Author Topic: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill  (Read 4396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Struthio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • Reputation: +159/-107
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
« Reply #120 on: August 04, 2019, 08:05:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #121 on: August 04, 2019, 08:47:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #122 on: August 05, 2019, 11:12:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.)

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7116
    • Reputation: +444/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #123 on: August 06, 2019, 02:15:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • M rev around E :sleep:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #124 on: August 06, 2019, 04:53:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #125 on: August 06, 2019, 07:21:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #126 on: August 06, 2019, 02:02:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:

    Quote from: BIMP
    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!
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill
    « Reply #127 on: August 07, 2019, 07:11:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16