Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".

What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?

Cheers,
LEO_MMX

On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?

That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
inertial frame?

The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
the experiment.

Example: the MMX.
The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
inertial frame.

Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> > What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> inertial frame?
>
> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> the experiment.
>
> Example: the MMX.
> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> inertial frame.
>
> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
>
> Tom Roberts

Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?

On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> > What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".

> > What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?

Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.

> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> inertial frame?
>
> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> the experiment.
>
> Example: the MMX.
> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> inertial frame.
>
> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
>
> Tom Roberts

I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
around earths axis will either:
A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
Or,
B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.

And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.

On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
>> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
>> inertial frame?
>>
>> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
>> the experiment.
>>
>> Example: the MMX.
>> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
>> inertial frame.
>>
>> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
>> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?

Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> >>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> >>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> >> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> >> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> >> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> >> inertial frame?
> >>
> >> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> >> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> >> the experiment.
> >>
> >> Example: the MMX.
> >> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> >> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> >> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> >> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> >> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> >> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> >> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> >> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> >> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> >> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> >> inertial frame.
> >>
> >> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> >> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> >> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> >> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> >> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> >> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> >> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
> Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
> inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.

How about Sagnac?

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 13:53:52 UTC+1, LEO_MMX wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:57:49 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > >>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> > >>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > >> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> > >> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> > >> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> > >> inertial frame?
> > >>
> > >> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> > >> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> > >> the experiment.
> > >>
> > >> Example: the MMX.
> > >> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> > >> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> > >> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> > >> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> > >> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> > >> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> > >> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> > >> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> > >> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> > >> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> > >> inertial frame.
> > >>
> > >> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> > >> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> > >> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> > >> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> > >> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> > >> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> > >> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
> > >>
> > >> Tom Roberts
> > >
> > > Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
> > Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
> > inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
> How about Sagnac?

You are wasting your time.
It doesn’t matter to relativists. You could have Sagnac spinning around another
star every few seconds in a rapidly spinning binary star system..
And the relativist will still pretend the experiment isn’t rotating and
be in an inertial frame.

On 9/20/2023 8:53 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/18/2023 2:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:

>>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?

>> Since the ground is "inertial enough" for treating the MMX apparatus as
>> inertial, as Tom just said, LEO would also be sufficient.
>
> How about Sagnac?

Sagnac devices are designed to measure rotation, they're intended for
that. Large sensitive Sagnacs can detect the rotation of the earth. So
the sensitivity of the Sagnac has to be compared to the earth's rotation
to answer that.

Sagnac devices are similar to MMX except that the Sagnac has an area
within its loop necessary for rotation detection while MMX has a zero
enclosed area making it insensitive to rotation.

On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
>
>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
>>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
>
> Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
> it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
> version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
>
>> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
>> inertial frame?
>>
>> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
>> the experiment.
>>
>> Example: the MMX.
>> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
>> inertial frame.
>>
>> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
>> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>
> I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
> down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
> I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
> rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
> But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
> current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
> around earths axis will either:
> A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
> constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
> Or,
> B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
>
> And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.

You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.

A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
seem to bother them.

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> >>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> >>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> >>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> >
> >>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> >>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
> >
> > Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
> > it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
> > version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
> >
> >> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> >> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> >> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> >> inertial frame?
> >>
> >> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> >> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> >> the experiment.
> >>
> >> Example: the MMX.
> >> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> >> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> >> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> >> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> >> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> >> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> >> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> >> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> >> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> >> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> >> inertial frame.
> >>
> >> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> >> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> >> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> >> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> >> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> >> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> >> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> >
> > I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
> > have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
> > down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
> > I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
> > rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
> > But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
> > enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
> > rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
> > current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
> > around earths axis will either:
> > A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
> > constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
> > Or,
> > B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
> >
> > And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
> You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
> that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
>
> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
> seem to bother them.

In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?

On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
>>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
>>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
>>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
>>>
>>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
>>>>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
>>>
>>> Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
>>> it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
>>> version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
>>>
>>>> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
>>>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
>>>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
>>>> inertial frame?
>>>>
>>>> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
>>>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
>>>> the experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Example: the MMX.
>>>> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
>>>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
>>>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
>>>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
>>>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
>>>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
>>>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
>>>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
>>>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
>>>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
>>>> inertial frame.
>>>>
>>>> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
>>>> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
>>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
>>>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
>>>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
>>>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
>>>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
>>> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
>>> down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
>>> I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
>>> rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
>>> But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
>>> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
>>> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
>>> current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
>>> around earths axis will either:
>>> A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
>>> constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
>>> Or,
>>> B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
>>>
>>> And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
>> You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
>> that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
>>
>> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
>> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
>> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
>> seem to bother them.
>
> In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
> if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
> speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?

Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
by rotation.

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> >>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> >>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> >>>
> >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> >>>>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
> >>> it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
> >>> version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
> >>>
> >>>> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> >>>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> >>>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> >>>> inertial frame?
> >>>>
> >>>> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> >>>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> >>>> the experiment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Example: the MMX.
> >>>> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> >>>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> >>>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> >>>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> >>>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> >>>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> >>>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> >>>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> >>>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> >>>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> >>>> inertial frame.
> >>>>
> >>>> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> >>>> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> >>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> >>>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> >>>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> >>>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> >>>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
> >>> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
> >>> down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
> >>> I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
> >>> rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
> >>> But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
> >>> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
> >>> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
> >>> current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
> >>> around earths axis will either:
> >>> A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
> >>> constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed...
> >>> Or,
> >>> B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
> >>>
> >>> And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
> >> You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
> >> that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
> >>
> >> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
> >> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
> >> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
> >> seem to bother them.
> >
> > In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
> > if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
> > speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
> Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
> effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
> area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
> by rotation.

I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
frame non inertial.
As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:52:23 PM UTC-4, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > >>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough"..
> > >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > >>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough"..
> > >>>
> > >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > >>>>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
> > >>> it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
> > >>> version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
> > >>>
> > >>>> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> > >>>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> > >>>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> > >>>> inertial frame?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> > >>>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> > >>>> the experiment.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Example: the MMX.
> > >>>> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> > >>>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> > >>>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> > >>>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> > >>>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> > >>>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> > >>>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> > >>>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> > >>>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> > >>>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> > >>>> inertial frame.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> > >>>> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> > >>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> > >>>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> > >>>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> > >>>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> > >>>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tom Roberts
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
> > >>> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
> > >>> down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
> > >>> I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
> > >>> rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
> > >>> But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
> > >>> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
> > >>> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
> > >>> current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
> > >>> around earths axis will either:
> > >>> A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
> > >>> constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
> > >>> Or,
> > >>> B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
> > >>>
> > >>> And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
> > >> You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
> > >> that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
> > >>
> > >> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
> > >> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
> > >> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
> > >> seem to bother them.
> > >
> > > In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
> > > if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
> > > speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
> > Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
> > effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
> > area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
> > by rotation.
> I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> frame non inertial.
> As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
> in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
> isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
> back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
> and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
> around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
> relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
> You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
> to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.

Right on Lou!

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-7, Alan B wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:52:23 PM UTC-4, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > >> On 9/19/2023 4:41 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > >>> On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:57:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/17/23 9:58 AM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > >>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> > > >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > > >>>>> Pretty sure everyone says terrestrial MMX's are "inertial enough".
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> What would *Not* be "inertial enough regarding MMX?
> > > >>>>> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding Michelson-Morley?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Maybe if the experiment was orbiting earth so that it didn’t rotate relative to the sun
> > > >>> it wouldn’t be effected by the earth rotation around its axis as the lab
> > > >>> version of MMX does,...but otherwise I don’t think it would make any difference.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> That is poorly phrased; a much better question is: given an experiment
> > > >>>> with apparatus at rest in a non-inertial frame (e.g. on the surface of
> > > >>>> the earth), when can it be analyzed using SR as if it were at rest in an
> > > >>>> inertial frame?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The answer is: when the error in considering the apparatus to be at rest
> > > >>>> in an inertial frame is much smaller than the measurement resolution of
> > > >>>> the experiment.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Example: the MMX.
> > > >>>> The interferometer arms were 11 meters long, so it takes light about 73
> > > >>>> ns to go out-and-back. A locally-inertial frame at rest wrt the
> > > >>>> interferometer when the light ray leaves the source will fall 0.5*g*t^2
> > > >>>> during time t, or about 1.2E-16 meters as the light travels to the
> > > >>>> observer. The resolution of the interferometer is about 0.1 fringe of
> > > >>>> visible light, or about 5E-8 meters -- more than ten million times
> > > >>>> larger than the error due to considering it to be at rest in an inertial
> > > >>>> frame. A similar calculation using the rotations of the earth, the
> > > >>>> galaxy, and the interferometer come to the same conclusion. So one can
> > > >>>> analyze the MMX using SR, as if the interferometer is at rest in an
> > > >>>> inertial frame.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Example: particle experiments at the LHC.
> > > >>>> The CMS apparatus is 21x15x15 meters, and the particles of interest
> > > >>>> travel at speeds indistinguishable from c, radially outward from the
> > > >>>> crossing point at the center of the detector; their measurement
> > > >>>> resolution is no better than 1E-6 meter. So essentially the same
> > > >>>> calculation holds; one can analyze CMS using SR, as if the experiment is
> > > >>>> at rest in an inertial frame. Ditto for the other LHC experiments.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Tom Roberts
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I was under the impression that the most recent MMX type experiments
> > > >>> have increased the sensitivity by up to >1,000,000 times. Or as Wiki says
> > > >>> down to 10-17 accuracy compared to .02 for the original MMX.
> > > >>> I would have thought this was enough to detect a fringe shift due to earths
> > > >>> rotation, seeing as the nm is only 10-9
> > > >>> But regardless it seems that your above argument regarding not sensitive
> > > >>> enough MMX experiments confirming SR and its “inertial” frames is on
> > > >>> rather shaky ground. Because it relies on one of two outcomes. Which is that
> > > >>> current or future experiments that are sensitive enough to detect the labs rotation
> > > >>> around earths axis will either:
> > > >>> A) still give a null result which means that isotropic
> > > >>> constant speeds relative to a *non inertial* source will be confirmed..
> > > >>> Or,
> > > >>> B) a fringe shift will be observed, and an aether will have been detected.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And both of the two above possible outcomes, A & B,... are not consistent with SR.
> > > >> You forgot C) A tiny fringe shift is detected, which exactly matches
> > > >> that predicted by the known rotation of the earth.
> > > >>
> > > >> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
> > > >> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
> > > >> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
> > > >> seem to bother them.
> > > >
> > > > In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
> > > > if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
> > > > speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
> > > Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
> > > effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
> > > area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
> > > by rotation.
> > I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
> > Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > frame non inertial.
> > As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
> > in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
> > isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
> > back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough. Yet you then contradict this above
> > and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
> > around earths axis. But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
> > relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
> > You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
> > to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
> Right on Lou!

Where has a frames steady motion have been measured?
As rule motion is unsteady. Where are your measured inertial frames?
Gravity changes all motion from steady...

On 9/20/2023 2:52 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

>>>> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
>>>> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
>>>> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
>>>> seem to bother them.
>>>
>>> In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
>>> if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
>>> speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
>> Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
>> effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
>> area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
>> by rotation.
>
> I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame.

Inertial to within an error small enough that it doesn't affect the
outcome. This is true for *any* science experiment, not just relativity
experiments. There are effects that are assumed to be zero that are not
exactly zero, but are so small that they don't affect the outcome.

> And the path difference
> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> frame non inertial.

Rotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute
rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.

Remember the rotation of the earth (at the poles) is 0.000694 rpm. How
sensitive is the Sagnac device, can it detect the 0.000694 rpm from the
earth's rotation?

> As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
> in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
> isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
> back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough.

A properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
light paths so the light paths cancel out rotation effects. If the
equivalent included area is nonzero, it will function as a Sagnac device
so will potentially detect any rotation. I say 'potentially' because it
depends on how sensitive it is. A MMX device's sensitivity is a fraction
of a fringe shift, so for earth's rotation you'll have to
calculate/measure what the included area is, and what 0.000694 rpm and
that area produces when measured in fringe shifts.

I think Tom R. already answered for the original MMX device and came up
with a fringe shift far smaller than a fringe shift so the rotation is
unmeasurable.

Same for any science measurement. Did that butterfly farting in China
affect my measurements? How large is the vibration from the sound of the
fart when it reaches my lab device? Does that vibration level affect my
measurement?

> Yet you then contradict this above
> and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
> around earths axis.

I don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
have a zero included equivalent area so that it is not sensitive to
earth's rotation, but it's likely that cannot be done perfectly so that
they either tune it out or filter it out of the output . Since the
frequencies LIGO is interested in are ones in the audio range, while
earth's rotation is 0.0000116 Hz, it is easily ignored/filtered out.

> But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
> relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.

Again, it depends on how well they get the enclosed area to be 0 so it
doesn't act as a Sagnac device detecting earth's rotation. I suspect you
have no clue what that even means.

> You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
> to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.

Either they get the enclosed area of the light path loop small enough so
that rotation of the earth or other rotations are unmeasurable by the
device or they don't, and there is a Sagnac signal present.

A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area and will be
unaffected by the rotation of the earth.

Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> frame non inertial.

The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment.

Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 9/18/23 1:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding
> Michelson-Morley?

If one put an MMX-like interferometer, with its 11-meter light paths,
into LEO, the error due to assuming it is at rest in an inertial frame
would still be VASTLY smaller than its measurement resolution. If one
used modern techniques that are thousands to millions of times more
accurate, then a complete error analysis would be required, which cannot
be performed without details of the equipment.

> How about Sagnac?

Similarly negligible for the MMX interferometer.

If one used light paths involving mirrors many kilometers away, then a
careful error analysis would be required, and the Sagnac effect would be
part of it.

Tom Roberts

On 9/20/23 1:52 PM, Lou wrote:
> You can’t have it both ways.

That's just your personal ignorance talking.

> Either experiments to date are sensitive enough to be affected by
> earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.

It depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
turns of optical fiber can easily measure the rotation of the earth. The
most accurate repetitions of the MMX, and MMX-like experiments, are
deliberately constructed to be insensitive to the rotation of the earth.

Tom Roberts

On 9/20/23 8:46 AM, Lou wrote:
> You could have Sagnac spinning around another star every few seconds
> in a rapidly spinning binary star system.. And the relativist will
> still pretend the experiment isn’t rotating and be in an inertial
> frame.

That is just plain wrong. I have repeatedly explained that one can
analyze an experiment as if it were at rest in an inertial frame ONLY if
the error in doing that is much smaller than the measurement resolution.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about
it. Also: stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/20/23 1:52 PM, Lou wrote:
> > You can’t have it both ways.
> That's just your personal ignorance talking.

> > Either experiments to date are sensitive enough to be affected by
> > earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
> It depends IN DETAIL on the experiment. A fiber gyroscope with many
> turns of optical fiber can easily measure the rotation of the earth. The
> most accurate repetitions of the MMX, and MMX-like experiments, are
> deliberately constructed to be insensitive to the rotation of the earth.
>
But the latest MMX style experiment are sensitive enough to detect
earths rotation. As you earlier said that the original MMX at 0.02 needed to
be a million times more sensitive to detect earths rotation. Well...the
latest MMX are 10-17 more sensitive. More than enough.
But they dont detect any shift due to rotation. Proving that contrary
to your claims..light *can* travel isotropically at constant speeds relative to
a source in non inertial frames.
You and Volney know this..so now you change your argument from
old MMX not being sensitive enough....to saying no matter how
sensitive any new MMX is...they are built specially to not detect
earths rotation!!
Pretty strange claim considering you just recently pretended
sensitive enough MMX could detect rotation.
Can’t have it both ways Tom.

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> > Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > frame non inertial.
> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> the Sagnac experiment.
>

Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
in what they call the inertial” lab frame?

> Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
>
> --
> Paul

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 22:26:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/20/2023 2:52 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:36:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/20/2023 2:16 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:16:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>
> >>>> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area so it would be
> >>>> insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer really is A. LIGO devices
> >>>> are really oversized MMX devices and the rotation of the earth doesn't
> >>>> seem to bother them.
> >>>
> >>> In that case why do you object to me saying in another thread that MMX,
> >>> if sensitive enough as you say LIGO is, will still measure isotropic constant
> >>> speeds of light on both paths relative to the source in a non inertial frame?
> >> Because if the effective enclosed area of the light beams is zero, the
> >> effects cancel and rotation isn't detectable. If the effective enclosed
> >> area is nonzero, you have a Sagnac device instead which will be affected
> >> by rotation.
> >
> > I think we are conflating two seperate points here. Sagnac. And MMX.
> > Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame.
> Inertial to within an error small enough that it doesn't affect the
> outcome. This is true for *any* science experiment, not just relativity
> experiments. There are effects that are assumed to be zero that are not
> exactly zero, but are so small that they don't affect the outcome.
> > And the path difference
> > calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > frame non inertial.
> Rotation is absolute. A Sagnac device will display its own absolute
> rotation, and that rotation will include the rotation of the earth.
>
> Remember the rotation of the earth (at the poles) is 0.000694 rpm. How
> sensitive is the Sagnac device, can it detect the 0.000694 rpm from the
> earth's rotation?
> > As for my seperate point in my last post about MMX ...You and others have said
> > in other threads that my contention that ‘*light travels at constant speeds
> > isotropically in non inertial (rotating source ) frames*’...has no evidence to
> > back it up. Because MMX isn’t sensitive enough.
> A properly made MMX will have zero equivalent included area inside the
> light paths so the light paths cancel out rotation effects. If the
> equivalent included area is nonzero, it will function as a Sagnac device
> so will potentially detect any rotation. I say 'potentially' because it
> depends on how sensitive it is. A MMX device's sensitivity is a fraction
> of a fringe shift, so for earth's rotation you'll have to
> calculate/measure what the included area is, and what 0.000694 rpm and
> that area produces when measured in fringe shifts.
>
> I think Tom R. already answered for the original MMX device and came up
> with a fringe shift far smaller than a fringe shift so the rotation is
> unmeasurable.
>
> Same for any science measurement. Did that butterfly farting in China
> affect my measurements? How large is the vibration from the sound of the
> fart when it reaches my lab device? Does that vibration level affect my
> measurement?
> > Yet you then contradict this above
> > and say that LIGO *is* sensitive enough to be affected by the setups 24/7 rotation
> > around earths axis.
> I don't know the details of LIGO. Certainly they will do their best to
> have a zero included equivalent area so that it is not sensitive to
> earth's rotation, but it's likely that cannot be done perfectly so that
> they either tune it out or filter it out of the output . Since the
> frequencies LIGO is interested in are ones in the audio range, while
> earth's rotation is 0.0000116 Hz, it is easily ignored/filtered out.

Actually you mentioned in an earlier thread that LIGO acts
as an oversize MMX. That isn’t really correct.
MMX only works if you can rotate the arms so that both
arms can be pointed in various directions to test for any aether
effects. LIGO arms can’t be rotated.

> > But still shows lightspeed is at constant speeds isotropically
> > relative to the source in this admitted rotating LIGO frame.
> Again, it depends on how well they get the enclosed area to be 0 so it
> doesn't act as a Sagnac device detecting earth's rotation. I suspect you
> have no clue what that even means.
> > You can’t have it both ways. Either experiments to date are sensitive enough
> > to be affected by earths axial rotation. Or they aren’t.
> Either they get the enclosed area of the light path loop small enough so
> that rotation of the earth or other rotations are unmeasurable by the
> device or they don't, and there is a Sagnac signal present.
>
> A "perfect" MMX device will have a zero enclosed area and will be
> unaffected by the rotation of the earth.

If a “perfect”, MMX device could not be effected by earths rotation.
Then it couldn’t detect any aether even if there was one. Defeating the
entire purpose of MMX. Because if there were an aether,
earths axial rotation would also give a different light speed on each arm.
Not just earths motion around sun.
(The E-W arm would always give a slightly slower light speed than the N-S
arm due to earths axial rotation in an aether model)

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:38:34 AM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/18/23 1:18 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > Would Low Earth Orbit be considered inertial or not regarding
> > Michelson-Morley?
> If one put an MMX-like interferometer, with its 11-meter light paths,
> into LEO, the error due to assuming it is at rest in an inertial frame
> would still be VASTLY smaller than its measurement resolution. If one
> used modern techniques that are thousands to millions of times more
> accurate, then a complete error analysis would be required, which cannot
> be performed without details of the equipment.
>
> > How about Sagnac?
>
> Similarly negligible for the MMX interferometer.
>
> If one used light paths involving mirrors many kilometers away, then a
> careful error analysis would be required, and the Sagnac effect would be
> part of it.
>
> Tom Roberts

https://www.academia.edu/89498223/Is_the_Velocity_of_Light_Isotropic_in_the_Frame_of_the_Rotating_Earth

Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
>>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
>>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
>>> frame non inertial.

>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
>> the Sagnac experiment.
>>
>
> Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?

They don't.
They calculate it in an inertial frame.
The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

>
>> Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> > On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> >>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> >>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> >>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> >>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> >>> frame non inertial.
>
> >> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> >> the Sagnac experiment.
> >>
> >
> > Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> > in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
> They don't.
> They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
>

Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:

Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
the Sagnac experiment. “

Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”

> See:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
> >
> >> Any good IFOG or ring-laser can detect the rotation of the Earth.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/