however, is that Newton’s god was the Pythagorean and masonic ‘Great Architect of the Universe.’ Nevertheless, books and articles abound with pious utterances about him and many other such accolades gathered from his theosophical beliefs. The most famous of course it that given to him by the English poet Alexander Pope:
‘Nature and Nature’s Laws lay hid in the Night. God said,
Let Newton be! and all was Light.’--- Alexander Pope
‘And all was light,’ but whose light, Lucifer’s?
Isaac Newton carefully researched those things of interest to him. He believed everything could be rationalised and reasoned out. For him it was simply a question of studying something very thoroughly before discerning where the truth of the particular subject lay for him. One of the subjects investigated by Newton was Christianity, even learning Hebrew so as to translate the Bible for himself like the good Protestant he pretended to be.
‘As can clearly be seen from voluminous manuscripts that survive, Newton had early in his life reached the conviction that a massive fraud beginning with the fourth and fifth centuries had perverted the legacy of the early Church, and that central to the fraud was the Scriptures, which he believed had been corrupted to support the doctrine of the Trinity. “In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.”[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1) To this it can be added that he did not even have the courage to make his views public, as would surely have been incuмbent in any man of principle who saw his compatriots engaged in what he believed to be “the fundamental sin” of idolatry even if martyrdom had been the result. He not only refused to make his “important discovery” public, a phrase used by one of his friends who shared the same views - in order to preserve appearances and to avoid damage to his career and popularity, he even continued to commit the “fundamental sin” himself until just before he died. Westfall tells us: “No one considered Arians[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn2) a threat to the state. They were a threat rather to the moral foundations of society. Newton was well aware that the vast majority of his compatriots detested the views he held – more than detested, looked upon them with revulsion as an excretion that fouled the air breathed by decent persons….His heterodoxy allowed him every concealment… As long as he was willing occasionally to take the sacrament of the Church of England [is not a sacrament, only a symbol of Christ’s divinity] the law required nothing of him at which he need balk. Only on his deathbed did he venture to refuse the sacrament.”’[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn3)
Westfall shows that ‘Sir Isaac Newton hated and feared Popery.’ Koestler shows that he was: ‘A crank theologian… who held that the tenth horn of the fourth beast of the Apocalypse represented the Roman Catholic Church.’[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn4) Newton’s exhaustive studies of the ancient religions led him to believe the old Vestal Cult as the original true religion.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) Richard Westfall: Never at Rest, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.314.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref2) Those who deny the divinity of Christ: first promulgated by the priest Arius.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref3) N.M. Gwynne: Sir Isaac Newton & Modern Astronomy, quoting Westfall, pp.7-8.
[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref4) A. Koestler: op. cit., p.536.
‘Newton also proposed that the religion ‘most ancient and most generally received by the nations in the first ages [i.e. after Noah] was that of the Prytanea or Vestal Temples.’ These temples, he explained, were circular structures with a burning flame at their centre that represented the Sun. In De Revolutionibus, of course, Copernicus had radically relocated the sun at the centre of the solar system, ‘this most beautiful of temples,’ whilst Vossius has considered the ancient cult of the Vestal fire as having represented the Sun. Newton believed these Vestal temples proved the ancients had originally understood the heliocentric universe as ‘rediscovered’ by Copernicus.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) David Boyd Haycock: The Long-Lost Truth. Chapter 6: The Newton Project.
More if you want it L:asramie.
-
This is a brilliant video. It shows us how the Earthmovers used Albert Einstein to find a way out of the M&M test that showed the Earth is not orbiting the sun.
Can you elaborate on the M&M test(this one, I believe? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)) and how it proves the Earth is not orbiting the Sun?
-
Can you [cassini] elaborate on the M&M test(this one, I believe? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)) and how it proves the Earth is not orbiting the Sun?
Watch the video!
-
Watch the video!
I'd rather not listen to a man who thinks the Twin Towers were nuked and that satellites make crop circles.
-
I'd rather not listen to a man who thinks the Twin Towers were nuked and that satellites make crop circles.
Here advice by Thomas á Kempis:
If read you must, then read on, letting the love of Truth be your guide. Don’t ask who wrote it. Just pay attention to what’s said.
-
This is a brilliant video. It shows us how the Earthmovers used Albert Einstein to find a way out of the M&M test that showed the Earth is not orbiting the sun. Einstein's theories were based on frauds and have been falsified many times. I especially liked the moving illustrations that show without any doubt that stellar aberration and parallax can be attributed to either heliocentrism or geocentrism so were never proofs for heliocentrism as claimed up to this day..
Now it is over 100 years since science itself admitted geocentrism was never proven wrong. We know why science and scientists will never acknowledge geocentrism as a probability, but why didn't the Catholic Church takle on board these findings also? For centuries the Church has been ridiculed over its defence of biblical geocentrism, so why didn't churchmen respond when science had to admit the evidence was more for geocentrism than heliocentrism?
Well I will tell you why, for hadn't Pope Pius VII with his imprimatur for heliocentric books in 1820, put the Catholic Church behind heliocentrism 'as understood by modern astronomers' as a truth. Indeed this same pope decreed that anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED. In other words, to admit the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V was never falsified, that would have shown the Church contradicted a true teaching of previous popes at the highest level.
Now we are talking about the Church of Pope Saint Pius X, a pope fighting the effects of that U-turn as it created Modernism in different spheres. He had his man appointed to the Vatican Observatory, yet the Jesuits in that observatory never said a word except confirm all the heliocentric cosmology. This was a time when Monsignor Abbe Georges Lemaitre the cosmologist was pals with Einstein who was the one who admitted Geo is a viable as helio. So, why did Fr Lemaitre ignore what would have stopped so many centuries of criticism of the Catholic Church and science?
That is what is at stake here in this video. I would love to have tied JP2, admirer of Einstein and his Relativity, to a chair and made him watch it.
Great points. Also a great response to King W's comment that "Lets promote conspiracy theories so by this means we will convert the world to Catholicism."
The very term "conspiracy theory" is a psy op created to discredit those who shine the light of truth into places of darkness. True Catholics love the truth, regardless of how unpopular it may make us. Carrying King W's thought to its logical conclusion, Francis is doing a great job converting the world by making it easy for them to accept.
See, for example: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
That all changed in the 1960s.
Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote (https://books.google.com/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=cia+%22Conspiracy+on+the+large+scale+often+suggested+would+be+impossible+to+conceal+in+the+United+States.%22&source=bl&ots=R3UDlJbyo3&sig=FGKbeXrsfpMMDxWQSozPvh0ic20&hl=en&sa=X&ei=95fqVIb_ONXnoAT-pIDQDg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cia%20%22Conspiracy%20on%20the%20large%20scale%20often%20suggested%20would%20be%20impossible%20to%20conceal%20in%20the%20United%20States.%22&f=false) a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
-
Here advice by Thomas á Kempis:
Except, with videos on subjects you have very little knowledge in, it's hard to tell if the narrator is talking utter rot or not. You have to have some trust that they aren't just lying to you. When someone's willing to run around saying the twin towers were nuked against all reason, I can't trust that he's telling me the truth.
-
At what point in the doc does he get on to proving the Aether? As far as I'm gotten he's still listing quotes carefully cut to leave out the parts where they mention the main conclusion is that the Aether is not real. One quote even goes "The only other conclusion is the Earth is stationary", dishonestly leaving out the main conclusion entirely.
-
@forlorn
Given your prejudice against Sungenis and your "very little knowledge on the subject" plus your unwillingness to watch and follow the video, I recommend you avoid to read this thread and also to comment.
Discussion with folks who bring your preconditions typically is acid and sterile.
-
@forlorn
Given your prejudice against Sungenis and your "very little knowledge on the subject" plus your unwillingness to watch and follow the video, I recommend you avoid to read this thread and also to comment.
Discussion with folks who bring your preconditions typically is acid and sterile.
Your precondition being that you want him to be right so you're going to ignore his inability to back it up. I don't have ill will, I'm watching the video and willing to have my views challenged, it's Sungenis who has ill will by completely ignoring that his cited experiments did not prove that the Earth was stationery - they proved that the Earth did not move in relation to a hypothesised Aether. His refusal to mention that key fact is incredibly dishonest way of misleading the viewer, and deserves calling out.
-
Your precondition being that you want him to be right so you're going to ignore his inability to back it up. I don't have ill will, I'm watching the video and willing to have my views challenged, it's Sungenis who has ill will by completely ignoring that his cited experiments did not prove that the Earth was stationery - they proved that the Earth did not move in relation to a hypothesised Aether. His refusal to mention that key fact is incredibly dishonest way of misleading the viewer, and deserves calling out.
You just show that your prejudice makes you blind. The light-carrying medium is proven by the experiments of Sagnac and of Michelson & Gale.
Why not use your reason and watch the video?
Why insist in staying uneducated?
Why keep trolling this thread?
-
Here advice by Thomas á Kempis:
Quote
If read you must, then read on, letting the love of Truth be your guide. Don’t ask who wrote it. Just pay attention to what’s said.
He also wrote this:
It is a great impediment that we so much regard signs and sensible things, and have but little of perfect mortification.
...
Nature is often deceived, but grace hath her trust in God that she may not be deceived. — Imitation of Christ, Book III, Ch 31
-
You just show that your prejudice makes you blind. The light-carrying medium is proven by the experiments of Sagnac and of Michelson & Gale.
Why not use your reason and watch the video?
Why insist in staying uneducated?
Why keep trolling this thread?
The claim that the M&M experiment tested to see if the Earth was moving is still factually incorrect, and asserting the Earth being stationary as its conclusion is also false. Same goes for the other experiments he cited that "showed" the Earth was stationary. If it's his assertion that the Aether is real and he wants to prove it later on in the video, he can say as much. But not even mentioning the Aether in the context of those experiments and lying about what the experiments were about and what they proved - is just intentionally misleading the viewer.
He also falsely accused Lorentz and Fitzgerald of petitio principii, saying that they assumed the Earth was moving to prove that it did. This is not true, as the M&M experiment was not designed to determine whether or not the Earth was moving and did not claim to come to a conclusion on that matter. The conclusion of the experiment was that Aether winds could not be detected. Assuming the Earth is moving in an explanation of the results of an experiment about the existence of Aether Winds(phew, what a worldful) is not petitio principii. The conclusion(whether or not Aether winds exist) is not part of the assumption at all. So once again, Sungenis blatantly misrepresents.
If it's the truth you're interested in, you shouldn't be defending fallacies or sneaky tactics. Even if we assume geocentrism is true, his misrepresentation and downright lying about certain things in the video would be picked up immediately by heliocentrists watching and they'd probably just click away at that point, assuming the rest of the video to be the same. Geocentrism is something I hope is true, as it'd be by far the easiest way of proving God to atheists, and I'm willing to give Sungenis the benefit of the doubt that the rest of the video is worth watching, so I continue, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore misrepresentations, lies and fallacies he's made in the parts I've watched so far.
-
The fact that the M&M experiment tested to see if the Earth was moving is still factually incorrect, and asserting the Earth being stationary as its conclusion is also false.
Neither Sungenis nor I assert what you insinuate here. You're fighting a strawman!
The experiments of Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale together prove the existence of the Aether and they confirm geocentrism.
I am not interested in debating a series of unfounded claims of a user, who declares that he has "very little knowledge" on the subject. Please open your own thread: "Why forlorn won't watch the new video of Sungenis".
-
The experiments of Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale together prove the existence of the Aether and they confirm geocentrism.
Any single experiment can be compatible with many theories.
Even if some small set of experiments are compatible with luminiferous aether, they don't "prove" it, because they (and other experiments you don't mention) are all compatible with special or general relativity.
Here's a question for you. Consider an apple dropping from a tree. Is the view that the apple accelerates toward the ground equally valid as the view that the earth accelerates toward the apple? Why or why not?
I read them. It's basic vector calculus.
Yes, it appears Popov can do vector calc. (That alone is a level of competence - from Popov and you - I have not yet seen from Sungenis.) But did you not see anything curious about any of the formulas?
-
Here's a question for you. Consider an apple dropping from a tree. Is the view that the apple accelerates toward the ground equally valid as the view that the earth accelerates toward the apple? Why or why not?
I’ll take a stab. Yes, equally valid. Because in science you can choose your frame of reference arbitrarily. The physics will still apply no matter what frame you choose.
-
Can we back up a bit?
What is the importance of Aether? How does it prove or disprove the Geocentric model? Or Heliocentric model?
Thanks!
-
I’ll take a stab. Yes, equally valid. Because in science you can choose your frame of reference arbitrarily. The physics will still apply no matter what frame you choose.
NOT TRUE.
Frame of reference is not arbitrary.
This is the entire reason why Einstein's "theory" of relativity is in error.
Relativism, in all things, moral and scientific, is a theological error.
-
Can we back up a bit?
What is the importance of Aether? How does it prove or disprove the Geocentric model? Or Heliocentric model?
Thanks!
Modern natural science (meaning the last 400 years, give or take) sees the earth moving through space, and from that perspective, the motion of the earth has nothing particular to do with any aether theory. Aether theory primarily concerns the nature of light.
Newton thought light was composed of particles - called the "corpuscular theory" of light. But by the 18th century, scientists also saw that light had properties like a wave. Other waves propagate by vibrating some medium - water waves in water, sound waves in air. So they thought there must be some medium for light to propagate as a wave. That was called the luminiferous aether. Luminiferous aether also fit in with the notion of an absolute reference frame. Newtonian mechanics works in a reference frame that is non-accelerating, and its methodology kind of assumes an absolute reference frame exists. (Even if, in practice, it's recognized as an approximation.)
But luminiferous aether also raised problems. It filled space, but it didn't seem to interact with any of the planets (so no mass or apparent viscosity). Did planets go through the aether, or was the aether pulled along with them invisibly? How did aether support high frequencies of light - for normal materials, it takes a solid to support high frequencies. It was a shaky idea even in the 1800s.
So experiments tried to nail down what it was. Among these were the Michelson Morley experiments. They sent light through equal length paths in different directions. If light propagated through aether, then it should take different times to go the same length moving parallel to the aether vs. transverse to the aether. Like the earth. But they found light moved the same speed within their measurement precision. (MM-type experiments were later done with better precision.)
After this, modern science went down two paths - either aether doesn't exist, or the earth is dragging it along - so the earth is not moving relative to the local aether. The second path, aether drag, was eventually rejected due to other experiments/observations. That left the first path- that there is no aether. This path led to special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). There are, in modern science, alternative theories to SR/GR that still have "aether" as long as 1) it's not a preferred reference frame, and 2) it's not physically detectable.
What does this have to do with geocentrism? Geocentrists say the earth isn't moving - which means it has to be non-moving with reference to something. That something is usually the aether. (I suppose the reference frame doesn't strictly need to be the aether, but I don't think any prominent geocentrists promote a non-aerher reference frame.) And they interpret the Michelson Morley experiment as showing the earth doesn't move with respect to that aether.
-
Neither Sungenis nor I assert what you insinuate here. You're fighting a strawman!
The experiments of Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale together prove the existence of the Aether and they confirm geocentrism.
I am not interested in debating a series of unfounded claims of a user, who declares that he has "very little knowledge" on the subject. Please open your own thread: "Why forlorn won't watch the new video of Sungenis".
He explicitly says the conclusion of the M&M experiment was that the Earth is stationary and he repeats this claim many, many times. Anyone can see that for themselves by watching the video, I don't know why you're trying to cover for him there.
Yes, I admitted that I have very little knowledge on the subject, because unlike you I don't suffer from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and don't pretend to be an expert. But even with the very limited knowledge I do have, I can see that Sungenis is either ignorantly or willfully misrepresenting the aims and the conclusions of the experiments, and then using those misrepresentations to accuse other scientists of fallacious reasoning to discredit their theories.
-
More if you want it L:asramie.
I have read the Culture Wars article on Sir Isaac Newton as well. But what I really want to see is if anyone's combed through his Principia Mathematika with direct, detailed criticism on the things he's said. Has anyone explicated his work and then shot it down? This, I would like to see.
But from what I can gather, it appears as though everyone's merely stood back in horror and said, "Oh! That's great! Very scientific! Newton, you're a genius!" When in reality, his book is so dense and confusing that people avoid it.
-
Any single experiment can be compatible with many theories.
Yes, but what you need here is at least one theory compatible with Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale.
Even if some small set of experiments are compatible with luminiferous aether, they don't "prove" it, because they (and other experiments you don't mention) are all compatible with special or general relativity.
That's wrong. E.g. the Michelson&Gale experiment falsifies Special Relativity by falsifying the postulate that the speed of light does not depend on the movement of the observer.
Here's a question for you. Consider an apple dropping from a tree. Is the view that the apple accelerates toward the ground equally valid as the view that the earth accelerates toward the apple? Why or why not?
No. The reason is: Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale. These experiments together falsify all Copernicanism and confirm what every child sees before it is fooled at school.
Yes, it appears Popov can do vector calc. (That alone is a level of competence - from Popov and you - I have not yet seen from Sungenis.) But did you not see anything curious about any of the formulas?
Sungenis has a co-author of his "Galileo was wrong" books who is an academic physicist. What do you find curious?
-
Can we back up a bit?
What is the importance of Aether? How does it prove or disprove the Geocentric model? Or Heliocentric model?
Thanks!
Watch the video!
-
About the Forces behind modern Physics
(https://www.edge.org/sites/default/files/event-images/838_13.jpg)
I just returned from the Virgin Islands, from a delightful event — a conference in St. Thomas — that I organized with 21 physicists. I like small events, and I got to hand-pick the people. The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity. "
[...] I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists. Stephen Hawking came. We had three Nobel laureates: Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who's working on the Large Hadron Collider—which, a decade ago, people wouldn't have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.
Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero
-
Can we back up a bit?
What is the importance of Aether? How does it prove or disprove the Geocentric model? Or Heliocentric model?
Thanks!
The word ‘ether’ is not used much these days except when referring to the colourless volatile liquid known by that name. The concept of ether has been accepted since the time of Aristotle at least and was also acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church and indeed entered their discussion on the interpretation of the heavens and ‘firmament’ of Genesis. Ether or aether was considered omnipresent throughout all space (including the Earth’s atmosphere), and that it may even interpenetrate matter. It is however, difficult to rationalise with ether, for it has always remained outside known scientific certainty. It was considered a medium through which all the properties of electromagnetism, that is, light and heat from the sun etc., can travel, but more demonstrably the medium for sound, for sound cannot pass through a vacuum.
Our interest in ether goes back to Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation. He proposed matter attracts and that this principle explains his theory of heliocentrism with the bigger mass of the sun supposedly attracting all smaller cosmic bodies around it causing these in turn to move about the sun in elliptical orbits. ‘Action at a distance’ Newton called it. ‘Ghost fingers,’ ‘invisible hands’ and ‘spooky,’ others called it, but no one could say how this ‘attraction’ worked across millions of miles of space. Some concluded that Newton’s gravitational pull had to operate through the ether of space. Ironically, Newton conducted a test that he believed showed that there is no such thing as ether.
‘If space is really empty how is it that the sun and moon exercise influence over the Earth? Technical action at a distance is impossible. A body can only act immediately on what it is in contact with; it must be by the action of contiguous particles – that is, through a continuous medium, that force can be transmitted across space. Radiation is not the only thing the Earth feels from the sun; there is in addition its gigantic gravitational pull, a force or tension more than what a trillion steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1)
You tell us Sir Oliver, you’re the Newtonian with your ‘gigantic gravitational pull across space.’ To keep Newton’s theories alive they had to call upon ether, a fixed agent in which the universe resides and through which moving celestial bodies and radiation can move. Accordingly, the very existence and behaviour of ether in space had to be investigated.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) Sir O. Lodge: Ether of Space, Harper, London & New York, 1909, p.26.
The nineteenth century saw the beginning of many experiments trying to determine the presence and nature of ether on Earth and in space. Assuming the Earth moves around the sun at 67,000mph it was thought the ether – due to the aberration effect - would cause a split-starlight beam to move out of focus as the Earth turned away from it during orbit. This result was looked for without any success. In 1818 the physicist Augustin Fresnel suggested a possible reason for this Earthmoving failure. He proposed the ether is thicker around matter and less dense away from it in space. Thus the tool used in the test had dragged ether along with it as it moved through space giving a nil result.
The next test was to see if ether could be detected in a fairly dense material that was itself moving. The physicist Armand Fizeau conducted such a trial in 1859. Pumping water through a tube that did a u-turn, he sent two beams of light, one with the flow, and the other against the flow, for an equal distance. The beams used did not return in phase indicating the ‘Fresnel drag coefficient’ might have some experimental support after all. Alas, many factors had to be assumed to reach such a conclusion and as we have said again and again, assumptions are not facts. ‘Ether drag’ was only a possibility if the ether exists and behaves, as they thought it might.
Other physicists then joined the quest. Thomas Young supposed the ether in the neighbourhood of the Earth to be stationary while Sir George Stokes again said the Earth dragged it. Planck showed that Stokes’s theory could be saved if extraordinary assumptions are made such as that ether is compressible like a gas and also subject to gravity. Lorentz worked out a theory whereby the Earth imparted to the ether in its neighbourhood, not the whole of its velocity, but only a fraction of it. Hertz supposed that within matter the ether takes part in the motion of matter, and it is also moving in space free from matter, if you know what he meant. In 1871, when the Airy experiment using two telescopes showed that stellar aberration indicated the Earth did not move, the ether drag theory was immediately re-proposed in order to get the Earth moving again. But proposing is not proving. Proof for the presence of ether eluded science. Scientists were left wondering what is the true nature of the medium that man presumed carries or propagates waves, particles and whatever?
Then there was electromagnetism, all of its phenomena travelling through space at 186,200 mph. Any progress of science demanded investigation into the agency through which these electromagnetic waves (or pulses) were thought to propagate. This medium, all believed, had to be that known as ‘ether of space’ or ‘luminiferous (light-bearing) ether’ as Maxwell called it.
In the late 1860s German born American physicist Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931) decided to re-enact an experiment performed by Martinus Hoek in 1868 to see if it was possible to detect the orbital movement of the Earth using what he called an interferometer. Hoek failed to find any movement but Michelson believed he could do better. With the financial help of Alexander Bell, inventor of the telephone, they rebuilt their own machine that he believed would detect the ether as the Earth supposedly flies through space orbiting the sun.
-
Taking for granted that the Earth moves through space at 30 kilometres per second as it supposedly orbits around the sun, Michelson reckoned he had all the ingredients to conduct his experiment: (1) the assumed speed and direction of the Earth as it orbited the sun; (2) the speed of light, and the presumed existence of ether. With all this data, he believed, a definitive and accurate test could be conducted that would demonstrate the existence of ether at least. Michelson first tried this experiment in 1881. His apparatus consisted of two equal arms at right angles to each other and a ray of light passed along each arm. Each arm was provided with a mirror placed at its far end, and thus each ray was reflected back to the junction of the two arms. The idea is simple. If an arm (F) is pointed in the direction of the Earth’s supposed orbit and a light beam is sent down and back along it, the resistance caused by the ether to that beam of light should be greater than the resistance to a beam moving on an arm (S) at right angles to it where there is no such direct resistance.
As an equation, if ether (E) is stationary, then the Earth’s speed (v) in relation to the ether must be 30 kms/s, i.e., ten thousand times slower than the speed of light © in relation to the ether (E). Therefore, for an observer on Earth (also at v in relation to the ether), the beam of light (a) travelling in the same direction as the Earth would seem to move at the relative speed of c + v. Inversely, the beam (b) returning to the observer would seem to move at a speed of c - v. To find a way of measuring these different speeds, Michelson’s interferometer would split a beam, causing the (a) part-beam to ‘interfere’ with the (b) part-beam. By analysing the interference fringes Michelson would be able to measure the difference between the two apparent speeds, i.e., (c + v) - (c – v). The maths involved indicated there should be the equivalent of a 30km/s. difference, i.e., (c + v) - (c – v) = 30km/s.
The Michelson and Morley Failure
Try hard as he did, Michelson failed again and again to find the 30kms/s. interference fringe he believed was inevitable. So sure was he that the Earth really did move through the ether that he thought there must be some fault in the experiment. Michelson called in the help of a colleague, the American chemist Edward Williams Morley, so that both of them could conduct a definitive experiment. Nothing would be overlooked with both scientists carefully double checking every aspect of the test.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn1) Nor could the instrument be faulted, because whatever about the astronomic and physics theories of the day their technology was made to the highest standard of accuracy. In July of 1887, having improved the equipment as well as was technically possible, Michelson and Morley conducted a definitive test.[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn2)
‘At noon on 8th, 9th and 10th July, and at around 6pm on 8th, 9th and 12th July, Michelson walked round with the rotating apparatus calling out results while Morley recorded the observations. They were deeply disappointed, for no effect remotely resembling the expected speed of the aether was found. Once more the experiment produced a null result.’[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftn3)
Now what do you think they meant by a ‘null’ result? The dictionary describes ‘null’ in many ways, including nil, or of no value or significance, to their way of thinking no doubt. In fact, this costly and intricate interferometer discovered movement above five kilometres a second, far shorter than the required 30 kilometres per second predicted, but some sort of movement nevertheless. Michelson believed this was a valid demonstration, and even with a margin of error due to human or mechanical shortfalls he believed the 5kms a second interference did show the existence of ether and that it was not altogether dragged along with the Earth as Freshnel’s theory had speculated.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref1) All of these expectations were of course built up on the assumption that the Earth moves at 67,000mph through space. Since then however, with the further theory that the universe is expanding at huge speed (1,000,000mph?), they would now have to add that to the Earth’s inertia so the required interference fringe would have to be updated somewhat. To our knowledge no one has ever noticed this proposed expansion velocity should now be taken into account.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref2) Albert A Michelson and Edward W. Morley: On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science – Nov. 1887, pp.333-345.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK%20saved.doc#_ftnref3) Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.37.
I can go on Spook, but you did ask.
-
Yes, but what you need here is at least one theory compatible with Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale.
That's wrong. E.g. the Michelson&Gale experiment falsifies Special Relativity by falsifying the postulate that the speed of light does not depend on the movement of the observer.
Relativity is at least one theory compatible with those experiments. I know there's some misinformation and out there about Michelson-Gale-Pearson, but MGP is relatively ;) easily explained with Lorentz transforms, so it's compatible with SR. The MGP paper itself says MGP is compatible with SR or with a stationary ether.
No. The reason is: Airy, Sagnac, Michelson&Morley, and Michelson&Gale. These experiments together falsify all Copernicanism and confirm what every child sees before it is fooled at school.
Sungenis has a co-author of his "Galileo was wrong" books who is an academic physicist. What do you find curious?
OK. What about a rock and the moon. Is the view that the rock accelerates toward the moon equally valid as the view that the moon accelerates toward the rock ? Why or why not? Is there something "Copernican" about that?
I'm asking you about Popov's papers. Look carefully at the formulas for potentials. First, to make this work one of them has to have a different form than the others. That means the same rules don't apply everywhere. You'll probably say that's OK.
But second - and this is what jumped out for me - one of the formulas includes the mass of the sun squared. How do you interpret that one?
-
Relativity is at least one theory compatible with those experiments. I know there's some misinformation and out there about Michelson-Gale-Pearson, but MGP is relatively ;) easily explained with Lorentz transforms, so it's compatible with SR. The MGP paper itself says MGP is compatible with SR or with a stationary ether.OK.
It is true that Michelson et al. wrote that "The calculated value of the displacement on the assumption of a stationary ether as well as in accordance with relativity is ... [displacement in fringes]" (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf), though it is unclear, which of the theories 'relativity' refers to.
But whatever they wrote there, fact is, that the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of light c is a constant. Now if the speed of light c indeed was a constant, Michelson et al. would have measured a zero displacement in fringes, indicating that both light beams had travelled at one and the same speed c.
What about a rock and the moon. Is the view that the rock accelerates toward the moon equally valid as the view that the moon accelerates toward the rock ? Why or why not? Is there something "Copernican" about that?
The views are not equally valid. Same answer as before. Given a fixed earth at the center of mass of the universe, a rotating sky, and a Machian universe, the forces accelerating the rock and/or moon arise from all massive objects in the whole universe, most of which travel at extremely high speeds.
You can describe the scene using any reference system, but there is one system only where you don't need to invent any ficticious forces or other fake quantities to get the numbers straight.
I'm asking you about Popov's papers. Look carefully at the formulas for potentials. First, to make this work one of them has to have a different form than the others. That means the same rules don't apply everywhere. You'll probably say that's OK.
I don't get what you're talking about. The motion of the celestial bodies is given by a sum of two motions due to a vector potential and a scalar potential. How do you think that Equation (3.6) 'does not apply everywhere'?
But second - and this is what jumped out for me - one of the formulas includes the mass of the sun squared. How do you interpret that one?
Mass of the sun yes, but not squared.
If Newton's formula has the mass of the sun, then Popov's too: Popov "postulates the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars." These potentials are designed to produce forces which make the objects move in the same way Newton saw them. Nothing to worry about the mass of the sun.
-
But whatever they wrote there, fact is, that the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of light c is a constant. Now if the speed of light c indeed was a constant, Michelson et al. would have measured a zero displacement in fringes, indicating that both light beams had travelled at one and the same speed c.
But if the loop is rotating, the Lorentz transform is different for light going in different directions, and the difference gives the fringe pattern.
See also: https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts."
Mass of the sun yes, but not squared.
If Newton's formula has the mass of the sun, then Popov's too: Popov "postulates the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars." These potentials are designed to produce forces which make the objects move in the same way Newton saw them. Nothing to worry about the mass of the sun.
Look at equation 4.5 in "Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6045
-
But if the loop is rotating, the Lorentz transform is different for light going in different directions, and the difference gives the fringe pattern.
Use the Lorentz transform to transform the movement of light from one inertial system to another? If you insert c for v, you get gamma = 0-1 and have a problem.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6d4475fbd112aad0bedebebac14a4fa6b220de74)
See also: https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts."
I know that these relativists are magicians who will write meters of text to fool you.
This magician uses terms c - v and c + v for the light in his formula and then says "This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts." Well, sorry, it isnt. The second postulate of Special Relativity says that the speed of light is constant c. Terms c - v or c + v contradict Special Relativity as soon as v has a non-zero value, which is the case in the experiment.
Look at equation 4.5 in "Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6045
I'll take a look at that later.
-
I know that these relativists are magicians who will write meters of text to fool you.
This magician uses terms c - v and c + v for the light in his formula and then says "This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts." Well, sorry, it isnt. The second postulate of Special Relativity says that the speed of light is constant c. Terms c - v or c + v contradict Special Relativity as soon as v has a non-zero value, which is the case in the experiment.
The math works with Lorentz transforms.
You have referred to https://www.mathpages.com/rr/ (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/) before, for aberration at least.
Lengthy quote from https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm)
| ... For realistic values of v (i.e., very small compared with c), the phase difference reduces to the well-known result 4Aw/c2. It's worth noting that nothing in this derivation is unique to special relativity, because the Sagnac effect is a purely "classical" effect. The apparatus is set up as a differential device, so the relativistic effects apply equally in both directions, and hence the higher-order corrections of special relativity cancel out of the phase difference. |
|
| Despite the ease and clarity with which special relativity accounts for the Sagnac effect, one occasionally sees claims that this effect entails a conflict with the principles of special relativity. The usual claim is that the Sagnac effect somehow falsifies the invariance of light speed with respect to all inertial coordinate systems. Of course, it does no such thing, as is obvious from the fact that the simple description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of inertial coordinates, and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to this one by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that preserve light speed. Hence no description of a Sagnac device in terms of any system of inertial coordinates can possibly entail non-isotropic light speed, nor can any such description yield physically observable results different from those derived above (which are known to agree with experiment). |
|
| Nevertheless, it remains a seminal tenet of anti-relativityism (for lack of a better term) that the trivial Sagnac effect somehow "disproves relativity". Those who espouse this view sometimes claim that the expressions "c+v" and "c-v" appearing in the derivation of the phase shift are prima facie proof that the speed of light is not c with respect to some inertial coordinate system. When it is pointed out that those quantities do not refer to the speed of light, but rather to the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity, the anti-relativityists are undaunted, and merely proceed to construct progressively more convoluted and specious "objections". |
-
Those who espouse this view sometimes claim that the expressions "c+v" and "c-v" appearing in the derivation of the phase shift are prima facie proof that the speed of light is not c with respect to some inertial coordinate system. When it is pointed out that those quantities do not refer to the speed of light, but rather to the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity, the anti-relativityists are undaunted, and merely proceed to construct progressively more convoluted and specious "objections".
Sorry Stanley, but according to Special Relativity there is no object which moves faster than c with respect to whichever inertial system, and light always moves at speed c with respect to whichever inertial system.
The author of the article you quote is fooling you.
"can be as great as 2c according to special relativity" is a simple lie. You may have heard about "relativistic addition of speeds". "relativistic addition of speeds" ensures that nothing is faster than c in Special Relativity. c + v is a conventional and not a relativistic addition of speeds.
-
Sorry Stanley, but according to Special Relativity there is no object which moves faster than c with respect to whichever inertial system, and light always moves at speed c with respect to whichever inertial system.
And light is still moving at c in the analysis on that page.
Classically speaking, light starts in both directions from the same point. As the loop rotates, light takes longer to get back to the starting point going one way than the opposite.
With Lorentz transforms. the time dilation works in different directions, giving the same result as the classical analysis.
For v = 30 km/s and c = 300,000 km/s, the Lorentz factor (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 = .999999995 or so. So if relativity DID make a difference and you're expecting .5 fringe shifts classically, you might expect .499999998 fringes with relativity. That's the same to more than 8 significant digits. You couldn't visually distinguish classical and relativistic results.
In the Fizeau experiment with water, the difference between classical and relativistic analysis is about a factor of 2. Even somewhat sloppy experimenters can distinguish that.
-
And light is still moving at c in the analysis on that page.
No it isn't. If both beams were going at c, then there would be no displacement in fringes, since both beams cover the same distance. The beams rather go c - v and c + v respectively, and the author says so by writing down the formula
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif).
Having written down the formula, the author says:
"This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts."
Now, the formula is simply
time = distance / velocitybeam1 - distance / velocitybeam2.
with
velocitybeam1 = c - v
and
velocitybeam2 = c + v
and the author claims that the velocities of both beams are the same for the classical and the relativistic case.
So you are wrong saying "And light is still moving at c in the analysis on that page." And the author of the page is wrong, since light does not travel at c - v oder c + v in Special Relativity.
Classically speaking, light starts in both directions from the same point. As the loop rotates, light takes longer to get back to the starting point going one way than the opposite.
With Lorentz transforms. the time dilation works in different directions, giving the same result as the classical analysis.
The author of the page does not apply the Lorentz transform anywhere. Rather, he simply uses the classical formula time = distance / velocity for both the classical and the relativistic case. Also, you cannot apply the Lorentz transform to light, since in Special Relativity light moves at the speed c with respect to any observer.
For v = 30 km/s and c = 300,000 km/s, the Lorentz factor (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 = .999999995 or so. So if relativity DID make a difference and you're expecting .5 fringe shifts classically, you might expect .499999998 fringes with relativity. That's the same to more than 8 significant digits. You couldn't visually distinguish classical and relativistic results.
The Lorentz factor is
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/0ef98018e2cf0bbbc8ac0d8d88dec73b045b7e93)
and always greater than 1. Very slighly greater than 1 with v much slower than c
But the author of the page does not use any Lorentz factor. What would he want to use it for, anyway? To calculate a speed of light differing from c contradicting Special Relativity?
-
One does not need any calculations to grasp the situation: Special Relativity was designed to explain the fact that Michelson & Morley experiments yield a null-result while assuming that the earth is orbiting around the sun. As a matter of course, Special Relativity would explain the Sagnac and the Michelson & Gale experiments in the same way, if and only if they'd yield a null-result, too. But they don't. Consequently Special Relativity is falsified by both of them.
-
No it isn't. If both beams were going at c, then there would be no displacement in fringes, since both beams cover the same distance. The beams rather go c - v and c + v respectively, and the author says so by writing down the formula
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif).
Having written down the formula, the author says:
"This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts."
Now, the formula is simply
time = distance / velocitybeam1 - distance / velocitybeam2.
with
velocitybeam1 = c - v
and
velocitybeam2 = c + v
and the author claims that the velocities of both beams are the same for the classical and the relativistic case.
So you are wrong saying "And light is still moving at c in the analysis on that page." And the author of the page is wrong, since light does not travel at c - v oder c + v in Special Relativity.
But the distances taken by the counter-rotating beams are not the same.
I'm going to use a circular path so I don't have to try typesetting vector integrals.
R is the radius of a circular sagnac device. The speed of light is c.
T is the time it takes for a pulse to return to the starting point.
w is the angular rotation.
The distance for a pulse going one direction is D+ = 2 pi R + w R T+
But what is T+? T+ = D+ / c.
So the equation is D+ = 2 pi R + w R D+ / c
Solve that for D+ = 2 pi R / (1 - w R /c).
But w R = v, giving D+ = 2 pi R / (1 - v /c).
Therefore T+ = D+ / c = 2 pi R / (c - v)
Thus T+ - T- = 2 pi R ( 1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v) )
This is the formula above.
This is of course a classical analysis, not special relativity. In SR you would need to apply a transform to account for time dilation. There may be a factor of (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 but for small v the first order result is the same. Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson are not against SR.
Finally, the fringe difference is the time difference (above) multiplied by c and divided by the wavelength of the light.
I'm tempted to start making youtube videos.
-
But the distances taken by the counter-rotating beams are not the same.
I'm going to use a circular path so I don't have to try typesetting vector integrals.
R is the radius of a circular sagnac device. The speed of light is c.
T is the time it takes for a pulse to return to the starting point.
w is the angular rotation.
But what is T+? T+ = D+ / c.
So the equation is D+ = 2 pi R + w R D+ / c
Solve that for D+ = 2 pi R / (1 - w R /c).
But w R = v, giving D+ = 2 pi R / (1 - v /c).
Therefore T+ = D+ / c = 2 pi R / (c - v)
Thus T+ - T- = 2 pi R ( 1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v) )
This is the formula above.
Exactly.
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
This is of course a classical analysis, not special relativity.
Now you contradict the mathpages-author, who says "This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts."
Do you now agree, that he is fooling us? That in Special Relativity nothing moves faster than c (not 2c as he says)?
In SR you would need to apply a transform to account for time dilation.
You said so in your last post. But you won't be able to do that in any reasonable sense. In the experiments, we have a single observer. The Lorentz-transform would have to be used to transform events as seen by a different observer, who is moved relative to the first one. But that's of no use here, since the experiment is done with only one observer.
Stanley, could you please ask yourself and then explain to us how Special Relativity can account for a null-result in the Michelson&Morley experiment, and at the same time for a non-null-result in the Michelson&Gale experiment? How could Michelson detect and measure the relative movement of the earth with respect to the skies, but not the relative movement of the earth with respect to the sun?
How could Special Relativity, designed to confirm the null-result in the Michelson&Morley experiment, at the same time confirm the non-null-result in the Michelson&Gale experiment?
-
Exactly.
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
Now you contradict the mathpages-author, who says "This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts."
Do you now agree, that he is fooling us? That in Special Relativity nothing moves faster than c (not 2c as he says)?
So you see the equation is NOT distance/velocity as if the velocity of light was c-v and c+v?
The equation comes about because the end point is moving.
It's a general analysis of Sagnac devices.
In some situations, the observer is moving with respect to the device, sometimes not. But even with SR adjustment the formula is essentially the same, and the numerical results the same to several significant digits. So yes, the analysis is valid in both contexts.
And as far as the statement about 2c, it's not really material to the issue if you recognize that using c+v in the expression is not implying that light is going at c+v.
-
So you see the equation is NOT distance/velocity as if the velocity of light was c-v and c+v?
The equation comes about because the end point is moving.
It's a general analysis of Sagnac devices.
In some situations, the observer is moving with respect to the device, sometimes not. But even with SR adjustment the formula is essentially the same, and the numerical results the same to several significant digits. So yes, the analysis is valid in both contexts.
And as far as the statement about 2c, it's not really material to the issue if you recognize that using c+v in the expression is not implying that light is going at c+v.
The terms c - v and c + v express the fact that something is going at c - v with respect to something and that something is going at c + v with respect to something.
In the classical view on the experiment, the two light beams are going at c - v and c + v with respect to the observer, while they're going both at c with respect to the aether.
The formula contradicts Special Relativity, since in Special Relativity both beams would have to go at c with respect to the observer as well as go at c with respect to the imagined reference system of the classical aether. In Special Relativity light beams go at c with respect to any and all objects and reference frames.
The magomatician authoring the article on mathpages.com (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm) says:
When it is pointed out that those quantities do not refer to the speed of light, but rather to the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity [...]
That's an error, since in Special Relativity you cannot simply write c - v or c + v to denote the speed of light with respect to a given object, where c and v are the speeds of light and of the object with respect to the same inertial system. Rather, you have to use a special Velocity-addition formula (see Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula)). Velocities u and v are added using (v + u) / (1 + (vu)/c^2). Here we have u := c and thus the relativistic sums are:
(v + c) / (1 + (vc)/c^2) = c (v + c) / (c + (vc^2)/c^2) = c (v + c) / (c + v) = c
(v - c) / (1 - (vc)/c^2) = c (v - c) / (c - (vc^2)/c^2) = c (v - c) / (c - v) = c
The result does not surprise, since in Special Relativity the light beams have to move at c with respect to any objects.
Consequently the equation
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
is correct for the classical case and wrong in the context of Special Relativity, since the used additions of speeds c - v and c + v are classical additions and not relativistic ones. As shown above, relativistically the sum c plus v yields c and the difference c minus v yields c, too. Using relativistic additions, the resulting displacement in fringes Δt is zero, since both beams go at c.
Conclusion: the Sagnac experiment falsifies Special Relativity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Albert_Einstein_Head.jpg/330px-Albert_Einstein_Head.jpg)
Albert Einstein Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. In: Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1905
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/georges-sagnac-4b713857-bfc8-4987-a1ff-e15cf325a6d-resize-750.jpeg)
Sagnac, Georges: L’éther lumineux démontré par l’effet du vent relatif d’éther dans un interféromètre en rotation uniforme. In: Comptes Rendus., 1913
-
Correcting formulae in the previous comment:
Velocities u and v are added using (u + v) / (1 + (uv)/c^2). Here we have u := c and thus the relativistic sums are:
(c + v) / (1 + (cv)/c^2) = c (c + v) / (c + (c^2v)/c^2) = c (c + v) / (c + v) = c
(c - v) / (1 - (cv)/c^2) = c (c - v) / (c - (c^2v)/c^2) = c (c - v) / (c - v) = c
-
...is correct for the classical case and wrong in the context of Special Relativity, since the used additions of speeds c - v and c + v are classical additions and not relativistic ones. As shown above, relativistically the sum c plus v yields c and the difference c minus v yields c, too. Using relativistic additions, the resulting displacement in fringes Δt is zero, since both beams go at c.
Conclusion: the Sagnac experiment falsifies Special Relativity.
NO. NO. NO.
Look at my derivation in https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/new-sungenis-film-the-fool-on-the-hill/msg660786/#msg660786
Light moves at speed c.
The time difference arises because the distance taken is different in the opposing directions.
The expressions c+v and c-v come out of expressing the difference in the times due to different distances.
There is nothing SR about that, per se.
But the result doesn't really change if you add in length contraction and time dilation. (Depending on the observer I think in some cases the SR corrections cancel out so that it is exactly the same formula, but let's not get stuck in such details.)
You need to recognize that c+v and c-v are just expressions in the math. They do not need relativistic velocity addition. Until you can get past that there's no point discussing other aspects of MGP.
-
You need to recognize that c+v and c-v are just expressions in the math. They do not need relativistic velocity addition.
You let yourself fool by the magomathician of mathpages.com, but you won't fool me. Just like c and v are physical quantities, c + v and c - v are physical quantities, too. We're talking about physical theories as a description of reality and not about some nonsensical and meaningless formulae.
c is a velocity. v is a velocity. Velocities are physical quantities. Adding two physical quantities of the same type yields a physical quantity of that type.
Classically, the terms c + v and c - v represent the speed of light with respect to the aether.
In Special Relativity, the terms c + v and c - v are illegal. You have to use relativistic addition instead, which is derived from the Lorentz transform.
The (mathpages.com (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm))-author says that they are "the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system". He deceives by embezzling that the sum of the two speeds in Special Relativity is calculated using (c + v) / (1 + (cv)/c^2).
Point a lightbeam in one direction, and you have light moving at c. Throw a stone in the other direction, and you have a stone moving at v. Given Special Relativity, the light does not move at c + v with respect to the stone, but at (c + v) / (1 + (cv)/c^2) = c.
Point a lightbeam in one direction, and you have light moving at c. Throw a stone in the same direction, and you have a stone moving at v. Given Special Relativity, the light does not move at c - v with respect to the stone, but at (c - v) / (1 - (cv)/c^2) = c.
The same happens in the "stationary circular loop" (optic gyroscope) of the mathpages author. The observer at the fixed start point has one of the beams moving away in one direction while the endpoint moves in the opposite direction. c + v then is the classical speed of the light beam with respect to the end point, while in Special Relativity the speed of the light beam with respect to the end point is (c + v) / (1 + (cv)/c^2) = c.
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image001.gif)
Conclusion: The mathpages author tries to sell his readers the classical maths as relativistic maths. Unfortunatly for him, one can easily see through his deception. Everyone knows that nothing moves faster than light in Special Relativity.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/R5oCXHWEL9A/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
@Stanley N
How do you explain, that the Michelson & Morley experiment does not measure the relative movement between the earth and the sun, while the Michelson & Gale experiment does measure the relative movement between the earth and the stars?
If Special Relativity is true, why is it then possible to detect one relative movement but not the other?
In the Michelson & Morley experiment we have an apparatus travelling around the center of the sun. In the Michelson & Gale experiment we have an apparatus travelling around the center of the earth. Given Special Relativity, how can it be that in the first case the interferometer detects a displacement in fringes, while in the second case it does not?
It is obvious, that you can't explain this situation using Special Relativity. There is no principal difference between the two experiments. If it is possible to detect the motion in one case, then, given Special Relativity, it should be possible in the other case, too.
Unfortunatly for relativists, the experiments falsify their theory.
-
Correction of post #60
Classically, the terms c + v and c - v represent the speed of light with respect to the aether.
Classically, the terms c + v and c - v represent the speed of light with respect to the observer.
-
How do you explain, that the Michelson & Morley experiment does not measure the relative movement between the earth and the sun, while the Michelson & Gale experiment does measure the relative movement between the earth and the stars?
If Special Relativity is true, why is it then possible to detect one relative movement but not the other?
In the Michelson & Morley experiment we have an apparatus travelling around the center of the sun. In the Michelson & Gale experiment we have an apparatus travelling around the center of the earth. Given Special Relativity, how can it be that in the first case the interferometer detects a displacement in fringes, while in the second case it does not?
It is obvious, that you can't explain this situation using Special Relativity. There is no principal difference between the two experiments. If it is possible to detect the motion in one case, then, given Special Relativity, it should be possible in the other case, too.
Unfortunatly for relativists, the experiments falsify their theory.
In MM, light is sent along arms perpendicular and parallel to presumed motion with respect to the ether. Assuming the arms are equal length, with Lorentz contraction, the time parallel to motion turns out to be the same as the time perpendicular to motion. You can find this derivation on the web and in most undergrad physics textbooks that deal with relativity.
In a Sagnac device, light is sent along a rectangle in opposing directions. As I recall, the set it up so two sides of the rectangle were parallel to lines of latitude, and a fair distance apart. At different latitudes, they move due to earth's rotation and different speeds. Thus the light paths clockwise and counterclockwise are not equivalent. I didn't find this on the internet, but it works out. (It is a bit of algebra.) With Lorentz contraction you just get an extra factor close to 1 multiplying the time difference. Like I've been saying, this doesn't change the Sagnac results in any meaningful way.
And again regarding c+v and c-v. Light goes at speed c in my reference frame. If I have a target L1=100m away, it takes time t1=L1/c to get there. If I have another target at L2=101m, it takes t2=L2/c to get there. Believe it or not, that's true in relativity, too! It doesn't matter if in the target was moving at speed v and happened to be at L2=101m when the light got there. Both the light (always moving at c) and the target (at v) are moving in my reference frame. So I have a target at L and it's moving away at v, and light takes time t to reach it. While the light travelled a distance ct in my reference frame, the target travelled a distance vt and is now L+vt away in my reference frame. From ct = L+vt you get t = L/(c-v), even though light was always going at speed c.
-
In MM, light is sent along arms perpendicular and parallel to presumed motion with respect to the ether. Assuming the arms are equal length, with Lorentz contraction, the time parallel to motion turns out to be the same as the time perpendicular to motion. You can find this derivation on the web and in most undergrad physics textbooks that deal with relativity.
In a Sagnac device, light is sent along a rectangle in opposing directions. As I recall, the set it up so two sides of the rectangle were parallel to lines of latitude, and a fair distance apart. At different latitudes, they move due to earth's rotation and different speeds. Thus the light paths clockwise and counterclockwise are not equivalent. I didn't find this on the internet, but it works out. (It is a bit of algebra.) With Lorentz contraction you just get an extra factor close to 1 multiplying the time difference. Like I've been saying, this doesn't change the Sagnac results in any meaningful way.
Yes, the interferometers are not of the same type. They're all different. Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, Michelson-Morley, mathpages-fiber optic gyroscope. But that's not the point. The point is rather:
The Michelson-Gale experiment detects and measures the relative speed of the Michelson-Gale interferometer moving around the center of the earth. The Michelson-Morley experiment detects and measures the relative speed of the Michelson-Morley interferometer moving around the center of the sun --- ah, no, no, no, the Michelson-Morley interferometer does not detect any movement. The question is: Given Special Relativity, why is it possible (in principle, whichever type of interferometer used) to detect the relative movement of the apparatus around the center of the earth, but not the relative movement of the apparatus around the center of the sun? What is the difference between the two types of movement, that gives the reason why we do have an experiment to detect one while we do not have an experiment to detect the other. Aren't both movements in principle equal: An apparatus is moving around a distant center of some object. Shouldn't Special Relativity allow to detect either both movements or none? What's the problem of Dr Michelson? Why did he succeed in detecting one movement but not the other?
Neither the word 'earth' nor the word 'sun' appear in the postulates or the formulae of special relativity. Yet we have a strange asymmetry.
And again regarding c+v and c-v. Light goes at speed c in my reference frame.
Ok, light goes at c in your reference frame (and in any other reference frame).
If I have a target L1=100m away, it takes time t1=L1/c to get there. If I have another target at L2=101m, it takes t2=L2/c to get there. Believe it or not, that's true in relativity, too!
Yes, it is.
It doesn't matter if in the target was moving at speed v and happened to be at L2=101m when the light got there. Both the light (always moving at c) and the target (at v) are moving in my reference frame.
That's true.
But given the experiment on mathpages, the observer is the screen which shows the fringes (called 'end point' there). The target is that screen. The target is moving with respect to the reference frame which you called yours above (the one where the light source is fixed, called 'start point' there). Now, in Special Relativity, light moves at speed c with respect to the reference system where the light source is fixed, and at the same time also moves at speed c with respect to the reference system, where the screen is fixed. Sounds strange? Yes, sure. But that's the way it is in Special Relativity. Light moves at speed c with respect to both (to any) reference systems.
So I have a target at L and it's moving away at v, and light takes time t to reach it. While the light travelled a distance ct in my reference frame, the target travelled a distance vt and is now L+vt away in my reference frame. From ct = L+vt you get t = L/(c-v), even though light was always going at speed c.
Yes, the light is going at speed c with respect to the reference system where the start point rests. And with respect to the reference system where the end point rests, it is going at c + v (or c - v for the other beam). That's classically correct. But in Special Relativity, it has to be c (or c for the other beam). Because in Special Relativity light never goes faster than c but rather always equal to c, neither in the reference system of the start point nor in the reference system of the end point.
That's the reason why the mathpages-guy in the case of Special Relativity should replace c + v and c - v by c and c yielding zero displacement in fringes.
Special Relativity was designed to yield zero displacement in fringes for the Michelson-Morley experiment. No wonder that it yields zero displacement in fringes for the Michelson-Gale experiment, too. In principle, there is no difference between both experiments. A device moves around a distant point. Special Relativity knows nothing about planets, masses, or the solar system. How could Special Relativity be able to distinguish between a movement of an interferometer around the center of the earth and one around the center of the sun?
-
The question is: Given Special Relativity, why is it possible (in principle, whichever type of interferometer used) to detect the relative movement of the apparatus around the center of the earth, but not the relative movement of the apparatus around the center of the sun?
Short answer is the some devices measure translation, while other measure rotation. Translation is relative in SR, but rotation is not considered relative in SR for various reasons. A Sagnac device (and MGP is a Sagnac device) measures rotation.
That's the reason why the mathpages-guy in the case of Special Relativity should replace c + v and c - v by c and c yielding zero displacement in fringes.
No, he shouldn't. Dont mix the lab frame and the loop frame. (Sometimes you'll see people say the axis of rotation of the sagnac device - that's the lab frame.)
Because the light pulses get to the end point at different times, you have to be careful how you treat time when changing frames in relativity. Synchronized clocks in one frame will not generally be synchronized in the other frame.
-
Short answer is the some devices measure translation, while other measure rotation. Translation is relative in SR, but rotation is not considered relative in SR for various reasons. A Sagnac device (and MGP is a Sagnac device) measures rotation.No, he shouldn't. Dont mix the lab frame and the loop frame. (Sometimes you'll see people say the axis of rotation of the sagnac device - that's the lab frame.)
Now you start a new approach. But that does not work: The Michelson & Gale interferometer basically is in orbit around the center of the earth and the Michelson and Morley interferometer basically is in orbit around the center of the sun. No reason to distinguish rotation and translation here.
Also: Are you now attacking the mathpages-guy who does not care about rotation. He does not even treat a Sagnac disc with piecewise linear light paths, rather he uses a fiber optic gyroscope where even the light runs in circles.
You just show that you're getting desperate.
Because the light pulses get to the end point at different times, you have to be careful how you treat time when changing frames in relativity. Synchronized clocks in one frame will not generally be synchronized in the other frame.
You and the mathpages-guy, you're not careful and treat the whole thing classically. I showed you how to do it: You need the relativistic addition of velocities to get the correct speed of light with respect to both reference frames.
Also: Are you now attacking the mathpages-guy, who does not mention clock synchronization?
Finally: Clock synchronization? What are you referring to? To synchronize clocks, you would need at least two of them. I have never heard of one. Not even one clock is used in the experiments. The mathpages-guy seems to not know about clocks either.
C'mon, Stanley N, give it up. You're really getting desperate.
-
Now you start a new approach. But that does not work: The Michelson & Gale interferometer basically is in orbit around the center of the earth and the Michelson and Morley interferometer basically is in orbit around the center of the sun. No reason to distinguish rotation and translation here.
Michelson Morley isn't set up to measure rotation.
A sagnac device can measure rotation. And yes, it can get the rotation of the earth as well as the earth's orbit around the sun (though that's 1/365 or so smaller).
You and the mathpages-guy, you're not careful and treat the whole thing classically. I showed you how to do it: You need the relativistic addition of velocities to get the correct speed of light with respect to both reference frames.
I have explained several times why you don't need to do relativistic addition for the expressions c+v and c-v.
You might use relativistic addition to calculate something else that's not needed in this analysis.
Finally: Clock synchronization? What are you referring to? To synchronize clocks, you would need at least two of them. I have never heard of one. Not even one clock is used in the experiments. The mathpages-guy seems to not know about clocks either.
"Clocks" are device in SR for handling time-relative events. Sagnac devices concern events happening at different "times", so you do need to take some care with that.
-
"Clocks" are device in SR for handling time-relative events. Sagnac devices concern events happening at different "times", so you do need to take some care with that.
Let me explain how interferometers work in the experiments we are talking about.
A light beam is split using a beam splitter, that is a partially reflecting mirror. Each of both beams then travels a different path until they are recombined. The recombined beam is the sum of two possibly shifted parts of the original beam. Its amplitude is greater or lower due to interference. In this way, the measurement is done continuously. There are no events happening, and there are no clocks to determine points in time when events happen. Given that there are no clocks, no two or more clocks can be or need to be synchronized.
At this point in our discussion, any reader can see that you are trying to fool us. You demand synchronization of clocks where there are no such devices.
-
He is soooo smart. But he couldn't figure out he was in the wrong religion for 19 years after he left the Catholic Church as a young man.
King Winceslas, your logic is bunk. If you want to write-off Sungenis' scientific acuмen based on his up-and-down religious past, you must therefore completely ignore the entire business (and it is a business) of modern science, which is filled with atheists and worse (freemasonic deists who actually hate God and who worship satan). Einstein was a Christ-hating joo, yet you trust his scientific ability, but chastise Sungenis? Aristotle was one of the best philosphers to have ever existed, yet he was a pagan. Does religious affiliation affect intelligence? No. Did satan lose his angelic intelligence simply because he went to hell? No. You should apologize and take back the above comment.
-
You demand synchronization of clocks where there are no such devices.
Clocks, again, are conceptual devices in understanding time differences in SR. And the way we've been discussing sagnac devices is by way of a time difference in the lab frame. You seemed to want to go to the loop frame. If you really don't know anything about "clocks" or the equivalent, I suppose it would be difficult for you to see why they might be relevant. The "mathpages" author pretty much stays in the lab frame.
In the future, please refrain from slurs and personal attacks.
-
He holds a "doctorate" from […] a noted diploma mill (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Diploma_mill).
So? Andrew Gleason (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Gleason.html) made ground-breaking mathematical discoveries while holding only a bachelor's degree.
-
This film is basically an abridged version of Journey to the Center of the Universe, although some things appear new. I don't think JCU mentioned Shankland vs. Miller, for example.
-
Clocks, again, are conceptual devices in understanding time differences in SR.
Well, no Stanley. Clocks are not conceptual devices in Special Relativity. Clocks generally are mechanical or electrical devices for measuring time, indicating hours, minutes, and sometimes seconds, typically by hands on a round dial.
Special Relativity is a concept of Albert Einstein. He published it in 1905 in his famous paper Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. E.g. in the section where he defines simultaneity of events, he talks about clocks and their application in measuring time in different reference frames which are moved with respect to each other.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/de/e/e6/Einstein_893-1.PNG)
He says "If I say e.g. 'That train arrives here at 7 o'clock' then this is to say 'The fact that the small hand of my clock points at 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events'". Then he continues to elaborate on the necessity of synchronization of clocks in different reference frames.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/BahnhofsuhrZuerich_RZ.jpg/220px-BahnhofsuhrZuerich_RZ.jpg)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BahnhofsuhrZuerich_RZ.jpg
Clock in the main station in Zürich, Switzerland, where Einstein went to the "Polytechnikum" (today: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich).
No Stanley, in Special Relativity, clocks are nothing special. They are not "conceptual devices in understanding time differences" but technical devices and in no way different than in classical physics. They are used to assign a time value (physical quantity) to an event.
What is different in Special Relativity, is not clocks. Different is, that you have "local time", i.e. different time scales in different reference frames.
-
If you really don't know anything about "clocks" or the equivalent, I suppose it would be difficult for you to see why they might be relevant.
As was shown, you're the one who doesn't know anything about clocks in Special Relativity.
In the future, please refrain from slurs and personal attacks.
Please allow me to continue to pay back in your currency.
-
And the way we've been discussing sagnac devices is by way of a time difference in the lab frame.
Sorry Stanley, but no, not in the lab frame. We are discussing the apparatus at mathpages.com (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm) which is in motion with respect to the lab, and is being described by the equation
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
The "stationary circular loop" mentioned at the beginning of the article measures a null fringe shift indicating no time difference.
And yes, Stanley, a time difference. But the time difference is neither measured by clocks in different frames, nor by clocks in the same frame, nor by clocks at all, nor is it measured at all. What is measured by the detector of the interferometer is a fringe shift, not a time difference.
With an interferometer one does not need to synchronize clocks, since none are used. The physical quantity measured is not a time difference, but a fringe shift. The measured fringe shift is a unitless fraction of the wavelength of the light beam used, and not a time difference. The time difference is calculated from the fringe shift.
Obviously, not only your idea of clocks in Special Relativity is flawed (as shown in a recent comment), you also seem to not even know how the interferometers work, which are used in the experiments we discuss.
-
He [Sungenis] holds a "doctorate" from Calamus International University in the Republic of Vanuatu, a noted diploma mill (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Diploma_mill).
It looks like PhD titles from Calamus International University are better than their fame.
At least, Sungenis does not fall for flawed relativistic physics.
Anyone with half a brain would run away from this guy. He is literally a carbuncle on the rear end of Tradition.
He does not seem to realize that the Robber Council is full of heresies. But, on the other hand, he shows how relativistic physics are flawed. One may assume that this devaluates quite a lot of PhD titles from generally respected institutions, but I think the problem is less a lack of ability than an abundance of iniquity.
-
And the way we've been discussing sagnac devices is by way of a time difference in the lab frame.
Sorry Stanley, but no, not in the lab frame. We are discussing the apparatus at mathpages.com (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm) which is in motion with respect to the lab, and is being described by the equation
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
So yes, a time difference. In the lab frame. For a rotating sagnac ring. Just as I said.
The "stationary circular loop" mentioned at the beginning of the article measures a null fringe shift indicating no time difference.
Obviously, if it's stationary in the lab frame.
Obviously, not only your idea of clocks in Special Relativity is flawed (as shown in a recent comment), you also seem to not even know how the interferometers work, which are used in the experiments we discuss.
Oh dear, Struthio says my understanding is flawed. Whatever shall I do?
There's no point further discussing SR because you apparently refuse to use a standard conceptual tool in SR analysis. This is one of the ways I've tried to help you understand Sagnac devices in SR, but if you don't want the help, I'm done trying.
So fine, you win. I'll stipulate Sagnac devices successfully falsify Struthio's theory of relativity. Unfortunately, Struthio's theory of relativity has little to do with Special Relativity, and you can't falsify a theory if you don't apply it correctly.
On to classical mechanics:
Mass of the sun yes, but not squared.
If Newton's formula has the mass of the sun, then Popov's too: Popov "postulates the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars." These potentials are designed to produce forces which make the objects move in the same way Newton saw them. Nothing to worry about the mass of the sun.
I've also given you several days to think about the Popov formula with Msun squared. So far the response has been: <crickets>.
The last time we had this discussion (a year ago?) I said you can make a geocentric system that was kinematically equivalent. But that doesn't mean they are kinetically equivalent. Objects in a geocentric system accelerate differently. Do you allow for any device capable of measuring acceleration?
-
Sorry Stanley, but no, not in the lab frame. We are discussing the apparatus at mathpages.com (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm) which is in motion with respect to the lab, and is being described by the equation
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
So yes, a time difference. In the lab frame. For a rotating sagnac ring.
No, not in the lab frame.
The above formula describes the process with respect to that reference frame where the light source and the detector are fixed and not moved.
How do we know that? Well, the travelled distance in the formula is the circuмference of a whole circle: 2 pi R.
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image001.gif)
In the lab frame, the travelled path begins North and ends North-East, thus resulting in a travelled distance which is greater than 2 pi R for one beam and less than 2 pi R for the other beam.
In the rotating frame the travelled distance is 2 pi R, since the path from the light source to the detector is a whole circular turn.
That's how we know that you don't know what you're talking about.
There's no point further discussing SR [...]
Indeed, Stanley. Not even classical physics.
-
So yes, a time difference. In the lab frame. For a rotating sagnac ring.
No, not in the lab frame.
The above formula describes the process with respect to that reference frame where the light source and the detector are fixed and not moved.
How do we know that? Well, the travelled distance in the formula is the circuмference of a whole circle: 2 pi R.
...
In the lab frame, the travelled path begins North and ends North-East, thus resulting in a travelled distance which is greater than 2 pi R for one beam and less than 2 pi R for the other beam.
The last paragraph - exactly. In the lab frame the travelled distance is greater in one direction and less in the other direction. That's in the lab frame, again. And as I have already shown, the formula can be derived from the lab frame, with the travelled distance greater in one direction and less in the other direction.
Why are you still fighting this?
-
So yes, a time difference. In the lab frame. For a rotating sagnac ring.
No, not in the lab frame.
The above formula describes the process with respect to that reference frame where the light source and the detector are fixed and not moved.
How do we know that? Well, the travelled distance in the formula is the circuмference of a whole circle: 2 pi R.
...
In the lab frame, the travelled path begins North and ends North-East, thus resulting in a travelled distance which is greater than 2 pi R for one beam and less than 2 pi R for the other beam.
The last paragraph - exactly. In the lab frame the travelled distance is greater in one direction and less in the other direction. That's in the lab frame, again. And as I have already shown, the formula can be derived from the lab frame, with the travelled distance greater in one direction and less in the other direction.
Why are you still fighting this?
The formula has only one travelled distance, which is 2 pi R:
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
Hence, the formula describes the situation in the rotating frame and not in the lab frame.
And you have not shown or presented any formula which would be valid in the lab frame.
And we do not need such a formula. The formula above says that the two light beams travel at c + v and c - v respectively from the light source to the detector along a path of length 2 pi R (in the rotating frame).
I say, that the formula is not valid in Special Relativity, since you need relativistic addition instead of c + v and c - v.
You and the mathpages guy say that the formula is valid in Special Relativity.
If you were right, then light would travel faster/slower than c. Which is known to be not the case following Special Relativity.
If I am right (relativistic addition), then light travels at c. Which is known to be the case following Special Relativity.
-
The formula has only one travelled distance, which is 2 pi R:
Go back to the derivation. Neither of the distances travelled are 2 pi R. And light travels at c. In the lab frame.
-
Neither of the distances travelled are 2 pi R. And light travels at c. In the lab frame.
Even assumed that your statement was correct. So what? Special Relativity is falsified already, if it is falsified in the rotating frame, where the light source and the detector are at rest. That is the reason why you can save the effort to transfrom the mathpages equation to the lab frame.
Special Relativity fails in the rotating frame, where the mathpages formula says that light travels at speeds other than c, which is illegal for Special Relativity. The mathpages formula says that one beam travels at c + v and the other at c - v:
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
Both beams travel a distance of 2 pi R, and both beams travel at a speed other than c, thus falsifying Special Relativity, thus proving that light can move faster or slower than c.
The experiment refutes the mantra of the Einsteinian relativists.
-
Even assumed that your statement was correct.
Wait, what? You still don't get this?
So here you go, relativistic.
The light is emitted inside the ring. The ring and emitter move at radial speed v.
Let's also account for the medium, so light (or the "signal") travels at some speed s <= c.
The signal speed in the lab frame for signal taking less time is u-.
So u- = (s-v)/(1-sv/c^2). If we had s=c, then u- = c.
We still have u-t- = L - vt- , so t- = L/(u- + v)
Thus t- = L/ [ s (1-v^2/c^2) / (1-sv/c^2) ] = L (c^2 - sv) / [s (c^2 - v^2)]
Similarly, u+ = (s+v)/(1+sv/c^2), and t+ = L/(u+ - v)
So t+ = L/(u+ - v) = L (c^2 + sv) / [s (c^2 - v^2)]
And therefore t+ - t- = L (2sv) / [s(c^2-v^2)] = 2 L v / (c^2- v^2)
So with L=2 pi R, you get the same formula.
Isn't it interesting that the signal speed s drops out entirely?
Perhaps I should make youtube videos.
-
Wait, what? You still don't get this?
So here you go, relativistic.
The light is emitted inside the ring. The ring and emitter move at radial speed v.
Let's also account for the medium, so light (or the "signal") travels at some speed s <= c.
The signal speed in the lab frame for signal taking less time is u-.
So u- = (s-v)/(1-sv/c^2). If we had s=c, then u- = c.
We still have u-t- = L - vt- , so t- = L/(u- + v)
Thus t- = L/ [ s (1-v^2/c^2) / (1-sv/c^2) ] = L (c^2 - sv) / [s (c^2 - v^2)]
Similarly, u+ = (s+v)/(1+sv/c^2), and t+ = L/(u+ - v)
So t+ = L/(u+ - v) = L (c^2 + sv) / [s (c^2 - v^2)]
And therefore t+ - t- = L (2sv) / [s(c^2-v^2)] = 2 L v / (c^2- v^2)
So with L=2 pi R, you get the same formula.
Isn't it interesting that the signal speed s drops out entirely?
Perhaps I should make youtube videos.
So you are now saying that the mathpages formula is valid in both frames. In the lab frame and in the rotating frame? One and the same formula for both frames?
-
So you are now saying that the mathpages formula is valid in both frames. In the lab frame and in the rotating frame? One and the same formula for both frames?
I said lab frame in my post. I's an analysis in the lab frame using relativistic velocity addition. You could also add length contraction to L for a second order effect.
-
We still have u-t- = L - vt- , so t- = L/(u- + v)
Resolving u- t- = L - vt- for t- requires to divide by u-. The result is
u- t- = L - vt- <=> t- = (L - vt-) / u-
Whatever you calculate for the lab frame, in the rotating frame both beams travel the same distance. Given Special Relativity and thus a constant speed of light c, a zero fringe shift should be measured. Special Relativity is falsified by the experiment whatever you calculate for the lab frame.
-
Resolving u- t- = L - vt- for t- requires to divide by u-. The result is
u- t- = L - vt- <=> t- = (L - vt-) / u-
Whatever you calculate for the lab frame, in the rotating frame both beams travel the same distance. Given Special Relativity and thus a constant speed of light c, a zero fringe shift should be measured. Special Relativity is falsified by the experiment whatever you calculate for the lab frame.
Repeated claims do not make it so.
SR analysis of a Sagnac device works in the loop frame, too. But you have rejected using the conceptual device of clocks to understand that. And you can't even follow simple algebra. If you're unwilling to listen, there's nothing further I can do here.
So go look this up at a reliable site. They are out there.
-
And you can't even follow simple algebra.
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
I am sure that most readers are able to see that it's your algebra that is flawed:
We still have u-t- = L - vt- , so t- = L/(u- + v)
Resolving u- t- = L - vt- for t- requires to divide by u-. The result is
u- t- = L - vt- <=> t- = (L - vt-) / u-
It's not even necessary to know what the quantities u-, t-, L, and v are.
-
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
I am sure that most readers are able to see that it's your algebra that is flawed:
It's not even necessary to know what the quantities u-, t-, L, and v are.
I'm going to drop the - indicators for this.
The equation is UT = L - VT
The solution, using just algebra, is T =L/(U+V)
-
I'm going to drop the - indicators for this.
The equation is UT = L - VT
The solution, using just algebra, is T =L/(U+V)
Oops, you're right. I am sorry. I should have looked more closely at it. Please forgive me.
Later more.
-
@Stanley N
So, looking at the lab frame, your calulations assume that the beams travel the distances L - vt- and L + vt+. Then, using relativistic addition/subtraction you derive the equation of mathpages.com as a description of the situation in the lab frame.
But what does that prove?
In the loop frame, the distance is one and the same for both beams: L. Neither the apparatus nor any part of it moves in the loop frame. If both light beams would travel at the same speed (as Special Relativity requires) then the measured fringe shift and the time difference would be zero:
t- = L / c
t+ = L / c
t+ - t- = L / c - L / c = 0
But that's not what the detector shows.
Special Relativity claims to describe the experiment in both reference frames. To falsify Special Relativity, it is sufficient, if it fails in one of the frames.
-
In the loop frame, the distance is one and the same for both beams: L. Neither the apparatus nor any part of it moves in the loop frame. If both light beams would travel at the same speed (as Special Relativity requires) then the measured fringe shift and the time difference would be zero:
SR does explain this. It has to do with exactly how the measurement is done, and whether you have (or can have) properly synchronized "clocks".
-
SR does explain this. It has to do with exactly how the measurement is done, and whether you have (or can have) properly synchronized "clocks".
No, Special Relativity does not explain it.
In the loop frame the interferometer is always at rest, no matter whether the lab frame is in motion with respect to the loop frame or not.
Consequently, given Special Relativity, the interferometer cannot be used to detect whether it is in motion with respect to the lab or not.
Unfortunately for relativists, the experiment shows that the interferometer can be used to measure the speed.
To refute Special Relativity, you can also use short red light pulses in one direction and short blue light pulses in the other. Let them go millions of turns around the loop and count the number of loops done for each color. You will find that the difference of turns counted for each color will increase with time if and only if the interferometer is in motion with respect to the lab.
There are other ways to do it, and the problem for Special Relativity has nothing to do with exactly how the measurement is done or with clocks (or even "clocks").
-
No, Special Relativity does not explain it.
I might have thought you would be a little less dogmatic now, after the algebra incident.
Have you tried to look up how those who accept SR explain a moving Sagnac device in the loop frame?
What did they say?
Did you come across the idea that rotation is not relative in SR?
-
I might have thought you would be a little less dogmatic now, after the algebra incident.
Making a mistake when hastily looking at some poorly typeset (which is not your fault) equations does not change my assessment of the facts, since these equations do not concern the reason why the experiment refutes Einstein's Special Relativity.
Have you tried to look up how those who accept SR explain a moving Sagnac device in the loop frame?
I have looked at several attempts to defend Special Relativity against it's experimental refutation by Sagnac. They try to explain the problems away.
What did they say?
You tell us.
Did you come across the idea that rotation is not relative in SR?
Yes, I did. Since you mention the topic, you may be interested in the work of Wang et. al. who have conducted a Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber (Physics Letters A 312 (2003) 7-10)
Their conclusion:
The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform.
So there's a "linear Sagnac effect". Subterfuge to ideas like that "rotation may not be relative in SR" is futile.
-
I have looked at several attempts to defend Special Relativity against it's experimental refutation by Sagnac. They try to explain the problems away.
They do?
I'm rather curious how you came to decide that SR is wrong. How did you come to that conclusion so definitively, and against the scientific consensus?
Yes, I did. Since you mention the topic, you may be interested in the work of Wang et. al. who have conducted a Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber (Physics Letters A 312 (2003) 7-10)
Their conclusion:
So there's a "linear Sagnac effect". Subterfuge to ideas like that "rotation may not be relative in SR" is futile.
Interesting. Since the fiber is continuous in their setup, it makes sense they would find a sagnac effect.
-
I'm rather curious how you came to decide that SR is wrong. How did you come to that conclusion so definitively, and against the scientific consensus?
Academics, aristocrats and clerus have been the vanguard of the revolt which has been destroying the Faith and the whole christian culture for centuries. There is no reason to have more confidence in a "scientific consensus" than in mainstream media or in a bunch of modernists leading souls to hell. Caballism and Noachidism rules, while faith, truth, and sincerity are punished.
Nowadays, scientists escort the plan to replace peoples by mixed race populations. Genocide against their own.
An overwhelming majority of scientists are godless jumping jacks, who e.g. defend imbecile Darwinism, which rejects basic laws of thought: nothing happens without a sufficient reason.
Scientists, who talk about things like "vacuum permeability" and "vacuum permittivity", should be sent off to work in quarries. Don't they even know about contradictions in terms? Do they really believe that nothing can have properties? Or are they brazen liars?
My conclusion is definitive for several reasons. The refutation by Sagnac's experiment is one of the more obvious.
-
My conclusion is definitive for several reasons. The refutation by Sagnac's experiment is one of the more obvious.
Except, if you asked most physicists, they would say relativity and Sagnac are consistent.
How did you determine they are all wrong on that point?
-
Except, if you asked most physicists, they would say relativity and Sagnac are consistent.
How did you determine they are all wrong on that point?
Many physicists have rejected Relativity since the beginning, and critics of Relativity have been publishing objections ever since. How did you determine they are all wrong?
I came to the conclusion looking at Sagnac's and Einstein's papers, as well as related papers and wep-pages and debates. Here again my conclusion:
In the loop frame, the distance is one and the same for both beams: L. Neither the apparatus nor any part of it moves in the loop frame. If both light beams would travel at the same speed (as Special Relativity requires) then the measured fringe shift and the time difference would be zero:
t- = L / c
t+ = L / c
t+ - t- = L / c - L / c = 0
But that's not what the detector shows.
Your question suggests that you would recommend to trust "most physicists". But why? How is that different from trusting most politicians?
One of their chief ideologists, Stephen Hawking, explains why he rejects geocentrism. It's not based on reason and not because he has scientific evidence against it. Such folks are priests against reason and not real scientists.
Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!
-
Many physicists have rejected Relativity since the beginning, and critics of Relativity have been publishing objections ever since. How did you determine they are all wrong?
I came to the conclusion looking at Sagnac's and Einstein's papers, as well as related papers and wep-pages and debates.
But plenty of people have explained how the Sagnac effect works in the loop frame in SR. How have you determined that they are all wrong? What "related papers" are you referring to?
-
But plenty of people have explained how the Sagnac effect works in the loop frame in SR.
I have found none convincing.
How have you determined that they are all wrong?
The correct solution for the loop frame is trivial.
What "related papers" are you referring to?
E.g. Wang et. al. (see above).
-
E.g. Wang et. al. (see above).
Does the Wang paper say the effect can't happen in relativity?
I have found none convincing.
The correct solution for the loop frame is trivial.
Plenty of people think otherwise. Your trivial "correct solution" doesn't address what the other people are doing wrong. What do you think that is? Is what they're doing wrong just "using relativity"?
-
Stand-alone speedometer using two spaced laser beams
Abstract
A stand-alone speedometer directly measuring the translational speed of a moving body comprises a source emitting two spaced light beams which interfere each other, mirrors or beam splitters changing directions of propagation of light beams, and a detector measuring the phase difference of light beams. Compared with the phase difference when the speedometer is stationary, the detector measures a first-order change of phase differences, which indicates the motion speed.
Inventor: Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, Aiping Yao
[...] where v is the velocity of the apparatus relative to the preferred frame, c is the constant speed of light in the preferred frame [...]
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7586587
The days of Special Relativity seem to be counted.
”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light” (Mantra of the Relativists)
-
Does the Wang paper say the effect can't happen in relativity?
No. He wouldn't have got it published these days, if he did.
But the Wang patent says that there is a preferred reference frame (traditionally called Aether).
-
But the Wang patent says that there is a preferred reference frame (traditionally called Aether).
Whatever terminology he used in a patent, the effect is consistent with relativity.
”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light” (Mantra of the Relativists)
Who says that? I think you've oversimplified this.
-
Whatever terminology he used in a patent, the effect is consistent with relativity.
:laugh1:
You're sure pious with respect to relativity and "scientific consensus".
You probably would have defended Phlogiston theory, when it was scientific consensus.
Scientific progress comes from critical thinking, not from believing in human creatures.
-
Scientific progress comes from critical thinking, not from believing in human creatures.
:laugh1: "progress". How have geocentrists progressed science in the last 200 years?
What critical thinking have you applied to your "trivial" analysis of Sagnac and Wang devices?
Lots of people have explanations for why the analysis you call "trivial" is a wrong analysis.
-
What critical thinking have you applied to your "trivial" analysis of Sagnac and Wang devices?
It's not my fault that Special Relativity is trivial with light moving at constant c and taking t = L / c in any reference frame.
Lots of people have explanations for why the analysis you call "trivial" is a wrong analysis.
But their explanations are wrong and contradict Special Relativity.
The relativists' mantra ”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light” is proven wrong:
Does the Wang paper say the effect can't happen in relativity?
The Wang paper does not, but Wang does, in his US patent.
But Stanley N won't believe it, before the majority of scientists has changed their minds.
-
”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light” (Mantra of the Relativists)
Who says that? I think you've oversimplified this.
I put it in quotes since it's what relativists say:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/relativity.html
Don't be hard on them. I could have used another one of these mantras:
"there is no preferred reference frame"
-
But Stanley N won't believe it, before the majority of scientists has changed their minds.
No, majorities of scientists never change their minds. The typical process works different. The majority has to become extinct.
(http://www.meteoweb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mammuth2.jpg)
Then, new young physicists will look at engineers using Wang's Stand-alone speedometer using two spaced laser beams and start to laugh about Special Relativity.
-
I put it in quotes since it's what relativists say:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/relativity.html
So, we have a line from a page from a 100-level class at a small college. Is it just possible the line is a little bit simplified?
In particular, as stated it's missing something relevant to the point we're supposedly currently discussing - the SR analysis of a Sagnac or Wang device in the moving frame.
But since you provided the link, I would like you to look near the end of that page at the two points of view for lightning striking a train. This example is similar to the Wang device, which is just a variation on a Sagnac device. And I think the author of the page is trying to present SR.
From S's view (likely named for the Stationary frame), light from the lightning strikes arrives at the same time, and from the same distance away. Presumably you would agree this means light travels the same speed in both directions from S's frame of reference.
From M's view (the Moving frame), the light from one lightning strike arrives earlier than the other, but they are still both the same distance away, so M interprets that one lightning strike happened before the other.
SR would say light travels the same speed in both directions from M's frame of reference, too. The example suggests, however, that from M's perspective, light went one direction in a shorter time than the other direction, both over the same distance.
1) So does that mean in M's frame light travels faster in one direction than the other?
2) If not, why not? If so, why, and is this a contradiction with SR?
3) What do you think someone following SR would say about this?
-
So, we have a line from a page from a 100-level class at a small college. Is it just possible the line is a little bit simplified?
Which part of the mantra is a little bit simplified? "it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light"
How would such simplification affect Wang's refutation?
What about John Stewart Bell's version of the mantra in Speakable and unspeakable ...?
As a result it is not possible experimentally to determine which, if either, of two uniformly moving systems, is really at rest, and which is moving.
Wang's Sagnac-devices experimentally detect uniform motion with respect to the preferred frame, thus determining which, if either, of two uniformly moving systems, is really at rest, and which is moving.
:jester:
"There is no preferred frame of reference in the universe which could be distinguished by some experiment." (another falsified relativist mantra, quoted from physics.gmu.edu)
-
In particular, as stated it's missing something relevant to the point we're supposedly currently discussing - the SR analysis of a Sagnac or Wang device in the moving frame.
[...]
This example is similar to the Wang device, which is just a variation on a Sagnac device.
Einstein's train example is about the relativity of simultaneity of events at different locations in space. How is that similar to the Wang device?
-
Einstein's train example is about the relativity of simultaneity of events at different locations in space. How is that similar to the Wang device?
It looks like linear motion to me. We can discuss how it applies to Wang's device after you've answered the numbered questions.
-
It looks like linear motion to me. We can discuss how it applies to Wang's device after you've answered the numbered questions.
No need to discuss Einstein's thought experiment. It's not a matter in dispute. The well known analysis of the situation is in full accord with Special Relativity, not contradicting the postulates.
How could a thought experiment based on the postulates of Special Relativity disprove an experiment which refutes the postulates? You tell me!
-
No need to discuss Einstein's thought experiment. It's not a matter in dispute. The well known analysis of the situation is in full accord with Special Relativity, not contradicting the postulates.
Well, humor me then, and apply your critical thinking skills. I said why in the Moving frame, light appears to go faster in one direction than the other. Can you explain why that is wrong?
This is relevant to the point we're supposedly discussing.
-
Well, humor me then, and apply your critical thinking skills. I said why in the Moving frame, light appears to go faster in one direction than the other. Can you explain why that is wrong?
This is relevant to the point we're supposedly discussing.
I don't agree that light appears to go faster in one direction than the other. There is no measurement of the speed of light involved, neither Susan nor Mary (https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/relativity.html) measures the speed of light, so how could light appear to go at any certain speed at all?
Mary sees one bolt earlier than the other based on the assumptions of Special Relativity, which include the premise that light travels at speed c.
The speed of Light is always isotropic and does not depend on the direction in Special Relativity. And this is with respect to any and all measurements of light. Given Special Relativity, light cannot appear to go faster in one direction than in the other, when measured.
Let me remind you of the fact that, within this debate, I am the critic of Special Relativity, while you defend it. Not the other way around. :fryingpan:
-
Quote from: cassini on July 20, 2019, 01:18:29 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/new-sungenis-film-the-fool-on-the-hill/msg660166/#msg660166)
Indeed this same pope [Pope Pius VII] decreed that anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED.
I can't believe this one. Could you please quote Pope Pius VII?!
Let's be more precise than cassini was:
They are saying the Church cannot stop and priests who want to write or publish a paper on heliocentrism. That's all.
-
Let me remind you of the fact that, within this debate, I am the critic of Special Relativity, while you defend it. Not the other way around.
I am a little surprised by your answer.
M and S appear to be able to say something about the speed of light. To S, the lightning strikes happen the same distance away and light arrives at the same time. So light travels the same speed over the same distance both directions. To M, the lightning strikes happen the same distance away but arrive at different times. This could appear to suggest light did not travel the same speed each way.
But you seem to recognize that within SR, in M's frame, light travels the same speed in either direction. In other words, the train example doesn't exclude SR.
OK, so why not take the train and wrap it around a disk so the lightning strikes are next to each other? The lightning strikes are emitters in a Sagnac device. M is the interferometer. In M's frame, the light from different directions arrives at different times. That would appear to make a fringe shift and the Sagnac effect in M's frame.
So if you accept that it's possible to understand M's frame for the train via SR, why couldn't it also be possible to understand M's frame for the Sagnac loop a similar way?
Do you have any response to my question about Msun squared in Popov's paper?
Also, there are certain effects that relativity explained, so if you did reject relativity, you would need some other way to explain these effects. Two well-known relativity effects are light bending around stars, and the discrepancy in the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury. The latter is almost entirely explained by general relativity (or one of the alternative theories that include the same predictions). I'm not saying SR/GR don't have some issues, but they explain several things. Any subsequent theory will likely need to include SR/GR as limiting cases, like Newtonian physics was a limiting case for SR.
-
Let's be more precise than cassini was:
They are saying the Church cannot stop and priests who want to write or publish a paper on heliocentrism. That's all.
Yes, the cardinals of the Holy Office say that, for certain reasons, the theologians responsible for publication permissions must not reject heliocentristic books for being heliocentristic.
-
I am a little surprised by your answer.
M and S appear to be able to say something about the speed of light. To S, the lightning strikes happen the same distance away and light arrives at the same time. So light travels the same speed over the same distance both directions. To M, the lightning strikes happen the same distance away but arrive at different times. This could appear to suggest light did not travel the same speed each way.
But you seem to recognize that within SR, in M's frame, light travels the same speed in either direction. In other words, the train example doesn't exclude SR.
Yes, sure, why would it? It was conceived by Albert Einstein to illustrate the relativity of simultaneity in Special Relativity. It is consistent with Special Relativity since it does nothing other than illustrate what Special Relativity predicts.
OK, so why not take the train and wrap it around a disk so the lightning strikes are next to each other? The lightning strikes are emitters in a Sagnac device. M is the interferometer. In M's frame, the light from different directions arrives at different times. That would appear to make a fringe shift and the Sagnac effect in M's frame.
So if you accept that it's possible to understand M's frame for the train via SR, why couldn't it also be possible to understand M's frame for the Sagnac loop a similar way?
In the train example, Mary, riding the train, observes the two light arrival events at different times. Susan, standing along the tracks, observes the two light arrival events at the same time. That's because Susan is at rest with respect to the locations of light departure and both light signals arrive after t = L / c such that
t+ - t- = L / c - L / c = 0.
In Sagnac's experiment the observer in the loop frame is at rest with respect to the location of light departure. So her name is Susan Sagnac. Like Susan Tracks, Susan Sagnac sees the two light arrival events at the same time:
t+ - t- = L / c - L / c = 0.
Unfortunately for relativists, in reality, as shown by Georges Sagnac, Susan Sagnac sees a fringe shift, showing her that the two light arrival events occur at different times.
Also, there are certain effects that relativity explained, so if you did reject relativity, you would need some other way to explain these effects.
At this point, we are discussing the question whether Special Relativity is falsified by Sagnac's and Wang's experiments. And I don't need to explain any such effects to show that Special Relativity is indeed falsified.
-
At this point, we are discussing the question whether Special Relativity is falsified by Sagnac's and Wang's experiments. And I don't need to explain any such effects to show that Special Relativity is indeed falsified.
So says you. But that's not what those following SR say. You cannot falsify a theory by applying it incorrectly.
You seem to take for granted that the clockwise and counter-clockwise light pulses are synchronized in the moving frame. Can you demonstrate conclusively that the emissions of counter-rotating pulses are properly "Einstein synchronized" in the moving frame?
Also, I've been thinking about the Wang device. I don't think at relativistic speeds it's completely equivalent to a solidly-rotating Sagnac device. (But at low speeds it's close.)
-
M rev around E :sleep:
-
At this point, we are discussing the question whether Special Relativity is falsified by Sagnac's and Wang's experiments. And I don't need to explain any such effects to show that Special Relativity is indeed falsified.
So says you. But that's not what those following SR say.
So now you are basically saying "But SR followers say that the theory isn't falsified when it's falsified." Why then defend it against falsfication by experiment, if false theories are no problem in the eyes of you occult Pythagoreans?
It is simple, Stanley N: If there is an experiment falsifying a theory, then the theory is falsified. Even if unrelated questions were not answered.
You cannot falsify a theory by applying it incorrectly.
It's not been my idea to compare Sagnac's experiment and the train example. It's been your idea. Now, after I have shown that the comparison refutes your position, you seem to want to quickly forget it.
If you accuse me of incorrect application of the theory, please substantiate your accusation.
You seem to take for granted that the clockwise and counter-clockwise light pulses are synchronized in the moving frame.
Why wouldn't I? Doesn't the mathpages.com author take that for granted too? Don't "most physicists" use mirror interferometers taking that for granted? Didn't you take that for granted when asking for a comparison of the train example and the Sagnac experiment?
Can you demonstrate conclusively that the emissions of counter-rotating pulses are properly "Einstein synchronized" in the moving frame?
Einstein synchronization is a convention for synchronizing clocks at different places by means of signal exchanges. How could that apply to Sagnac's interferometer? Both beams start at one and the same place.
Why are you asking for the moving frame? Isn't none of the frames special in Special Relativity?
Also, I've been thinking about the Wang device. I don't think at relativistic speeds it's completely equivalent to a solidly-rotating Sagnac device. (But at low speeds it's close.)
If Special Relativity is falsified at low speeds, then Special Relativity is falsified.
-
So now you are basically saying "But SR followers say that the theory isn't falsified when it's falsified."
And you're basically saying SR is falsified because an opponent of SR says it's falsified, when it's not.
It's not been my idea to compare Sagnac's experiment and the train example. It's been your idea. Now, after I have shown that the comparison refutes your position, you seem to want to quickly forget it.
If you accuse me of incorrect application of the theory, please substantiate your accusation.
I haven't forgotten the train example at all. And you've agreed already that the train example doesn't refute SR.
You are the one claiming an experiment falsifies a theory. It is your duty to prove that it's a falsification. Part of doing that is to show that you are applying the theory correctly - otherwise you're just falsifying a straw-man.
Sagnac is not a recent experiment. If it were recent, I could understand some debate over interpretation. But SR explained it over a century ago. There were SR explanations of the effect even before Sagnac's experiment. It's not as if nobody ever thought about it before.
Why wouldn't I? Doesn't the mathpages.com author take that for granted too? Don't "most physicists" use mirror interferometers taking that for granted? Didn't you take that for granted when asking for a comparison of the train example and the Sagnac experiment?
Einstein synchronization is a convention for synchronizing clocks at different places by means of signal exchanges. How could that apply to Sagnac's interferometer? Both beams start at one and the same place.
The pulses go in different directions the same distance. Observer M receives these pulses at different times. Does that really sound synchronized from M's perspective?
Why are you asking for the moving frame? Isn't none of the frames special in Special Relativity?
I'm asking about the moving frame because I thought we were talking about the moving frame. Are you talking about something different now?
If Special Relativity is falsified at low speeds, then Special Relativity is falsified.
Granted, but I don't see why you felt the need to say this.
-
The Bureau International des Poid et Mesures (BIPM) is an international organization established by the Metre Convention, through which Member States act together on matters related to measurement science and measurement standards.
https://www.bipm.org/en/about-us/role.html
The list of member states includes virtually all noteworthy states (excluding, of course, the Republic of Vanuatu, where the famous Calamus International University is seated).
https://www.bipm.org/en/about-us/member-states/
Tm BIPM has decided in 1983 to redefine the meter:
1. The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
2. The definition of the metre in force since 1960, based upon the transition between the levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the atom of krypton 86, is abrogated.
https://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/
The consequence of this "wise" decision is that the length of one and the same path in a Sagnac interferometer has no unique value. The length depends on the angular velocity of the device, and on your choice which light beam to use for the measurement.
Furthermore, this ambiguity is not limited to interferometers. The length of all types of paths in virtually all contexts, must be measured using light beams or pulses, which typically yields different values depending on your choice which way round the light is sent.
Such absurdity is produced by relativism!
-
And you're basically saying SR is falsified because an opponent of SR says it's falsified, when it's not.
No, not true. I say that it's falsified because Sagnac's experiment falsified it. Sagnac presents "Proof for the Existence of a Luminiferous Ether", and Einstein calls the luminiferous ether superfluous in his 1905 paper, and presents a theory which contradicts the existence of the luminiferous ether.
On the other hand your strange and incomprehensible reasoning is, that Einstein's Special Relativity could not be falsified by Sagnac as long as Struthio did not show how to explain the "discrepancy in the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury".
I haven't forgotten the train example at all. And you've agreed already that the train example doesn't refute SR.
Yes, the train example is consistent with Special Relativity and does not refute Special Relativity. It's the Sagnac experiment which falsifies Special Relativity. And your recommendation to compare the train example with the Sagnac interferometer illustrates the falsification:
In the train example, the bolts arrive at Susan's place simultaneously and at Mary's place one after the other. In the Sagnac experiment, the detector shows that the beams arrive one after the other for every observer.
Sagnac is not a recent experiment. If it were recent, I could understand some debate over interpretation. But SR explained it over a century ago. There were SR explanations of the effect even before Sagnac's experiment. It's not as if nobody ever thought about it before.
The fact that you can't understand history is just a declaration concerning you're own ability to deal with reality. You can't use it in place of an explanation how Sagnac's result could be consistent with Einstein's idea that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
Sagnac simply disproves Einstein's postulate, and your comment is: That's impossible because then my understanding of how the science establishment works is wrong.
The pulses go in different directions the same distance. Observer M receives these pulses at different times. Does that really sound synchronized from M's perspective?
The question is nonsense. M knows that both beams are split from one of the same beam at the light source. He can reduce the radius of the loop to decrease the fringe shift, which, in the limit, shrinks to zero.
-
On the other hand your strange and incomprehensible reasoning is, that Einstein's Special Relativity could not be falsified by Sagnac as long as Struthio did not show how to explain the "discrepancy in the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury".
I did not say that. The Sagnac effect exists, but it doesn't falsify relativity.
-
Just had a post Christmas day read of this thread. A 5 month delay with a reply has to be a record. Just to bring us all up to date with this most interesting debate, can I ask is it now about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity? Is someone saying it has been falsified and the other saying it has not?
Thanks lads.