On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:56:19 AM UTC-4, Lou wrote:
> 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/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space

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

Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that would *not* be considered inertial.

On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> 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. ”
>
Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
the lab frame but some other frame.

On 9/22/23 11:10 AM, Alan B wrote:
> Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that
> would *not* be considered inertial.

The MMX relies on a human observer to take the data -- that puts strong
constraints on where and how the experiment could be performed. I do not
think there are any conditions in which a human can take the data but
the apparatus cannot be analyzed in a locally-inertial frame. This is
basically due to the fact that the instrument re-paints the fringes
every 73 nanoseconds.

[I ignore environmental conditions and limit this to
geometrical conditions (in the sense of GR). For
instance, a small thermal gradient in the room can
mimic a signal (see Dayton Miller's heroic efforts).]

If one modifies the experiment to use an automated data acquisition
system that is suitably robust, then either a sufficiently large
gravitational field or a sufficiently fast rotation could induce errors
such that one cannot analyze it using a locally inertial frame.

Tom Roberts

Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
> 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:
>>>> 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. ”

Right.

Your point?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
> > 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:
> >>>> 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. ”
> Right.
>
> Your point?
>

You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
Wow!...
In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.

> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:05:14 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/22/23 11:10 AM, Alan B wrote:
> > Regarding Michelson-Morley, please give an example of conditions that
> > would *not* be considered inertial.
> The MMX relies on a human observer to take the data -- that puts strong
> constraints on where and how the experiment could be performed. I do not
> think there are any conditions in which a human can take the data but
> the apparatus cannot be analyzed in a locally-inertial frame. This is
> basically due to the fact that the instrument re-paints the fringes
> every 73 nanoseconds.
>
> [I ignore environmental conditions and limit this to
> geometrical conditions (in the sense of GR). For
> instance, a small thermal gradient in the room can
> mimic a signal (see Dayton Miller's heroic efforts).]
>
> If one modifies the experiment to use an automated data acquisition
> system that is suitably robust, then either a sufficiently large
> gravitational field or a sufficiently fast rotation could induce errors
> such that one cannot analyze it using a locally inertial frame.
>
> Tom Roberts

Interesting. I wonder if the same applies for an M-M experiment
with very long arms. Anyways I’ve been wondering what light is expected
to do under SR in non inertial frames.So now is a good time to
ask the expert. If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does
SR predict? Or at least what would you as a relativist expect.
A null result or a fringe shift?

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > 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. ”
> >
> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> the lab frame but some other frame.

So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
Prove this.

Lou wrote:

> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
>> the lab frame but some other frame.
>
> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also rotating
> relative to the Sagnac lab? Prove this.

what ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｒｏｔａｔｉｎｇ you don't undrestand??

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 17:52:58 UTC+1, Verdell Belobrovkin wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> >> the lab frame but some other frame.
> >
> > So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also rotating
> > relative to the Sagnac lab? Prove this.
> what ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｒｏｔａｔｉｎｇ you don't undrestand??

If you think that the Sagnac x is in an imaginary non rotating ‘inertial’ frame
and isn’t in the non inertial rotating lab frame. Then according
to your bizarre logic if I put a ring gyro onto the lab floor then
it shouldn’t be able to measure the labs rotation around the earth
because according to SR.. the gyro is not in the lab.
But ring gyros DO measure the lab/earths rotation when on the lab floor.
Obviously the Sagnac x is not in an imaginary non rotating ‘inertial’
frame. Empirical observations prove it is the non inertial lab frame.

On 9/23/2023 9:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
>>> 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:
>>>>>> 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. ”
>> Right.
>>
>> Your point?
>>
>
> You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
> Wow!...
> In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
> In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.

I already explained this to you. The Sagnac device is rotating in an
inertial frame which is not the lab frame.

Don't blame Paul for your inability to understand this simple concept.
Blame your low IQ instead.

The inertial frame the Sagnac device is in is typically defined such
that the origin is at the center point of the Sagnac rotation axis with
one of the frame's axes along the Sagnac's rotational axis.
>
>
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> 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. ”
>>>
>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
>> the lab frame but some other frame.
>
> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> Prove this.

I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!

So three frames.

Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
>>> 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. “

Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.

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

Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.

>
> You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
> Wow!...
> In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
> In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.

Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:

In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.

Right?

If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
Case closed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
> > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
> >>> 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. “
> Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
> >>>
> >>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
> >
> > You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
> > Wow!...
> > In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
> > In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
> Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
>
> In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
> In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
>
> Right?

If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.

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

Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
False
Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
rotation) is not in the lab frame.
Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
and Nature if you care to check.
The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.

> If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
> Case closed.

I do get it. You can’t stand empirical evidence from ring gyros showing that
the Sagnac x is in the non inertial rotating lab frame.
Dream on Paul.

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> 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. ”
> >>>
> >> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> >> the lab frame but some other frame.
> >
> > So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > Prove this.
> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
>
> So three frames.

You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?

On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> 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. ”
>>>>>
>>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
>>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
>>>
>>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
>>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
>>> Prove this.
>> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
>> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
>> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
>> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
>> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
>> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
>> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
>> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
>>
>> So three frames.
>
> You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?

I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.

The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.

You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.

On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
>>>>> 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. “
>> Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
>> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
>>>
>>> You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
>>> Wow!...
>>> In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
>>> In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
>> Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
>>
>> In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
>> In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
>>
>> Right?
>
> If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
> But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
>
> Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> the Sagnac experiment. “
> True

Yes.
>
> Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> False
> Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
> rotation) is not in the lab frame.

He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.

> Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
> the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.

The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
the origin).

> My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
> and Nature if you care to check.
> The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
> will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
> Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
> non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.

That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
how they are used before you come back (ideally never).
>
>
>> If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
>> Case closed.
>
> I do get it.

No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
with relativity cranks).

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> 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. ”
> >>>>>
> >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> >>>
> >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> >>> Prove this.
> >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> >>
> >> So three frames.
> >
> > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
>
> The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
>
> You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.

It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
"an" inertial frame.

So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
general form, ....

Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".

That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
that they do, some, and don't, others.

It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".

Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
_and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".

On 9/23/23 8:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does SR predict? Or at
> least what would you as a relativist expect. A null result or a
> fringe shift?

If one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
to re-align it. Once aligned, the image would be stable and not move
visibly as it rotated. As I said before, one would need a robust,
automatic data collection system, such as a movie camera capable of
withstanding the enormous forces involved.

One could not compare to other rotation rates, because one would have to
re-align for each. Of course for a high enough rotation rate the
apparatus would destroy itself.

This is, of course, no longer the MMX.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 23:24:36 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> 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. ”
> >>>>>
> >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> >>>
> >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> >>> Prove this.
> >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> >>
> >> So three frames.
> >
> > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames.

Nope. Up to SR true, but since your GR shit your physics
is unable to specify even a single frame.

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:33:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 4:11 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:00:27 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 23.09.2023 15:19, skrev Lou:
> >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 19:38:22 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 22.09.2023 14:56, skrev Lou:
> >>>>> 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. “
> >> Statement 1) A horse isn't a ruminant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> >> Statement 2) A cow is a ruminant.
> >>>
> >>> You need me to explain the contradiction in your 2 above quotes?
> >>> Wow!...
> >>> In quote 1 you claim the Sagnac lab frame isn’t inertial.
> >>> In quote 2 you claim the Sagnac lab frame is inertial.
> >> Quite. A clear contradiction. Just like this:
> >>
> >> In statement 1 I claim that a horse isn't a ruminant.
> >> In statement 2 I claim that a horse is a ruminant.
> >>
> >> Right?
> >
> > If you hate facts and prefer delusional fantasy...yes.
> > But heres some real physics...not fairy tales by Albert.
> >
> > Paul Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > the Sagnac experiment. “
> > True
> Yes.
> >
> > Paul Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.. ”
> > False
> > Fact is you have no evidence to prove the Sagnac x ( Ie its axis of
> > rotation) is not in the lab frame.
> He wasn't talking about the lab frame here. He is talking about an
> inertial frame. Which from the previous statement, isn't the lab frame.
> > Whereas I have lots of peer reviewed empirical evidence showing
> > the Sagnac experiment IS in a non inertial lab frame.
> The Sagnac experiment is in *every* frame. You don't understand frames.
> Typically here, when someone writes "X is in the Y frame" it really
> means the Y frame is the frame in which X is stationary (and often at
> the origin).

Obfuscating Blarney. It is irrelevent how many frames Sagnac exists in. There is
only one frame where its axis doesn’t move in.....the lab frame.

> > My evidence is published in many reputable sources including wiki
> > and Nature if you care to check.
> > The evidence being that if you put a ring gyro in a lab....The gyro
> > will measure the labs rotation around the earths axis.
> > Something it couldn’t do if the gyro was in an imaginary drug induced
> > non rotating inertial frame and not in the rotating lab frame.
> That paragraph shows that you simply don't understand how frames work in
> physics. You need to slink off somewhere and LEARN what frames are and
> how they are used before you come back (ideally never).

The fact is you just cannot supply a single piece of evidence
to prove that Sagnac experiment isn’t in the lab frame.
Nor can you supply a single piece of evidence to prove your fatuous claim
that Sagnac isn’t rotating around the earths axis ( what you pretend is
the imaginary non existent inertial frame)

> >
> >
> >> If you don't get it, I am not going to explain.
> >> Case closed.
> >
> > I do get it.
> No, you don't. You don't understand frames at all. (very common problem
> with relativity cranks).

Said the fact free relativist who still can’t explain why the Sagnac
gyro when placed unmoving in a lab....still measures the earths rotation.
It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots woke
up and smelled the coffee. Fact is Volney old boy...it doesn’t matter
how much you pray to your Albert icon and ask for forgiveness...
the earth still DOES rotate around its axis. Proof is that a optical
gyro Sagnac measures this rotation. A rotation relativists say
doesn’t exist🤣
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 04:32:31 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/23/23 8:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> > If MMX were to rotate fast enough,...what does SR predict? Or at
> > least what would you as a relativist expect. A null result or a
> > fringe shift?
> If one rotated the MMX interferometer at some high rate, one would have
> to re-align it. Once aligned, the image would be stable and not move
> visibly as it rotated. As I said before, one would need a robust,
> automatic data collection system, such as a movie camera capable of
> withstanding the enormous forces involved.
>
> One could not compare to other rotation rates, because one would have to
> re-align for each. Of course for a high enough rotation rate the
> apparatus would destroy itself.
>
> This is, of course, no longer the MMX.
>
> Tom Roberts

In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
non inertial frames.
How about this experiment:
Insert into an optical fibre ring gyro two mirrors back to back
at the middle point of the ring loop. So instead of each counter rotating beam
going completely around the closed loop ring and being recombined to see if
there is a change in the interference pattern. The light beam on each counter
rotating path gets interrupted 1/2 way and reflected back to be recombined
at the interference plane.
Essentially converting a ring gyro into a useable MMX experiment.
I would be interested to see what your thoughts are on
this possibility.
Because if this indeed is feasible technically then I would have thought
this would be a good way to test SR. Because when rotated at hi speeds
if it still gave a null result. Then this would not only not be consistent
with SR. It would also answer the question as to : Does light travel at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames?

On 9/24/23 8:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non
> inertial frames.

NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.

There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems. For
some of them the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to the
coordinates, for some the (vacuum) speed of light is c in some
directions and not c in other directions, and for some the (vacuum)
speed of light is never c. But in EVERY case, once one is given the
relationship between the non-inertial coordinates and some (any) set of
inertial coordinates, one can then calculate the (vacuum) speed of light
relative to the non-inertial coordinates. Of course in virtually all
cases such a calculation is of no interest or use.

> [...]

I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>>>> 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. ”
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> > >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> > >>>
> > >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > >>> Prove this.
> > >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> > >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> > >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> > >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> > >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> > >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> > >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> > >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> > >>
> > >> So three frames.
> > >
> > > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> > I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> > physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> > in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> > Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> > three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
> >
> > The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> > others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> > specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> > velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> > one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> > some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> > another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> > from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> > frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
> >
> > You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
> It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
> then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
> to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
> they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
> what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
> "an" inertial frame.
>
> So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
> general form, ....
>
> Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
> then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
> is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
> there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
>
> That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
> that they do, some, and don't, others.
>
> It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
> an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
>
> Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
> _and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
> the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
> is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00033-021-01507-9
"Pesudomomentum: origins and consequences", 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/abs/on-the-wave-momentum-myth/5BAA0BC91100E1EF54A33200744F05C1
"On the 'wave momentum' myth", 1981

So, at least some aspects of "rest exchange momentum" are coming up.

On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:17:22 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/24/23 8:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> > In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in non
> > inertial frames.
> NONSENSE! Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything like
> that. You REALLY need to learn how to read.
>
> There are an infinity of different non-inertial coordinate systems.

An example?

> I have no interest in pandering to your dreams and fantasies.

You have only interest in pandering your dreams
of fantasies, as expected from a relativistic clown.