On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
> 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.

The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
are not perpendicular.

But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
>
>>> 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.

What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
of the earth frame. Your point is....?

> 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)

You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
the lab 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.

No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
showed you just don't understand them.

> It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots

Say what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?

These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like
engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
from using Newtonian approximations are too large.

> 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...

Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such
insanity in so many crackpots?

> 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🤣

WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???

> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:26:41 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
> > 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..
> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
> are not perpendicular.
>
> But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
> >
> >>> 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.
> What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
> > 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)
> You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
> the lab 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.
> No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
> showed you just don't understand them.
> > It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots
> Say what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?
>
> These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like
> engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
> from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
> > 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...
> Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
> scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such
> insanity in so many crackpots?
> > 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🤣
> WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
>
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

It's a rotating frame, so the ants on it don't necessarily know the
difference between it and a flat plane.

A rotating frame is an inertial frame of course,
though it's a rotating frame and has a free central moment.

Sagnac effect or the ring laser gyro, is usually pointed
at that "definitely Casimir and same as Brehmsstrahlung".

These things are usually pointed at as "Casimir effect".
(The light-like behavior of laser ring gyros the Sagnac effect.)

A rotating frame is a linear frame in the frames that contain it,
but a linear frame to the frames it contains in their orbits.

The rotating and linear frames are fundamentally different only
as of matters of perspective, though, all of them.

On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:17:22 UTC+1, 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. 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.

Yes Tom. To paraphrase Orwell:
All theories are equal. But some are more equal than others.
Like Relativity. Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission
model. But it can sometimes for relativity. When it’s convenient for
dishonest pseudoscientific relativists.

On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
> > 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..
> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
> are not perpendicular.
>
> But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
> >
> >>> 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.
> What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
> of the earth frame. Your point is....?

My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!

> > 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)
> You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
> the lab frame?

Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
same. And that both rotate.

Let me guess. Under relativity you can make a completely nonsensical
statement and when pressed, relativity allows you to pretend you never
made that claim.

> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> No, you were the one whimpering about when I mentioned 3 frames. It
> showed you just don't understand them.
> > It’s about time you relativist flat earth Ptolemaic idiots
> Say what? Who is trying to revive dead for 100+ years ancient science?
>
> These days, among scientists, relativity is settled science, more like
> engineering, plug in the figures in the right equations if the errors
> from using Newtonian approximations are too large.
> > 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...
> Another extremely common crank mental defect. Cranks think normal
> scientists "worship" Einstein/relativity is a cult/etc. What drives such
> insanity in so many crackpots?
> > 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🤣
> WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???

You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
(Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?

Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
observers. Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
in any source frame . Like MMX. And if anyone points out this
illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
“It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”

It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed up
by empirical observations.

>
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0588-y#:~:text=When%20the%20gyroscope%27s%20axis%20is,rotation%20into%20a%20frequency%20measurement.

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:36:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

> In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
> non inertial frames.

Crank,

In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.

On 9/25/23 8:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
> lab.

Sure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the
rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
sensitive enough, but modern fiber gyroscopes can be.

[#] I presume your "rotating lab" is at rest on the
surface of the (rotating) earth.

> Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab is in
> an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!

You REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said
that, and you just made it up (without any justification).

I have said several times that one can analyze an experiment at rest on
the surface of the earth as if it were at rest in a (locally) inertial
frame IF AND ONLY IF the error due to that approximation is much smaller
than the measurement resolution. This clearly depends on the specific
instrument and measurement technique used. So the MMX, and many
repetitions of it, can be analyzed as if they were at rest in a locally
inertial frame; so can the original Sagnac interferometer; modern fiber
gyroscopes cannot.

> Arguing with you relativists is pointless.

Yes, because YOU CANNOT READ.

> Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
> But it can sometimes for relativity.

NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to
read.

Light does not travel in vacuum with speed c relative to rotating
coordinates. But any measurement has a resolution, and if the error in
considering the rotating coordinates to be inertial is much smaller
than the measurement resolution, then one can analyze the experiment as
if it were at rest in an inertial (non-rotating) frame.

Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it cannot.
This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the different
experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity and rotation.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 19:53:21 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/25/23 8:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> > the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as it sits unmoving in the rotating
> > lab.
> Sure, IF AND ONLY IF the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the
> rotation of the earth [#]. Sagnac's original instrument was not
> sensitive enough, but modern fiber gyroscopes can be.
>
> [#] I presume your "rotating lab" is at rest on the
> surface of the (rotating) earth.
> > Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab is in
> > an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
> You REALLY have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody but you has said
> that, and you just made it up (without any justification).
>
> I have said several times that one can analyze an experiment at rest on
> the surface of the earth as if it were at rest in a (locally) inertial
> frame IF AND ONLY IF the error due to that approximation is much smaller
> than the measurement resolution. This clearly depends on the specific
> instrument and measurement technique used. So the MMX, and many
> repetitions of it, can be analyzed as if they were at rest in a locally
> inertial frame; so can the original Sagnac interferometer; modern fiber
> gyroscopes cannot.

Above Blarney translated into English:
‘Light can’t travel at c in rotating frames unless the experiment is sensitive
enough to measure if the light is travelling at c in the rotating frame.
In which case light may or may not be able to travel at c this non inertial frame’

> > Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
> Yes, because YOU CANNOT READ.
> > Light cannot travel at c in rotating frames for an emission model.
> > But it can sometimes for relativity.
> NONSENSE! Again you completely miss the point due to your inability to
> read.
>
> Light does not travel in vacuum with speed c relative to rotating
> coordinates. But any measurement has a resolution, and if the error in
> considering the rotating coordinates to be inertial is much smaller
> than the measurement resolution, then one can analyze the experiment as
> if it were at rest in an inertial (non-rotating) frame.

Aside from your sneaky caveat “in a vacuum” you conveniently
forgot that Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both
Sagnac and thus MMX is non inertial.Yet MMX shows us that light is
still observed to be at constant speeds isotropically (and presumably at c)
in this MMX/Sagnac lab frame.

> Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
> considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it cannot.
> This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the different
> experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity and rotation.

Like I said. When you think the instrument sensitivity isn’t accurate
enough to detect rotation, as in the MMX lab, you pretend the lab isn’t
rotating. When the experiment accuracy (Sagnac gyro) is such that
it shows the lab is rotating. You then waffle on and say that light
may or may not be travelling at c (😂) in a non inertial frame depending
on the instrument accuracy and error margins. An outright bizarre
claim seeing as you know the Sagnac ring gyro is accurate enough
to detect rotation of the lab. AND...has detected rotation of the lab.
Pure contradictory obfuscatory nonsense from the PR department at
Relativity Corporation.

On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> 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.
>> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
>> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
>> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
>> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
>> are not perpendicular.
>>
>> But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
>> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
>> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
>> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
>> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
>> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
>> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
>
> My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.

If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.

> You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
> it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.

If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.

The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.

> Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
> is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!

If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.

You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
>
>
>>> 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)
>> You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
>> the lab frame?
>
> Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
> same. And that both rotate.

If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.

>>> 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🤣

>> WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
>
> You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
> (Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?

I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
>
> Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
> For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
> speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
> observers.

In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.

> Yet you admit that light cannot travel at variable speeds
> in any source frame . Like MMX.

Once again, light is c in all *INERTIAL* sources. The MMX is inertial*
so light is c in it as well.

> And if anyone points out this
> illogical fact free contradiction...you bang your bible and say...
> “It’s in the scriptures. God has made it possible”

And again, a defining crackpot feature shows up. "Relativity is a
religion/cult!". No, it is SCIENCE.
>
> It’s called dogmatic belief. My mistake is to think I can persuade
> religious wackos to admit their illogical fantasies are not backed up
> by empirical observations.

The religion mouth foam again.

(*) Tom R. mentioned before about sources of errors and that they don't
matter if much smaller than measurement errors. I think he pointed out
the fringe shift of the original MMX on earth would be in error of 10^-8
fringe by ignoring rotation, when the best measurement ability was about
0.1 fringe. (you can look for his post yourself) So 10^-8 fringe error
from ignoring rotation can be safely ignored. Agree? So can the
vibrations from the farts of a butterfly in China. Agree?

On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 17:07:47 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:36:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
>
> > In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
> > non inertial frames.
> Crank,
>
> In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c". Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.

I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
“coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
There is no ‘may or may not’ about this fact.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
> >> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
> >> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
> >> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
> >> are not perpendicular.
> >>
> >> But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
> >> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
> >>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >> What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
> >> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
> >> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
> >> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
> >> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
> >> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
> >
> > My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
> If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
> > You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
> > it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
> If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
> frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
>
> The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.

So what. The ring gyro can.
> > Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
> > is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
> If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
> is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.

Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con
that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...but the lab is in a
non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction. Because MMX and Sagnac
are in the same frame as the lab.

> You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.

You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
rotating around the earths axis.
Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
rotating around the earths axis.

> >
> >>> 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)
> >> You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
> >> the lab frame?
> >
> > Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
> > same. And that both rotate.
> If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
> on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.

Then why does Paul say it isn’t?

> >>> 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🤣
>
> >> WHO says the earth doesn't rotate???
> >
> > You do. Havent you previously suggested that the Sagnac experiment frame
> > (Ie axis of rotation) does not rotate?
> I didn't say the earth doesn't rotate. If the Sagnac device is
> stationary in the (rotating) earth frame, obviously it is rotating.
> >
> > Arguing with you relativists is pointless.
> > For instance you also claim light travels away from sources at variable
> > speeds relative to the source when you pretend it’s at c for all moving
> > observers.
> In inertial frames, it *is* c relative to the source, the observer and
> all other (inertial) observers. Read the 1905 SR paper to learn why.

If you have light from a binary star travelling towards an observer at
c in the observer frame then the fact is that it can’t be travelling
away from the star source at c. The only way you can prove that
it leaves the stars frame at c and arrives here magically at c is
to prove it does arrive here at c. And as far as I’m aware,
no one has yet measured lightspeeds from cosmological
sources.

On 9/25/23 8:49 PM, Lou wrote:
> Sagnac and MMX together
> show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
> speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.

This is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.

Tom Roberts

On 9/25/23 3:28 PM, Lou wrote:
> Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
> MMX is non inertial.

How silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
is not at rest in an inertial frame. This is true for a lab on the
surface of the (rotating and gravitating) earth.

> Yet MMX shows us that light is still observed to be at constant
> speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
> frame.

No, it does NOT. The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of
the interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the observer
pushing on it so they can walk around it.

>> Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
>> considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it
>> cannot. This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the
>> different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity
>> and rotation.
>
> Like I said. [...]

You just repeat your nonsense, displaying your profound inability to read.

Tom Roberts

On 9/25/23 9:29 PM, Lou wrote:
> Tom knows that [...]

You don't have a clue about what I know. Most of what you attribute to
me here is really stuff you made up, and is BLATANTLY WRONG.

> He also knows that if [modern repetitions of the MMX] didn’t [give a
> null result] as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
> enough to detect rotation

This just displays your near total ignorance about basic physics and
experimental technique -- any competent repetition of the MMX is
designed to be insensitive to rotation. Because the instrument must be
rotated so it can make measurements in different orientations, and such
INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTS must not affect the physics results.

> [... further fantasies omitted...]

> Because Sagnac gyros prove that the MMX and its lab are rotating.

Again, this is not disputed -- one KNOWS that a lab on earth is rotating
without any instrument, because the earth rotates.

But as I keep saying: if the instrument is incapable of observing the
effect of the rotation (because its effect is much smaller than the
measurement resolution), then the rotation can be ignored and the
experiment analyzed as if it were at rest in an inertial frame. This
applies to the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.

> [... more nonsense and fantasies omitted ...]

Grow up! Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. Learn how to read.

Tom Roberts

On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
>>>> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
>>>> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
>>>> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
>>>> are not perpendicular.
>>>>
>>>> But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
>>>> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
>>>> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
>>>> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
>>>> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
>>>> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
>>>> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
>>>
>>> My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
>> If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
>>> You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
>>> it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.

>> If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
>> frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
>>
>> The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
>
> So what. The ring gyro can.

And your point is...?

>>> Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
>>> is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!

>> If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
>> is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
>
> Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con
> that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...

Looks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.

> but the lab is in a
> non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction.

The "contradiction" is because of your fantasy belief that anyone said
the lab frame is inertial.

Because MMX and Sagnac
> are in the same frame as the lab.
>
>> You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
>> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
>
> You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
> me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.

I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset
over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there
could only be one frame in existence or something.

> I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
> which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
> rotating around the earths axis.

No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.

> Complete unverified nonsense of course. Seeing as a sagnac gyro proves
> that the gyro and the lab and thus MMX are all in the same frame
> rotating around the earths axis.

Sagnac devices and the MMX device are very similar. The difference is
that the Sagnac sensitivity is proportional to the enclosed area
equivalent, while the MMX is explicitly designed to have a zero enclosed
area, in order to be INsensitive to rotations. And it's a millionth of a
fringe shift for an MMX on the ground while the sensitivity is around
1/10 of a fringe on a good day.

I still don't know why you are so upset about the MMX being in a "not
perfectly inertial" environment when the difference between the earth
and perfection is too small to measure.
>
>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>> You have to specify a definition of the Sagnac frame. Is it the same as
>>>> the lab frame?
>>>
>>> Let me quote you. Above in your post you admitted the lab and Sagnac frame are the
>>> same. And that both rotate.

> > Sagnac and MMX together
> > show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
> > speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.
> This is just plain not true. Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true.
>

> > Sagnac fibre gyros prove that the lab frame for both Sagnac and thus
> > MMX is non inertial.
> How silly. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that a rotating Sagnac interferometer
> is not at rest in an inertial frame.

I wasn’t talking about the rotating mirrors. I was saying
the whole Sagnac setup on the table when the mirrors aren’t spinning...is
in a non inertial frame. And contrary to your evidence free claims I can prove
that the whole experiment the table plus the lab itself is non inertial. Because a
ring gyro when also placed motionless on the lab table will still detect that the table
and the lab, are rotating around earths axis.

> This is true for a lab on the
> surface of the (rotating and gravitating) earth.

And by association for the table and the MMX and Sagnac experiments
Proving that light travels at constant speeds ( presumably c) isotropically
in rotating non inertial frames. I have the evidence to prove this.
You have only evidence free assumptions from SR.

> > Yet MMX shows us that light is still observed to be at constant
> > speeds isotropically (and presumably at c) in this MMX/Sagnac lab
> > frame.
> No, it does NOT. The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of
> the interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
> rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the observer
> pushing on it so they can walk around it.

Lousy argument. Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to
to detect earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
enough it would *not* give a null result. Not least because if it did detect
earths rotation and not give a null result it would refute SR by proving there
is an aether. And, if it still gave a null result, it would confirm what the original
experiment indicated. Which is that as the lab and MMX rotate around the
earths axis in a non inertial frame, light is observed to travel at constant
speeds isotropically relative to sources rotating around the earths axis
in non inertial frame. And thus...refuting SR.
Either way...SR is screwed. The current evidence is not consistent with
the ludicrous claims made by relativists.

> >> Yes, for some experiments a lab on the surface of the earth can be
> >> considered to be a locally inertial frame, and for others it
> >> cannot. This is INHERENT, due to the different resolutions of the
> >> different experiments and the different effects of earth's gravity
> >> and rotation.
> >
> On 9/25/23 9:29 PM, Lou wrote:
> > Tom knows that [...]
>
> You don't have a clue about what I know. Most of what you attribute to
> me here is really stuff you made up, and is BLATANTLY WRONG.

Really ?
So let me hi lite two of the main facts I’ve claimed which you say are completely
“BLATANTLY” wrong:
1)MMX gives a null result indicating that light travels at c in the experiment setup.
2)Sagnac ring gyro when placed in a lab will measure earths rotation

Any evidence the above two claims I’ve made are “BLATANTLY WRONG”.?

> > He also knows that if [modern repetitions of the MMX] didn’t [give a
> > null result] as a result of versions of MMX which could be sensitive
> > enough to detect rotation
>
> This just displays your near total ignorance about basic physics and
> experimental technique -- any competent repetition of the MMX is
> designed to be insensitive to rotation. Because the instrument must be
> rotated so it can make measurements in different orientations, and such
> INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTS must not affect the physics results.
>

Irrelevent point.
Whether or not any instrument is insensitive to earths rotation
does not in anyway refute the fact that the instrument itself when
placed on the surface of the rotating earth is also rotating. We know
this is true because recent Sagnac ring gyro Instruments when placed
on the earths surface detect and measure the rotation of the earth
around its axis.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/25/2023 9:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 19:26:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/24/2023 9:26 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> The Sagnac device is in an infinite number of frames. The axis doesn't
> >>>> move in an infinite number of frames. And if the Sagnac frame is in the
> >>>> lab frame (so rotating, not quite inertial) it will register the earth's
> >>>> rotation only if the Sagnac rotation axis and the earth's rotation axis
> >>>> are not perpendicular.
> >>>>
> >>>> But what's the issue? Sagnac deviced, if sensitive enough, can detect
> >>>> the rotation of the earth. I forgot why you seem so upset by this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>> What evidence? By definition the device is in a certain frame in which
> >>>> it is stationary. If this frame rotates (in the xy plane, assuming z is
> >>>> defined as the rotation axis) than it will detect that rotation. Because
> >>>> that's what Sagnac devices do. If this frame is shared with the lab
> >>>> frame (and rotation axes not perpendicular) it will detect the rotation
> >>>> of the earth frame. Your point is....?
> >>>
> >>> My point is that you just contradicted yourself...AGAIN.
> >> If you think I did, you are sorely mistaken.
> >>> You just admitted that the Sagnac gyro detects rotation as
> >>> it sits unmoving in the rotating lab.
>
> >> If the Sagnac device is specified to be stationary in the (rotating) lab
> >> frame, then yes, a sensitive enough Sagnac device will detect the rotation.
> >>
> >> The original Sagnac device wasn't sensitive enough to do so.
> >
> > So what. The ring gyro can.
> And your point is...?
> >>> Yet you ( or relativity) also claim the gyro sitting in the lab
> >>> is in an inertial frame and doesn’t rotate.!!
>
> >> If the lab frame is rotating along with the earth and the Sagnac device
> >> is in the lab frame, it just isn't inertial, is it.
> >
> > Exactly my point. Yet Paul (and you I believe) was trying to pass off the con
> > that the Sagnac and MMX are pin inertial frames...
> Looks like you are making up crap and pretending that it's true...again.
> > but the lab is in a
> > non inertial frame!! That’s a contradiction.
> The "contradiction" is because of your fantasy belief that anyone said
> the lab frame is inertial.
> Because MMX and Sagnac
> > are in the same frame as the lab.
> >
> >> You are obviously extremely confused here. Probably because, as I
> >> pointed out earlier, you don't understand the concept of frames in physics.
> >
> > You don’t understand the difference between me understanding and
> > me not agreeing with your evidence free version of frames in physics.
> I KNOW you don't understand frames in physics because you got all upset
> over the time I mentioned three separate frames, thinking that there
> could only be one frame in existence or something.
> > I understand that relativists think that an experiment sitting in a lab
> > which is rotating around the earths axis..isn’t sitting in a lab in a
> > rotating around the earths axis.
> No scientist says it isn't rotating. For the MMX, the only question is
> whether the MMX environment is "inertial enough", that the rotations
> don't affect the outcome. Tom already answered that. Esp. since the MMX
> is /designed/ to be insensitive to rotations.

Typical illogical contradictory statement from a relativist. As I told Tom,
Just because the current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect earths
rotation doesn’t mean that a future sensitive enough version (to earths rotation)
will not give a null result. Nor is the ridiculous claim you make here that
because MMX isn’t sensitive enough...this means the setup must be in a inertial
frame!
What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
evidence free fantasies of SR.

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 17:07:47 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:36:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >
> > > In other words you don’t know if light travels at c or not in
> > > non inertial frames.
> > Crank,
> >
> > In NON-inertial reference frames the COORDINATE speed of light (in vacuum) may or may not equal "c". By contrast, the PROPER speed of light IS "c".. Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you will continue to post imbecilities.
> I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
> show that light is indeed to be observed to be travelling at constant
> speeds c in what relativists call a non inertial frame.

I predicted that you will continue to post imbecilities. Well done, crank!

Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:
> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

>>>> If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
>>>> on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.

>>>
>>> Then why does Paul say it isn’t?

>> Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
>> pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
>> earths axis.)

>
> Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial
> frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...
> then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are
> shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.

I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.

> Here’s Pauls quote:
> “ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”

Exactly!
When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
is inertial per definition.
Like this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.

But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame

Lou wrote:
|"Then why do relativists calculate the path difference
| for SR in Sagnac, in what they call the inertial lab frame?"

I responded:
| 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

Meaning that they don't _calculate_ it in the _lab_ frame
because it isn't inertial.
They _calculate_ it with a theoretical Sagnac ring rotating
in a theoretical inertial frame.

And I never said anything about the MMX in this thread.

So please stop claiming that I said what I never said.
========================================================

You can quote me literally, but not out of context.

You quoted me out of context:
"The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame."

and say that I claim that:
"the Sagnac lab frame is inertial."

You pretend that the Sagnac ring in the former quote
is the same as the Sagnac ring in the latter quote.

Either you are a troll who is writing this to provoke,
or you are very ignorant of logic so you don't understand
that what you are writing is wrong.

I suspect the latter.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:24:21 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:
> > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:03:03 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/25/2023 10:29 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:47:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>
> >>>> If you specify the Sagnac device is in a rotating frame (whether a frame
> >>>> on the rotating earth or otherwise), it is obviously rotating.
>
> >>>
> >>> Then why does Paul say it isn’t?
>
> >> Where does Paul say it isn't? Are you making up garbage again and
> >> pretending that it's true?experiment setup isn’t rotating around the
> >> earths axis.)
>
> >
> > Paul and you claim that the Sagnac setup, and the MMX are in inertial
> > frames. But seeing as the experiments frame is also the lab frame ...
> > then this is a false claim. Because the lab and experiment frames are
> > shown to be in non inertial frames by recent Sagnac gyro experiments.
> I never claimed that the Sagnac setup is in an inertial frame.
> Where "Sagnac setup" is a real, physical Sagnac ring.
> > Here’s Pauls quote:
> > “ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> > The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> Exactly!
> When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
> we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
> is inertial per definition.
> Like this:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
> This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
>
> But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
> a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame

But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you
contradicted yourself earlier.
Because look at your initial quote:
You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
(You even admit this above)
And Therefore Sagnac is rotating in a NON INERTIAL frame.
Not an inertial frame

You only falsely pretend the lab is an inertial frame to make your calculations.
Because you know SR does not accept that light can travel at c
isotropically in non inertial frames.
Even though in fact Sagnac and MMX are both in non inertial frames
and their observations are consistent with light being at constant speeds
isotropically at c in non inertial frames.

> Lou wrote:
> |"Then why do relativists calculate the path difference
> | for SR in Sagnac, in what they call the inertial lab frame?"
> I responded:
> | 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
>
> Meaning that they don't _calculate_ it in the _lab_ frame
> because it isn't inertial.
> They _calculate_ it with a theoretical Sagnac ring rotating
> in a theoretical inertial frame.
>
> And I never said anything about the MMX in this thread.

Maybe not in this thread. But you and your website have
claimed that MMX is in a inertial frame.
It isn’t.
It is in a Non Inertial frame. Sagnac ring gyros confirm this.

> So please stop claiming that I said what I never said.
> ========================================================
>
> You can quote me literally, but not out of context.
>
> You quoted me out of context:
> "The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame."
> and say that I claim that:
> "the Sagnac lab frame is inertial."

If the Sagnac ring is rotating in the lab. And the lab frame
is non inertial. Then it is a false claim to say that the Sagnac
Ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
You don’t seem to understand basic logic and physics.
Where is your evidence that the Sagnac ring is rotating in an
inertial frame?
You don’t have any. So don’t lie and say it is rotating in an
inertial frame.

> You pretend that the Sagnac ring in the former quote
> is the same as the Sagnac ring in the latter quote.
>
> Either you are a troll who is writing this to provoke,
> or you are very ignorant of logic so you don't understand
> that what you are writing is wrong.

I don’t suspect...I KNOW you lied when you said Sagnac is
rotating in an inertial frame. And I know this because unlike
yourself I refer to empirical observations ,...not delusions, false
logic and false assumptions as you prefer to use.

On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
>> The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
>> interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
>> rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
>> observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
>
> Lousy argument.

No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.

> Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to to detect
> earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
> enough it would *not* give a null result.

I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your
fantasies of what might happen in the future.

> Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
> null result it would refute SR

No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment would
necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.

Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
the prediction of the theory (perhaps SR, perhaps GR is required), not
that it give a "null result".

> [... further nonsense ignored]

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 07:12:53 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> >> The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
> >> interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
> >> rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
> >> observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
> >
> > Lousy argument.
> No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE
> ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.

Nope, it' applies TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.
See, poor fanatic trash, the reality is not FORCED to your
BEST WAY at all.

> I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your

No. You're discussing your absurd newspeak.

> Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with

A lie, of course, compared to/measured with the real second
of a real time your insane dreams demonstrate no value.

> You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

A pity yoo can't teach him, as you have no clue
about it.

Den 26.09.2023 21:43, skrev Lou:
> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:24:21 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:

>>> Here’s Pauls quote:
>>> “ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
>>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”

>> Exactly!
>> When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
>> we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
>> is inertial per definition.
>> Like this:
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>> This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
>>
>> But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
>> a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame.

(The ring may be rotating, but the center of the ring is
stationary in a non inertial frame. The "Sagnac setup"
is stationary on the lab table.)

>
> But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you
> contradicted yourself earlier.
> Because look at your initial quote:
> You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
> But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
> It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.

Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 09:50:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 26.09.2023 21:43, skrev Lou:
> > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:24:21 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 26.09.2023 12:09, skrev Lou:
>
> >>> Here’s Pauls quote:
> >>> “ They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> >>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
>
> >> Exactly!
> >> When we _calculate_ what SR predicts for a Sagnac ring
> >> we do the calculation in a frame of reference which
> >> is inertial per definition.
> >> Like this:
> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
> >> This is a theoretical Sagnac ring, not a real physical one.
> >>
> >> But of course any real, physical Sagnac setup in
> >> a lab on Earth is stationary in a non inertial frame.
>
> (The ring may be rotating, but the center of the ring is
> stationary in a non inertial frame. The "Sagnac setup"
> is stationary on the lab table.)
> >
> > But you just contradicted yourself again. Or at least admitted that you
> > contradicted yourself earlier.
> > Because look at your initial quote:
> > You said “The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.”
> > But it *isn’t*/rotating in an inertial frame.
> > It’s rotating in the lab. The lab is in a non inertial frame.
> Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D

Can’t admit that the Sagnac setup isn’t in an inertial frame can’t you
Paul? So you sling an insult instead hoping no one will notice you
screwed up when you made the following evidence free, false claim:
“ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”

It isn’t rotating in an inertial frame. Ring fibre gyros have recently proved that
any lab experiment like Sagnac or MMX are always only in non inertial
frames.

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 06:12:53 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/26/23 4:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> >> The MMX shows that it is INSENSITIVE to the rotation of the
> >> interferometer, for both the rotation of the lab (due to the
> >> rotation of the earth), and for the rotation induced by the
> >> observer pushing on it so they can walk around it.
> >
> > Lousy argument.
> No, it is a CORRECT argument. But it applies to EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE
> ACTUALLY BEEN PERFORMED, AND NOT TO YOUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES.

You are the one pretending that although current MMX aren’t sensitive enough to
detect any rotation,..future ones will.

> > Firstly the fact that it may not be sensitive enough to to detect
> > earths rotation doesn’t mean in any way that if it were sensitive
> > enough it would *not* give a null result.
> I am discussing experiments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. Not your
> fantasies of what might happen in the future.
> > Not least because if it did detect earths rotation and not give a
> > null result it would refute SR
> No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment would
> necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
>

Nonsense. You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got
null result. It would refute SR. And yet you know if it didn’t get a null
result it would also refute SR.

> Note the requirement is that the experimental result be consistent with
> the prediction of the theory (perhaps SR, perhaps GR is required), not
> that it give a "null result".

It’s OK for relativists to pretend that even though MMX isn’t
sensitive to rotation one can assume it’s always going to give a null
result at more sensitive future versions that could detect rotation .
Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial frames.
Yet when emission theory says that the current MMX sensitivity which gives
null result means emission theory can predict that light travels at constant
speeds in a non inertial frame....you turn into a hypocrite and say that MMX
isn’t sensitive enough to confirm theoretical predictions by emission theory .
If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory predictions....
then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR predictions?
Hypocrite.

Le 27/09/2023 à 10:50, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> Reading comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D

Ha cool, Paul B. Andersen is here.

I have a feeling that in the next few days we're going to talk about the
traveler from Tau Ceti again.

R.H.