On 9/27/23 5:07 AM, Lou wrote:
> 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.

NONSENSE! I have never made any claims at all about future experiments,
except that their analysis will include all relevant aspects of their
physical situation. You attribute your personal fantasies to me -- DON'T
DO THAT.

But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
the physics results.

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

You obviously know nothing about experimental technique and analysis. If
some future MMX-like experiment could detect its rotation, then that
rotation MUST be included in the analysis. As long as the experimental
result is consistent with the prediction of SR (which necessarily
includes the rotation), then the experiment will not refute SR. Whether
that result is "null" is IRRELEVANT -- all that matters is whether the
experimental result is consistent with the prediction of SR (including
rotation).

One can analyze the MMX using SR and include its rotation. The rotation
implies an orientation-independent change of its fringe positions by
about 0.000001 fringe [#]; the data were recorded with a resolution of
0.1 fringe, so the effect of the rotation is completely unobservable.
Note also that an ORIENTATION_INDEPENDENT change in fringe position doe
not affect the result. So the SR prediction for the MMX result using its
actual physical situation is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the prediction
assuming the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; they predict no
orientation dependence in fringe position, and the experiment is
consistent with that.

[#] Estimate.

> You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result. It
> would refute SR.

Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.

I do know that to date no repetition of the MMX has been sensitive to
its rotation. Deliberately -- they are designed to be insensitive to
rotation. (It was happenstance that the original MMX was insensitive to
rotation, as the Sagnac effect was not then known.)

> And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refute
> SR.

Nope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
unable to read what I write. The ONLY way to refute SR is for the
experimental result to be inconsistent with the prediction of SR for its
physical situation -- if its physical situation includes rotation, then
the SR prediction MUST include the rotation. But when the effect of the
rotation is nearly a million times smaller than the experimental
resolution, there is no need to belabor the rotation because it can be
neglected.

> 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
> .

This is just a crazy statement. Today NOTHING can be said about future
experiments, except that the analysis of such experiments will include
all relevant aspects of their physical situation. This includes rotation.

> Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial
> frames.

Nobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
inertially (except you in your fantasies and dreams). But when
the effects of the non-inertialness of the apparatus are very much
smaller than the experimental resolution, one can ignore them. That is
the case for the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.

> 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 .

More nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
result of the MMX, and some of its repetitions. Your statement about
"light travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame" is just your
personal nonsense that is IRRELEVANT to physics. What matters is whether
the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of the theory.
Whether the theoretical analysis uses a non-inertial frame is IRRELEVANT
-- what matters is that the analysis is valid within the theory being
used, for the physical situation of the experiment. Some emission
theories predict a null result for the MMX; SR predicts a null result.
The experiment is unable to distinguish between them (but other
experiments can and do).

> If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory
> predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
> predictions?

You simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain
emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the
apparatus, not the theory.

You keep repeating the same nonsense. Do not expect me to continue.

Tom Roberts

On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
> 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:

>>>> 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.

Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.

> 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!

No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.

> What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
> DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.

While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!

> Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
> do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
> evidence free fantasies of SR.

Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
>
>>> 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.
>
> So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
> rotating around the earths axis.

Nobody disputes that.

The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.

They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
physics.

>>> I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
>>> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
>> I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
>> proper speed in this context.
>
> But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
> “difference” between the two fantasies.

No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
have specific definitions to scientists.

> I know they are both excuses made up
> by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
> observers.

No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.

I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
> made by SR.

Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

> And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
> SR.

Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
pressed they have nothing to show?

> Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
> that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
> at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.

Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe,
Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is
supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 18:42:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> > And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
> > SR.
> Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.

Come on, stupid Mike, the mumble of your idiot
guru wasn't even consistent - and the evidence
is only making relativistic doggies barking
more fiercely.
Logic means nothing against stupidity and fanatism,
like yours.

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
> > 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:
>
> >>>> 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.
> Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.

If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
non inertial frame.
But not shortening the N-S light beam.
And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure
this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect
earths rotation.

> > 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!
> No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
> > What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
> > DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!

So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
inertial frame. And if MMX and Sagnac are in the lab and not moving
in the lab frame. Then MMX and Sagnac are not in inertial frames.

> > Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
> > do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
> > evidence free fantasies of SR.
> Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
> > the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
> > rotating around the earths axis.
> Nobody disputes that.
>
> The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
> The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift

Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
Can’t have it both ways big boy.

> when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
>
> They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
> As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
> physics.

Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths
axis. When ring gyros prove it is.

> >>> I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
> >>> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
> >> I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
> >> proper speed in this context.
> >
> > But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
> > “difference” between the two fantasies.
> No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
> have specific definitions to scientists.
> > I know they are both excuses made up
> > by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
> > observers.
> No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.

Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds. Yet none of
you actually know what they mean. Proof is I asked several times
if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.
None of you knew the answer. So pretended it was my fault that
you guys don’t know the difference between the two.

> I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
> > made by SR.
> Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.

What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
MMX doesn’t rotate?
Hilarious.

> > And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
> > SR.
> Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
> Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
> pressed they have nothing to show?

Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.

> > Including evidence from Sagnac and MMX experiments which show
> > that contrary to false evidence free claims by SR....light CAN travel isotropically
> > at constant speeds and c in non inertial rotating frames.
> Both Sagnac and MMX support SR. The best you can do is that, I believe,
> Sagnac in a vacuum (not a medium with speed c/n like fibre optics) is
> supported by ballistic light and SR, but Sagnac in a medium only by SR.

Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is. The closest
“evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 15:32:27 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/27/23 5:07 AM, Lou wrote:
> > 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.
> NONSENSE! I have never made any claims at all about future experiments,
> except that their analysis will include all relevant aspects of their
> physical situation. You attribute your personal fantasies to me -- DON'T
> DO THAT.
>
> But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
> have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
> insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
> inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
> usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
> purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
> design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
> the physics results.

It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeed shorten the E-W arm path
length via earths rotation, then when the two arms are switched by a 90 degree
turn of the setup....no fringe shift would still be observed even though
the path difference was switched from one arm to the other.
Have I understood you correctly?
I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if one
path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the arms.

> >> No, it would not. Because an analysis of this future experiment
> >> would necessarily take into account the effects of the rotation.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> You obviously know nothing about experimental technique and analysis. If
> some future MMX-like experiment could detect its rotation, then that
> rotation MUST be included in the analysis. As long as the experimental
> result is consistent with the prediction of SR (which necessarily
> includes the rotation), then the experiment will not refute SR. Whether
> that result is "null" is IRRELEVANT -- all that matters is whether the
> experimental result is consistent with the prediction of SR (including
> rotation).
>
> One can analyze the MMX using SR and include its rotation. The rotation
> implies an orientation-independent change of its fringe positions by
> about 0.000001 fringe [#]; the data were recorded with a resolution of
> 0.1 fringe, so the effect of the rotation is completely unobservable.
> Note also that an ORIENTATION_INDEPENDENT change in fringe position doe
> not affect the result. So the SR prediction for the MMX result using its
> actual physical situation is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the prediction
> assuming the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; they predict no
> orientation dependence in fringe position, and the experiment is
> consistent with that.
>
> [#] Estimate.
> > You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result. It
> > would refute SR.
> Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.

If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null
result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’s ridiculous.

> I do know that to date no repetition of the MMX has been sensitive to
> its rotation. Deliberately -- they are designed to be insensitive to
> rotation. (It was happenstance that the original MMX was insensitive to
> rotation, as the Sagnac effect was not then known.)

How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
The E-W arm tilts down slightly shortening the path length during
the finite time light travels there and back.
But the N-S arm isn’t shortened. And thus a different path length
occurs for each arm. A difference that can only be detected
once the two arms were switched by 90 degree rotation.
The one caveat being if this switching of path length could
still effect a fringe shift.

> > And yet you know if it didn’t get a null result it would also refute
> > SR.
> Nope. You keep repeating this nonsense, apparently because you are
> unable to read what I write. The ONLY way to refute SR is for the
> experimental result to be inconsistent with the prediction of SR for its
> physical situation -- if its physical situation includes rotation, then
> the SR prediction MUST include the rotation. But when the effect of the
> rotation is nearly a million times smaller than the experimental
> resolution, there is no need to belabor the rotation because it can be
> neglected.

That’s the question you relativists don’t seem to want to answer.
If the sensitivity of MMX was enough to:detect rotation via path
length differences ...would that fringe shift non null result still be
consistent with SR?

> > 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
> > .
> This is just a crazy statement. Today NOTHING can be said about future
> experiments, except that the analysis of such experiments will include
> all relevant aspects of their physical situation. This includes rotation.
> > Note Sagnac gyros confirm MMX and lab are actually in non inertial
> > frames.
> Nobody disputes that the lab and the MMX apparatus are not moving
> inertially (except you in your fantasies and dreams). But when
> the effects of the non-inertialness of the apparatus are very much
> smaller than the experimental resolution, one can ignore them. That is
> the case for the MMX and all repetitions of which I am aware.
> > 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 .
> More nonsense. One can use certain emission theories to predict the
> result of the MMX, and some of its repetitions. Your statement about
> "light travels at constant speeds in a non inertial frame" is just your
> personal nonsense that is IRRELEVANT to physics. What matters is whether
> the experimental result is consistent with the prediction of the theory.
> Whether the theoretical analysis uses a non-inertial frame is IRRELEVANT
> -- what matters is that the analysis is valid within the theory being
> used, for the physical situation of the experiment. Some emission
> theories predict a null result for the MMX; SR predicts a null result.
> The experiment is unable to distinguish between them (but other
> experiments can and do).
> > If it isn’t sensitive enough to confirm emission theory
> > predictions... then why is it sensitive enough to confirm SR
> > predictions?
> You simply do not understand this. The MMX does indeed confirm certain
> emission theories, as well as confirm SR. The accuracy/sensitivity of
> these confirmations is the same, because that is determined by the
> apparatus, not the theory.
>
Your “rule” is a biased one. You ignore certain theory predictions, not because
they aren’t confirmed by the null result...but because you don’t want the
competion to SR. That’s called hypocrisy.
Because an aether free emission theory can predict light will always still travel at c
isotropically even in a non inertial frame.
This is confirmed by MMX. Yet you and other relativists say MMX isn’t sensitive
enough to confirm this prediction.
Hold it a minute!! You just admitted even though it’s not sensitive enough
MMx can still be acceptable as confirmation of SR.
HYPOCRITE !!

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 21:54:36 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:

Tom wrote:
> But I do know that future repetitions of the MMX, like the ones that
> have already been performed, will be deliberately designed to be
> insensitive to their rotation (if any). That's because the MMX
> inherently needs to take data at many different orientations, and the
> usual way to do that is to rotate the apparatus -- that rotation is a
> purely instrumentation effect; unlike your fantasies, real physicists
> design experiments to eliminate instrumentation effects from affecting
> the physics results.

> On 9/27/23 2:59 PM, Lou wrote:
> > [to me] It sounds like you are saying that if rotation could indeed
> > shorten the E-W arm path length via earths rotation, then when the
> > two arms are switched by a 90 degree turn of the setup....no fringe
> > shift would still be observed even though the path difference was
> > switched from one arm to the other. Have I understood you correctly?
> No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I sand NOTHING
> AT ALL about any arm "shortening" -- that is YOUR fantasy, and is both
> ridiculous and inconsistent with SR.
>

You said that MMX was designed to be insensitive to rotation.
(You snipped that part but I’ve added it back above.)
What I was trying to get you to explain was how is it you think
rotation of the earth /lab/experiment setup could never
be able to be detected by a sensitive enough MMX. Because that’s
a false claim you make. In fact regsrdless of its sensitivity
there is always a path difference on the arms of MMX due to rotation.
It’s just too small to be detected.
My reference to arm length changing was me trying to explain to you
that the mirrors rotate in a circle in the non inertial lab frame.
But don’t rotate in your imaginary inertial frame.

> Stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. You are VERY BAD at that.
> > I would have thought the interferometer would show a shift if one
> > path shortened,... then the other,..via a 90 degree rotation of the
> > arms.
> Why do you think that a mere rotation would "shorten" an arm?????
> Such fantasies are useless.
Actually I was asking you to explain how you think it doesn’t shorten.
Because your imaginary inertial frame you pretend the MMX is in
doesnt rotate. Whereas the lab frame being non inertial does.
Put the two together and do a simulation it will give a shorter
path length for the E-W path.

> >>> You know if MMX could detect rotation but still got null result.
> >>> It would refute SR.
> >> Not true. I repeat: you haven't a clue about what I think or know.
> >
> > If it’s not true then you are implying that if MMX didn’t get a null
> > result...this would still be consistent with SR!!! That’s
> > ridiculous.
> Yes, YOUR "conclusion" is ridiculous. But it is not at all what I said
> or implied.

So it’s incorrect of me to assume a non null result in MMX would still be
consistent with predictions made by SR?

> > How can the MMX design be insensitive to earths rotation?
> By making the area enclosed by the light paths be accurately zero. Since
> you don't know this very basic fact, you have no hope of understanding
> either the MMX or the Sagnac experiment.
>
> > The E-W arm tilts down slightly [...]
>
> Not in a well-designed MMX repetition, or in the original MMX (which was
> floating in a mercury pool to ensure the plane of rotation was
> accurately horizontal).

Nothing to do with a mercury pool. I’m referring to earths rotation of the lab!!
HERES a simple analogy to try to explain basic geometry to you.
Have a 1/meter arm attached horizontally at the edge of a rotating carousel
in a computer simulation. The view in your simulation is a top view of the carousel.
It being a rotating circle in the simulation.(Imagine also then that this is a
simulation showing the EW arm of MMX as it rotates around the earths Center.
A cross section of the rotating planet so to speak)
Place another 1 meter arm on top of the first.
They both rotate in a circle in the simulation at a constant speed.
Now at a certain point in time have the top 1meter horizontal arm detach itself
from the attached arm and continue on off in a straight inertial path along
a line defined as parralel to the x axis in your simulation.
Tangentially away from the first arm but at the
same speed it was as it was travelling just before it detached.

The detached arm now moves away from the attached arm in this
top view of the rotating carousel of your simulation along a path
parallel to the x axis...The forward point of the detached arm must therefore
travel farther along the x axis than the forward point of the rotating arm
attached to the carousel.! Because the forward point of the rotating
arm is not travelling in a straight line. But in a curved circular path
relative to the x axis in this top view of the rotating carousel in the simulation.

Therefore if If light travels at c in the of the inertial detached arm
frame ( which is travelling in a straight line in the x axis of the simulation)
but reflects off the mirror in the rotating arm, then the light path will
be shorter.

On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>> Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
>
> If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
> by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.

No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).

> Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
> amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
> downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
> non inertial frame.

And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.

> But not shortening the N-S light beam.
> And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
> could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.

No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.

> Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure
> this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
> to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect
> earths rotation.

If perfect, it couldn't.
>
>>> 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!
>> No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
>>> What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
>>> DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
>> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
>
> So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
> inertial frame.

Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).

> And if MMX and Sagnac are in the lab and not moving
> in the lab frame. Then MMX and Sagnac are not in inertial frames.

And...? The Sagnac will potentially detect that. The MMX won't.
>
>>> Obviously empirical observations proving that the SAGNAC & MMX
>>> do rotate around the earths axis arent acceptable to the wild
>>> evidence free fantasies of SR.
>> Word salad. Rotation of a properly built MMX can't be detected.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
>>> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
>>> rotating around the earths axis.
>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
>> The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
>
> Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
> it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
> The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
> Can’t have it both ways big boy.

I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.

The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
rotation.
>
>> when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
>>
>> They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
>> As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
>> physics.
>
> Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths
> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.

Nobody disputes that. (It confuses you regardless)
>
>>>>> I understand that regardless of ones interpretation or invocation of
>>>>> “coordinate” or “proper” speeds, Sagnac and MMX together
>>>> I bet you don't even know the difference between coordinate speed and
>>>> proper speed in this context.
>>>
>>> But I do understand coordinate and proper speed. And the so called
>>> “difference” between the two fantasies.
>> No, you don't. Because you just blew them off as "fantasies" when they
>> have specific definitions to scientists.

>>> I know they are both excuses made up
>>> by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
>>> observers.

>> No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
>
> Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.

No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
them off as "fantasies".

> Yet none of
> you actually know what they mean.

No, YOU don't know what they mean. You are projecting your ignorance on
others.

> Proof is I asked several times
> if light travels at c or not at c in non inertial frames.

Now you are talking about inertial and non inertial frames. I thought
you wanted to talk about proper and coordinate speeds?

>>> I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
>>> made by SR.
>> Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence.
>
> What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
> of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
> MMX doesn’t rotate?
> Hilarious.

Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
apparently don't understand)
>
>>> And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
>>> SR.

>> Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
>> Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
>> pressed they have nothing to show?
>
> Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.

Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.

> The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to relativists.

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 16:49:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> > Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
> No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,

Yes, they did. They have specific meaing in relativity,
the meaning made up to make The Shit more
digestible. Orwellian classics, stupid Mike.

> Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and

And make idiots like you spitting with Polish jokes, drunken
janitors, nazi kapos or alike.

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> 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:
> >>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >> Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
> >> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
> >
> > If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
> > by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
> No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
> > Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
> > amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
> > and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
> > downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
> > non inertial frame.
> And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
> why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.

No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
It’s not the same as the lab frame. So in the time from when the light leaves
the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
ever so slightly. Imagine the two superimposed on a top view.
Your inertial frame EW arm always points in the same direction and moves EW
slightly as the light goes out and back. BUT...the real lab EW arm, being non inertial,
moves across slightly with the inertial arm in the EW direction but more importantly
it also rotates downwards in a circle with the rotating earth lab. So do the maths
and geometry...*it does it not travel as far EW as the inertial frame*.
The actual path length of the non inertial EW arms mirror is closer to the source
then it’s imaginary inertial mirror. And seeing as the light reflects
off the real non inertial mirror the EW path becomes shortened.
It’s very hard to describe in words.
If relativists weren’t so visually and geometrically illiterate...
you would understand.

> > But not shortening the N-S light beam.
> > And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
> > could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel..

They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
in a straight line?NO!
Point A travels farther in one direction than B
Basic geometry.

> > Of course current experiments supposedly are not sensitive enough to measure
> > this small amount of path shortening by earths rotation. But you are wrong
> > to assume no matter how sensitive MMX were to be made it couldn’t detect
> > earths rotation.
> If perfect, it couldn't.
> >

Wrong. As per above.

> >>> 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!
> >> No, it means the enclosed area must be zero to the limit of measurement.
> >>> What’s amazing is how you can ignore the fact that Sagnac gyros
> >>> DO detect the lab and experiments rotate around the earths axis.
> >> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
> >
> > So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
> > inertial frame.
> Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).

So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
But the light travels in a rotating frame. And it’s the path
of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.

> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
> >>> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
> >>> rotating around the earths axis.
> >> Nobody disputes that.
> >>
> >> The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
> >> The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
> >
> > Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
> > it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
> > The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
> > Can’t have it both ways big boy.
> I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
>
> The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
> it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
> rotation.
> >

There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.
Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation if
sensitive enough at the interferometer.
You just are unable to grasp this visually.
Get Toms pals at Fermi to do a computer simulation. They
Will prove Im right.
Until then I can only as the saying goes...” lead the donkey to
water, but can’t make it drink”

> >> when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
> >>
> >> They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
> >> As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
> >> physics.
> >
> > Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths
> > axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
>
> >>> I know they are both excuses made up
> >>> by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
> >>> observers.
>
> >> No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
> >
> > Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
> No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
> meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
> them off as "fantasies".

On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
>>>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
>>>
>>> If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
>>> by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
>> No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
>>> Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
>>> amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
>>> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
>>> downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
>>> non inertial frame.
>> And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
>> why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
>
> No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
> an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
> It’s not the same as the lab frame.

And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.

> So in the time from when the light leaves
> the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
> ever so slightly.

And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.

>>> But not shortening the N-S light beam.
>>> And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
>>> could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
>
> They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
> The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
> inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
> position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
> the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
> Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
> go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
> If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
> in a straight line?NO!
> Point A travels farther in one direction than B
> Basic geometry.

And the return path cancels.

>>>> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
>>>
>>> So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
>>> inertial frame.
>> Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
>> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
>
> So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
> But the light travels in a rotating frame.

It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
concept of frames!)

> And it’s the path
> of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
> observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
> Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.

And SR gets it correct.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
>>>>> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
>>>>> rotating around the earths axis.

>>>> Nobody disputes that.
>>>>
>>>> The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
>>>> The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
>>>
>>> Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
>>> it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
>>> The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
>>> Can’t have it both ways big boy.
>> I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
>>
>> The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
>> it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
>> rotation.
>>>
>
> There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.

Nope. A real perfect MMX won't detect rotation. Remember the light
return path cancels the forward path!

But we humans are imperfect, so any physical MMX won't have an exactly 0
Sagnac area, so the Sagnac effect will detect rotation.

> Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation

It won't.

> if

[snip]
No need to discuss these irrelevancies as the "if" is false.
>
>>>> when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
>>>>
>>>> They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
>>>> As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
>>>> physics.
>>>
>>> Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths
>>> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
>>
>>>>> I know they are both excuses made up
>>>>> by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
>>>>> observers.
>>
>>>> No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
>>>
>>> Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.

>> No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
>> meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
>> them off as "fantasies".
>
> In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds.

Volney wrote:

> And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
> fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
> is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
> butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
> small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.

𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps

Volney wrote:

> On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
>> The relativists handing out the prize only give out Nobel prizes to
>> relativists.
>
> No, the Nobel committee gives out prizes (in physics anyway) to the
> discoverers of major physics discoveries. A̶ d̶i̶s̶p̶r̶o̶o̶f̶ o̶f̶ S̶R̶ (w̶i̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ i̶t̶s̶
> r̶e̶a̶l̶m̶) w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ b̶e̶ a̶ M̶A̶J̶O̶R̶ d̶i̶s̶c̶o̶v̶e̶r̶y̶. Also, over they ears m̶a̶n̶y̶ s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶s̶t̶s̶
> h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶o̶r̶k̶e̶d̶ t̶o̶ d̶i̶s̶p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶ S̶R̶, perhaps even with the prize in mind. N̶o̶n̶e̶
> h̶a̶v̶e̶ e̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶e̶n̶ s̶u̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶f̶u̶l̶. Of course the rants of crackpots isn't
> disproof of anything.

not true

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗗_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗔𝗴𝗼
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/5z6uqFvs5zs1

which makes america an inbreed crime family.

On 9/29/2023 5:22 PM, Olegario Babusenko wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
>> fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
>> is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
>> butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
>> small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
>
> 𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps

What is this attachment you have with Volney? Are you, Hanson, and
Volney, Vulva, the same person, heretofore referred as Vulva Hanson; or
Volney is perhaps your own vulva? Are you quoting your own vulva in your
messages? You know, Vulva does think like a vulva that's on a Hanson.
And you always quote Vulva, like Hanson's vulva would.

Hanson, get your vulva out of sci.physics, and chew on plastics before
ever coming back. Have a threesome with "Jim Pennino", and Volney, it'll
only be as easy as masturbating alone. Fuck each other. Fuck that one
person that all three of you are; i.e. Fuck you Hanson!

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:49:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/27/2023 3:27 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:42:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/26/2023 6:09 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> 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:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>> Since the MMX is designed to ignore rotation, only a poorly implemented
> >>>> MMX (with a nonzero Sagnac loop area) will detect rotation.
> >>>
> >>> If sensitive enough, rotation of the MMX and the lab around *could* be detected
> >>> by MMX, if light was travelling at c only in your non rotating inertial frame.
> >> No it means the MMX device wasn't built perfectly (zero effective area).
> >>> Because let’s say light was only allowed to at c in your inertial frame. Then in the
> >>> amount of time it takes for each point in the beam to travel out reflect
> >>> and get back....the rotation of the earth would have rotated the E-W mirrors
> >>> downwards slightly in your inertial frame. Shortening the E-W trip in your
> >>> non inertial frame.
> >> And on the way back it traces the exact same path, so it cancels. That's
> >> why the MMX is insensitive to rotation.
> >
> > No! That’s what I was trying to explain to Tom. In SR you have
> > an inertial frame which you have light at constant c in. That’s my understanding.
> > It’s not the same as the lab frame.
> And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
> fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
> is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
> butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
> small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
> > So in the time from when the light leaves
> > the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
> > ever so slightly.
> And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.

Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
relative to sources as per an aether free emission model. Then the path length
doesn’t change for this emission model.
As observed in MMX with the null result.
( The two mirrors rotate around the source at the same distance.)

But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
your inertial frame in under SR?
Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
shorter. But not the NS path
Or B)does the “inertial “ frame not rotate with the lab but move away in a
straight line from the lab at 1630k/s relative to the axis? Meaning it’s
travelling in a straight line at 30ks + 1630kh?
How do you define your inertial frame re MMX, the lab and the
earths rotation. If under SR it’s B) then there will be a shorter or
longer path for the EW arm.
If it’s A) there will also be a path difference.

Maybe SRT should change its name to “The Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t” theory.

> >>> But not shortening the N-S light beam.
> >>> And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
> >>> could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
> >> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
> >
> > They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames..
> > The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
> > inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
> > position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
> > the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
> > Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
> > go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
> > If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
> > in a straight line?NO!
> > Point A travels farther in one direction than B
> > Basic geometry.
> And the return path cancels.
> >>>> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
> >>>
> >>> So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
> >>> inertial frame.
> >> Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
> >> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
> >
> > So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
> > But the light travels in a rotating frame.
> It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
> concept of frames!)
> > And it’s the path
> > of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
> > observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
> > Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
> And SR gets it correct.

Not neccesarily. It depends on how you imagine your imaginary inertial
frame moves or doesn’t move, relative to the real MMX setup over the time
it takes for the light to go out and come back to the interferometer.

> >
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what. You can’t ignore the fact that a Sagnac gyro proves that
> >>>>> the lab and any experiment like MMX in the lab are in non inertial frames
> >>>>> rotating around the earths axis.
>
> >>>> Nobody disputes that.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Sagnac will detect the rotation.
> >>>> The MMX, designed to ignore rotation, won't detect <1*10^-6 fringe shift
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. But make up your mind. One minute you say MMX design prevents
> >>> it ever from measuring rotation no matter how sensitive.
> >>> The next minute you say it *can* but only if made sensitive enough.
> >>> Can’t have it both ways big boy.
> >> I will type very slowly this time so that you can keep up.
> >>
> >> The MMX will not be perfect, it will have a tiny enclosed area. Making
> >> it into a poor Sagnac device. So it, by being imperfect, could detect
> >> rotation.
> >>>
> >
> > There’s your contradiction. You say it is...then say it isn’t.
> Nope. A real perfect MMX won't detect rotation. Remember the light
> return path cancels the forward path!
>
> But we humans are imperfect, so any physical MMX won't have an exactly 0
> Sagnac area, so the Sagnac effect will detect rotation.
> > Fact is even a “perfect “ MMX still records rotation
> It won't.
>
> > if
>
> [snip]
> No need to discuss these irrelevancies as the "if" is false.
> >
> >>>> when it is limited to detection of 0.1 fringes.
> >>>>
> >>>> They are rotating in a (different) inertial frame as well.
> >>>> As I said before, you simply don't understand the concept of frames in
> >>>> physics.
> >>>
> >>> Said the guy who thinks the MMX frame isn’t rotating around the earths
> >>> axis. When ring gyros prove it is.
> >>
> >>>>> I know they are both excuses made up
> >>>>> by relativists to try to prove that light magically travels at c for all
> >>>>> observers.
> >>
> >>>> No, you don't "know" that. You incorrectly believe that, that's all.
> >>>
> >>> Relativists made up coordinate and proper speeds.
>
> >> No, scientists did that. They have specific meanings in relativity,
> >> meanings you are unaware of. Instead of learning them, you try to blow
> >> them off as "fantasies".
> >
> > In classical physics there are never coordinate speeds or proper speeds..
> Actually now that I think of it, neither would modern physics. "Proper
> speed" would mean the speed of an object in its own frame. Which would
> be 0 by definition, of course. So we can dismiss with "coordinate speed"
> and "proper speed", there's just speed/velocity.
> > Just one velocity relative to the observer.
> So you're actually correct for once! Shall we celebrate?
> > It’s like when I ask you guys..’Can light travel at constant speeds at c
> > isotropically under SR ‘ ?
> The answer is "yes" of course.
> >>>>> I also know there is zero evidence to back up these claims
> >>>>> made by SR.
> >>>> Except for all the scientific observations and experimental evidence..
> >>>
> >>> What! Like the scientific evidence of Ring gyros detecting rotation
> >>> of MMX around earths axis and refuting the claim by SR that the
> >>> MMX doesn’t rotate?
> >>> Hilarious.
>
> >> Scientific observations and experimental evidence. (Concepts which you
> >> apparently don't understand)
> >>>
> >
> > It’s not hard to understand that relativists don’t like actual data and empirical
> > observations.
> Scientists love actual data and empirical observations. Not so sure
> about your boogeymen.
> >
> >>>>> And I also know that there is a huge body of evidence refuting
> >>>>> SR.
> >>
> >>>> Like what? Just one example of evidence will win you a Nobel Prize.
> >>>> Why do cranks always claim they have a "huge body" of evidence, but when
> >>>> pressed they have nothing to show?
> >>>
> >>> Win a Nobel prize for pointing out SR is a pack of lies? Impossible.
>
> >> Nope. Just one piece of evidence, if it existed, would disprove SR and
> >> win the discoverer a Nobel. Such a major discover is practically a
> >> guaranteed Nobel Prize for the discoverer.
> >
> > If that was the case then after about 1906...SR would have ended up
> > in the dustbin.
> That's true. But since no such evidence ever existed, that never
> happened. No matter how hard many scientists tried. No matter how many
> kooks kooked.
> > Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
> > better modelled by a classical model.
> Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 9/29/2023 5:22 PM, Olegario Babusenko wrote:
>> Volney wrote:
>>
>>> And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
>>> fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
>>> is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
>>> butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
>>> small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
>>
>> 𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
>
> W̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶h̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶? A̶r̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶, H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, a̶n̶d̶
> V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶, V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶, t̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶m̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶, h̶e̶r̶e̶t̶o̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶ H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶; or

you suck their dicks. Read the fucking article, before post in
𝘀𝗰𝗶.𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆. You fool.

On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:

>>> So in the time from when the light leaves
>>> the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
>>> ever so slightly.

>> And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
>
> Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames

I just said the effect cancels on the return path.

> As observed in MMX with the null result.

The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.

> But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.

No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.

> Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
> For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
> 1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
> your inertial frame in under SR?
> Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
> with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
> 30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
> shorter. But not the NS path

The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
being inertial, unmeasurable.

[snip crap]

>>>>> But not shortening the N-S light beam.
>>>>> And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
>>>>> could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
>>>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
>>>
>>> They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
>>> The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
>>> inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
>>> position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line. Whereas
>>> the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
>>> Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
>>> go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
>>> If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
>>> in a straight line?NO!
>>> Point A travels farther in one direction than B
>>> Basic geometry.
>> And the return path cancels.
>>>>>> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
>>>>>
>>>>> So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
>>>>> inertial frame.
>>>> Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
>>>> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
>>>
>>> So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
>>> But the light travels in a rotating frame.
>> It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
>> concept of frames!)
>>> And it’s the path
>>> of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
>>> observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
>>> Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.

>> And SR gets it correct.
>
> Not neccesarily.

It is within 1*10^-6 fringes away from "getting it correct".
Unmeasurable and can be ignored, other than (in a modern paper) a
description of sources of errors and their contribution to an overall
error. These days, papers give an overall confidence level, how many
sigmas relevance, which can be translated into odds that the overall
results are real and not from random errors. (these odds are never 100%
but ideally as close to 100% as possible)

>>> Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
>>> better modelled by a classical model.

>> Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
>
> They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.

oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
>
> But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
> galaxies where your theory predict none,

That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.

> SOHO data on 7 times too much
> G ray emissions than your theory allows.

That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.

> And Fermi data on muons not behaving
> at all like your theory predicts.

That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".

> ALL refuting Relativity based theory.

No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.

>>>>> Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
>>>>> fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
>>
>>>> Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
>>
>>>>> Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
>>
>>>> The photoelectric effect.
>>>
>>> It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
>>> coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
>>> So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
>>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
>> No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
>> called light "wavicles".
>>
> There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
> a wave theory does.

Except the photoelectric effect.

> Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum
> energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
> coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because
> according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold.
> So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals”
> 😂🤣😂🤣
> Liars.

ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.

>>>>> The closest
>>>>> “evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
>>>>> as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
>>
>>>> Word salad.
>>>
>>> Waves aren’t word salad.

>> Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.

>>> But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
>>> Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
>>> Light and atoms are wave like only.

>> Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
>
> Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
> a detector? No.

Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
to do that with a pure wave theory.

> What happened was a QT fanatic pretended that wave energy was quantised
> by a resonant system atom at the detector.

A bite of word salad.
>
> Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
> bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,..it
> is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
> amount of energy to a detector.

Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.

On 9/30/2023 7:02 AM, Lakhram Bahmetev wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/2023 5:22 PM, Olegario Babusenko wrote:
>>> Volney wrote:
>>>
>>>> And once again, the estimated fringe shift for the MMX was about 10^-6
>>>> fringes and the best detection was about 0.1 fringes, so the lab frame
>>>> is "inertial enough". Just like the vibrations from the Chinese
>>>> butterfly fart (which you never addressed) can be calculated to be too
>>>> small to affect the sensitivity of the apparatus.
>>>
>>> 𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
>>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
>>
>> W̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶h̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶? A̶r̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶, H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, a̶n̶d̶
>> V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶, V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶, t̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶m̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶, h̶e̶r̶e̶t̶o̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶ H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶; or
>
> you suck their dicks. Read the fucking article, before post in
> 𝘀𝗰𝗶.𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆. You fool.

Hanson, you were vulvatic for years, then hid behind "Moroney", then
"Volney" (Vulva). You were vulvatic from the beginning. Anything you
post has hallmarks of your vulva. You can't hide.

I can find whatever information "A noiseless patient Spider" ever kept
of your identity via a lawyer. Relf says you doxed me. When I find that
post, I'll get your identity out for legal purposes.

Don't go around doxing people. Unless you have assets to lose without a
qualm.

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 9/30/2023 7:02 AM, Lakhram Bahmetev wrote:
>>>> 𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
>>>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/jPvFs86kVps
>>>
>>> W̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶h̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶? A̶r̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶, H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, a̶n̶d̶
>>> V̶o̶l̶n̶e̶y̶, V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶, t̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶m̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶, h̶e̶r̶e̶t̶o̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ V̶u̶l̶v̶a̶ H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶;
>>
>> you suck their dicks. Read the fucking article, before post in
>> 𝘀𝗰𝗶.𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆. You fool.
>
> Hanson, you were vulvatic for years, then hid behind "Moroney", then
> "Volney" (Vulva). You were vulvatic from the beginning. Anything you
> post has hallmarks of your vulva. You can't hide.

eat shit, you fucking stupid. You are stupid like shit in physics and
else. Fuck your momma vulva, lol.

On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> So in the time from when the light leaves
> >>> the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
> >>> ever so slightly.
>
> >> And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
> >
> > Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
> I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
> > As observed in MMX with the null result.
> The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
spacetime instead.
Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
dont rotate around the earths axis...

> > But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
> No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
> > Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
> > For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
> > 1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
> > your inertial frame in under SR?
> > Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
> > with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
> > 30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
> > and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
> > shorter. But not the NS path
> The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
> being inertial, unmeasurable.
>
> [snip crap]

Just the answer I expected from you.
I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.

Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
Frame?
Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
Sounds like you don’t.

> >>>>> But not shortening the N-S light beam.
> >>>>> And thus giving a path difference between the two beams which
> >>>>> could be detected by MMX when the 2 arms beams are rotated 90degrees.
> >>>> No, since the return paths are the same as the initial paths. They cancel.
> >>>
> >>> They don’t. Do a Java simulation of the two superimposed frames.
> >>> The rotating real mirrored setup superimposed on the imaginary
> >>> inertial frame. They both start off in the same superimposed
> >>> position. But the imaginary inertial frame travels in a straight line.. Whereas
> >>> the real non inertial mirrored arms go in a circle.
> >>> Answer this question. Does the same point A in space travelling at x speed
> >>> go farther in one direction than the same point B travelling at the x speed
> >>> If both start together at the same location,..but B is going in a circle and A
> >>> in a straight line?NO!
> >>> Point A travels farther in one direction than B
> >>> Basic geometry.
> >> And the return path cancels.
> >>>>>> While MMX and Sagnac devices are very similar, they are NOT the same!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what. The fact that you can’t deny is...Ring gyros prove the lab isn’t in an
> >>>>> inertial frame.
> >>>> Nobody ever claimed the lab frame is inertial. Only "inertial enough"
> >>>> for some experiments (such as MMX but not Sagnac).
> >>>
> >>> So what. SR calculates in an imaginary inertial frame.
> >>> But the light travels in a rotating frame.
> >> It travels in both frames. (As I stated, you simply don't understand the
> >> concept of frames!)
> >>> And it’s the path
> >>> of the light in the real non inertial frame that are the empirical
> >>> observations that any theory including SR has to correctly predict.
> >>> Not the imaginary assumed paths in an imaginary inertial frame.
>
> >> And SR gets it correct.
> >
> > Not neccesarily.
> It is within 1*10^-6 fringes away from "getting it correct".
> Unmeasurable and can be ignored, other than (in a modern paper) a
> description of sources of errors and their contribution to an overall
> error. These days, papers give an overall confidence level, how many
> sigmas relevance, which can be translated into odds that the overall
> results are real and not from random errors. (these odds are never 100%
> but ideally as close to 100% as possible)
> >>> Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
> >>> better modelled by a classical model.
>
> >> Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
> >
> > They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
> oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
> give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
> >
> > But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
> > In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
> > galaxies where your theory predict none,
> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
> > SOHO data on 7 times too much
> > G ray emissions than your theory allows.
> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.

Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical
observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.

> > And Fermi data on muons not behaving
> > at all like your theory predicts.
> That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
> not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".

“Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
do with relativity”

> > ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
> No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
> refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
> incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.

💩

> >>>>> Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
> >>>>> fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
> >>
> >>>> Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
> >>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
> >>
> >>>>> Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
> >>
> >>>> The photoelectric effect.
> >>>
> >>> It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
> >>> coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
> >>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
> >>> So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
> >>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
> >> No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
> >> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
> >> called light "wavicles".
> >>
> > There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
> > a wave theory does.
> Except the photoelectric effect.
> > Because waves can explain ALL the rates Aspect observed, even below minimum
> > energy thresholds. Whereas QT cannot explain energy and
> > coincident rates that were observed below a minimum energy limit. Because
> > according to QT....there should be ZERO detections below this threshold..
> > So the dishonest theorists pretend it’s “unexplained residuals”
> >
> > Liars.
> ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
> the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
> misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.

On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
>>
>>>>> So in the time from when the light leaves
>>>>> the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
>>>>> ever so slightly.
>>
>>>> And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
>>>
>>> Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
>> I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
>>> As observed in MMX with the null result.
>> The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
>
> True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
> It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
> spacetime instead.

The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.

> Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
> speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
> That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
> dont rotate around the earths axis...

Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
>
>>> But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
>> No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
>>> Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
>>> For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
>>> 1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
>>> your inertial frame in under SR?
>>> Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
>>> with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
>>> 30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
>>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
>>> shorter. But not the NS path
>> The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
>> being inertial, unmeasurable.
>>
>> [snip crap]
>
> Just the answer I expected from you.
> I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.

It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
inertial or not.

> Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
> it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.

The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
(and theory).
>
> Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
> uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?

What's a "ks"?

> Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
> at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
> setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
> Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
> Frame?
> Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
> the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
> Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?

If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense
here.

>>>>> Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
>>>>> better modelled by a classical model.
>>
>>>> Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
>>>
>>> They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.

>> oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
>> give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
>>>
>>> But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
>>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
>>> galaxies where your theory predict none,

>> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.

>>> SOHO data on 7 times too much
>>> G ray emissions than your theory allows.

>> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
>
> Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
> on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
> wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.

Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity
leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.

I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has
failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.

> Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical
> observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.

Again, name just one.
>
>
>
>>> And Fermi data on muons not behaving
>>> at all like your theory predicts.
>> That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
>> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
>> not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
>
> “Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
> want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
> do with relativity”

Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a
significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a
small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in
particular nothing disproving it)
>
>>> ALL refuting Relativity based theory.

>> No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
>> refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
>> incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
>
> 💩

Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.

Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no
evidence of relativity being the issue.
>
>>>>>>> Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
>>>>>>> fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle.
>>>>
>>>>>> Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
>>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
>>>>
>>>>>> The photoelectric effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
>>>>> coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
>>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
>>>>> So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
>>>>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
>>>> No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
>>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
>>>> called light "wavicles".
>>>>
>>> There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
>>> a wave theory does.

>> Except the photoelectric effect.

>> ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
>> the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
>> misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
>> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
>
> If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
> of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
> as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations

Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile,
antirelativity cranks drool.

> The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
> Maybe it can’t Relativity”

Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
>
>>>>>>> The closest
>>>>>>> “evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
>>>>>>> as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
>>>>
>>>>>> Word salad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Waves aren’t word salad.
>>
>>>> Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
>>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
>>
>>>>> But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
>>>>> Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
>>>>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
>>
>>>> Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
>>>
>>> Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
>>> a detector? No.

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> So in the time from when the light leaves
> >>>>> the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
> >>>>> ever so slightly.
> >>
> >>>> And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
> >>>
> >>> Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
> >> I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
> >>> As observed in MMX with the null result.
> >> The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
> >
> > True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
> > It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
> > spacetime instead.
> The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
> > Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
> > speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
> > That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
> > dont rotate around the earths axis...
> Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
> >
> >>> But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
> >> No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
> >>> Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
> >>> For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
> >>> 1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
> >>> your inertial frame in under SR?
> >>> Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
> >>> with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
> >>> 30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
> >>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
> >>> shorter. But not the NS path
> >> The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
> >> being inertial, unmeasurable.
> >>
> >> [snip crap]
> >
> > Just the answer I expected from you.
> > I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
> It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
> inertial or not.
> > Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
> > it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
> The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
> (and theory).
> >
> > Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
> > uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
> What's a "ks"?
> > Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
> > at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
> > setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
> > Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
> > Frame?
> > Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
> > the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
> > Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
> If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
> it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
> off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense
> here.
> >>>>> Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
> >>>>> better modelled by a classical model.
> >>
> >>>> Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
> >>>
> >>> They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
>
> >> oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
> >> give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
> >>>
> >>> But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
> >>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
> >>> galaxies where your theory predict none,
>
> >> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
>
> >>> SOHO data on 7 times too much
> >>> G ray emissions than your theory allows.
>
> >> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
> >
> > Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
> > on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
> > wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
> Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
> conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity
> leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
> it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
>
> I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has
> failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
> > Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical
> > observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.
> Again, name just one.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> And Fermi data on muons not behaving
> >>> at all like your theory predicts.
> >> That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
> >> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
> >> not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
> >
> > “Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
> > want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
> > do with relativity”
> Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
> predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
> match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a
> significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a
> small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in
> particular nothing disproving it)
> >
> >>> ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
>
> >> No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
> >> refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
> >> incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
> >
> > 💩
> Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.
>
> Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
> cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no
> evidence of relativity being the issue.
> >
> >>>>>>> Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
> >>>>>>> fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle..
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
> >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The photoelectric effect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
> >>>>> coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
> >>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
> >>>>> So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
> >>>>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
> >>>> No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
> >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
> >>>> called light "wavicles".
> >>>>
> >>> There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
> >>> a wave theory does.
>
> >> Except the photoelectric effect.
> >> ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
> >> the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
> >> misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
> >> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
> >
> > If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
> > of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
> > as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
> Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile,
> antirelativity cranks drool.
> > The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
> > Maybe it can’t Relativity”
> Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
> >
> >>>>>>> The closest
> >>>>>>> “evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
> >>>>>>> as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Word salad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Waves aren’t word salad.
> >>
> >>>> Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
> >>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
> >>
> >>>>> But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
> >>>>> Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
> >>>>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
> >>
> >>>> Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
> >>>
> >>> Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
> >>> a detector? No.
>
> >> Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
> >> of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
> >> to do that with a pure wave theory.
> >
> > You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?
> They move much too fast (nearly c) to "see them zipping through" a cloud
> chamber. The path instantaneously appears and expands and fades. A kid
> at my kid's high school set up a Wilson cloud chamber. It was neat to
> watch. A path would instantaneously appear at semi-random locations
> based on the location of a mildly radioactive source. A crystal of
> potassium compound IIRC. Some came from muons.
> > Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?
> There was alcohol involved but nobody was drinking the pure (isopropyl)
> alcohol.
>
> Anyway, it's a neat effect. There should be plenty of Youtube videos of
> it. Find them and watch them.
> > Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by
> > overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns.
> > Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and
> > constructive interference patterns.
> Nope. You obviously have no idea how a Wilson cloud chamber or a bubble
> chamber work. An energetic particle ionizes gas molecules along its path
> and they become nuclei for condensation in the supersaturated alcohol
> vapor, forming tiny droplets along its path (Wilson cloud chamber) which
> are visible.
> >>> Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
> >>> bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,...it
> >>> is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
> >>> amount of energy to a detector.
>
> >> Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
> >
> > Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.
> No interference effects in the photoelectric effect. It cannot be
> explained by the wave model of light.
> > Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
> > use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating
> > annulus rings or geographical locations.
> Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
> > But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
> You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
> physics.
>
> It's strange, but look how many victims of this form of insanity are
> present here. Including yourself, of course. Runs in the family.

On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 17:45:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2023 5:48 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:55:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/29/2023 5:21 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> So in the time from when the light leaves
> >>>>> the source to get to the E-W mirror...the lab frame with the setup has rotated
> >>>>> ever so slightly.
> >>
> >>>> And on the way back it retraces the exact same path, so all that cancels.
> >>>
> >>> Depends. If light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames
> >> I just said the effect cancels on the return path.
> >>> As observed in MMX with the null result.
> >> The MMX gave null results because there is no aether wind.
> >
> > True, there is no aether wind and then there is no aether. Never was.
> > It was made up by relativists before they started calling the aether
> > spacetime instead.
> The aether concept was about 100 years old by the time Einstein came along.
> > Anyways, regardless, the MMX results prove light travels at constant
> > speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
> > That is unless you want to prove that the earth is flat and it and the /MMX/lab
> > dont rotate around the earths axis...
> Since the MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, your claim is false.
> >
> >>> But with SR...it depends on what you define as an inertial frame.
> >> No, it doesn't. Experimental results don't influence the outcome.
> >>> Relativists seem to change its definition whenever it suits them.
> >>> For instance the lab/MMX is rotating around earths N-S axis at
> >>> 1630 k/h and speeding at 30km sec around the sun. What frame is
> >>> your inertial frame in under SR?
> >>> Does it A)stay still relative to the earths axis but not rotate around the axis
> >>> with the lab so it’s travelling in a straight line along with the earth axis at
> >>> 30ks around sun. In which case the actual real experiment rotates down
> >>> and away from the inertial frame. Making the EW path length longer or
> >>> shorter. But not the NS path
> >> The experiment is in the lab frame which is 1*10^-6 fringes away from
> >> being inertial, unmeasurable.
> >>
> >> [snip crap]
> >
> > Just the answer I expected from you.
> > I predicted that relativists don’t even know what an inertial frame is.
> It is you who doesn't understand the concept of frames in physics,
> inertial or not.
> > Handy for covering up the fact that the “Special Maybe it can, maybe
> > it can’t theory” just can’t model any experimental results. Let alone MMX.
> The MMX isn't sensitive to rotations, according to experimental results
> (and theory).
> >
> > Answer the question. Does the inertial frame travel in
> > uniform straight motion along with the earth at 30ks?
> What's a "ks"?
> > Or Does it travel with the earth in uniform straight motion
> > at 30ks plus the extra tangential velocity of 1631 k/ hr from the
> > setups tangential motion due to earth rotation?
> > Or Does it stay at rest relative to sun and let the earth travel away in a seperate
> > Frame?
> > Does it move at all relative to sun or earth or earths rotation in
> > the finite-amount of time that light takes to travel to the mirrors and back?
> > Do relativists even know what an inertial frame is?
> If you have to ask what an inertial frame is with those possibilities,
> it's clear you just don't understand what an inertial frame even is. Go
> off and learn what frames in physics are before blithering more nonsense
> here.
> >>>>> Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has failed. Or at least been
> >>>>> better modelled by a classical model.
> >>
> >>>> Name just one. (and go collect your Nobel Prize).
> >>>
> >>> They don’t give out Nobel prizes to theorists who use empirical data.
>
> >> oh here come the conspiracy theories how the Nobel committee doesn't
> >> give out prizes for actual science when it has to cover for...someone.
> >>>
> >>> But you ask me to name one? Goodness...There are so many. Let me see.
> >>> In the last few few months alone we’ve had JWST data on mature metal rich
> >>> galaxies where your theory predict none,
>
> >> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
>
> >>> SOHO data on 7 times too much
> >>> G ray emissions than your theory allows.
>
> >> That's a conflict with cosmology, not relativity.
> >
> > Problem with this is the Big Bang and the Standard Model are based firmly
> > on the assumptions of relativity. Without relativity, you
> > wouldnt have either Big Bang or the standard model.
> Yet you are unable to find a flaw in relativity which leads to the
> conflict in cosmology you claim. Without a specific flaw in relativity
> leading to it, there is no way this alleged flaw in cosmology (assuming
> it even is a flaw) disproves relativity in any way.
>
> I repeat: You wrote "Pretty well every prediction made by relativity has
> failed." Point out just one, and go collect your Nobel Prize.
> > Which incidentally, were both invented to save relativity when empirical
> > observations refuting relativity came in thick and fast in the 20th C.
> Again, name just one.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> And Fermi data on muons not behaving
> >>> at all like your theory predicts.
> >> That's a tiny effect, which indirectly shows how damn close QFT theories
> >> predict such things, but not as close as they thought. A tiny effect,
> >> not "not behaving at all like your theory predicts".
> >
> > “Yes guv..it wasn’t relativity’s fault. Those particles decided they didn’t
> > want to be able to travel faster than c all on their own. Nothing to
> > do with relativity”
> Nothing to do with exceeding the speed of light. Particle physics
> predicts a certain effect to many digits of resolution. Measurements
> match but not to as many digits of resolution. A tiny effect, but a
> significant one, which means some sort of new/different physics (with a
> small effect) involved. (and not necessarily involving relativity, in
> particular nothing disproving it)
> >
> >>> ALL refuting Relativity based theory.
>
> >> No, first two conflict with cosmology, not refuting relativity. To
> >> refute relativity, you'd have to trace the cosmology conflict to an
> >> incorrect prediction of relativity, not from something else.
> >
> > 💩
> Yes that describes just about everything you have posted.
>
> Both of those are potential issues with cosmology, which may be in
> cosmology itself, or (less likely) in an underlying theory. You have no
> evidence of relativity being the issue.
> >
> >>>>>>> Ballistic light is a fantasy invented by relativists before they converted to the
> >>>>>>> fantasy of photons and relativity. Light isn’t a particle..
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Light is a wave-particle duality. Ballistic light treats light as if
> >>>>>> moving on a path as a particle would.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove it is.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The photoelectric effect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It can be modeled as well if not better by waves. The Grangier
> >>>>> coincidence experiment doesn’t do as good a job at modelling the
> >>>>> coincident rate as a wave only model can.
> >>>>> So much for the only ‘evidence’ that relativists and QT supporters Ever
> >>>>> even had a hope of using as proof of their theories.
> >>>> No, some light interaction can be better modeled as waves and other
> >>>> better modeled as a particle. Some famous scientist (I forget who)
> >>>> called light "wavicles".
> >>>>
> >>> There isn’t a single piece of evidence that can be modelled as well as
> >>> a wave theory does.
>
> >> Except the photoelectric effect.
> >> ALL experiments have experimental errors. I don't know the details of
> >> the one you describe so I can't comment whether you completely
> >> misinterpreted something (likely) or there are tiny experimental errors
> >> preventing the measurement of something to be not exactly 0.
> >
> > If you don’t want to read how QT theorists couldnt explain results
> > of their landmark coincidence rate experimental results. Then yes I expected
> > as much. You relativists just hate any empirical observations
> Nope. In science, observations and experimental results rule. Meanwhile,
> antirelativity cranks drool.
> > The data always refutes your theory of “Special Maybe it can,
> > Maybe it can’t Relativity”
> Examples? Don't forget to tell the Nobel committee!
> >
> >>>>>>> The closest
> >>>>>>> “evidence” you have are PMT “detections”. And they can easily be modeled
> >>>>>>> as wave only light being quantised by the detector atoms.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Word salad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Waves aren’t word salad.
> >>
> >>>> Single words aren't word salad just like a single slice of cucumber
> >>>> isn't a salad. It's the jumble of words that make a word salad.
> >>
> >>>>> But yes...I know relativists and QT fanatics
> >>>>> Don’t like waves. Even though all existing observations in physics show
> >>>>> Light and atoms are wave like only.
> >>
> >>>> Except for things like the photoelectric effect.
> >>>
> >>> Come on Volney. Did anyone actually SEE a photon hitting
> >>> a detector? No.
>
> >> Yes. Even in the bubble chamber times, there are many, many photographs
> >> of 'pair production' where a single photon becomes an e+e- pair. No way
> >> to do that with a pure wave theory.
> >
> > You saw the particle actually zip through the cloud chamber?
> They move much too fast (nearly c) to "see them zipping through" a cloud
> chamber. The path instantaneously appears and expands and fades. A kid
> at my kid's high school set up a Wilson cloud chamber. It was neat to
> watch. A path would instantaneously appear at semi-random locations
> based on the location of a mildly radioactive source. A crystal of
> potassium compound IIRC. Some came from muons.
> > Wow. Were you drinking by any chance?
> There was alcohol involved but nobody was drinking the pure (isopropyl)
> alcohol.
>
> Anyway, it's a neat effect. There should be plenty of Youtube videos of
> it. Find them and watch them.
> > Anyways “particle paths “ seen in various experiments are caused by
> > overlapping waves. Notice it’s called I N T E R F E R E N C E patterns.
> > Caused by ...yes, believe it or not, wavefronts creating destructive and
> > constructive interference patterns.
> Nope. You obviously have no idea how a Wilson cloud chamber or a bubble
> chamber work. An energetic particle ionizes gas molecules along its path
> and they become nuclei for condensation in the supersaturated alcohol
> vapor, forming tiny droplets along its path (Wilson cloud chamber) which
> are visible.
> >>> Here’s a good analogy. Waves in a pool wash up against a
> >>> bucket at the edge of the pool. Whenever the bucket fills with water,...it
> >>> is triggered to empty its contents in one pulse so as to deliver a quantised
> >>> amount of energy to a detector.
>
> >> Doesn't work for the photoelectric effect, or pair production.
> >
> > Only if you aren’t a physicist and don’t understand things like interference.
> No interference effects in the photoelectric effect. It cannot be
> explained by the wave model of light.
> > Or concepts like annulus rings. Notice NASA and GPS regularly
> > use overlapping 2, 3 or multiple overlapping emr waves when calculating
> > annulus rings or geographical locations.
> Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect, pair production etc.
> > But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
> You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
> physics.

On 10/1/23 4:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> the MMX results prove light travels at constant speeds isotropically
> in non inertial frames.

Only for non-inertial frames that differ from inertial frames by amounts
too small for the instrument to measure.

> [... considerable nonsense omitted]

Tom Roberts

On 10/1/2023 6:33 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 17:58:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/1/2023 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:

>>> But Thats physics. And relativists don’t do physics.
>> You don't understand physics. But it appears that a common mental
>> illness is to obsess with disproving relativity without understanding
>> physics.
>
> Says the physics free guy who thinks MMX doesn’t need to be rotated 90degrees on
> it’s Mercury bed to allow for M-M to decide if there is or is not a null result.
> What do you think the Mercury bed was for?
> Sleeping on?

You are blathering irrationally. First you repeatedly whine how the
rotation of the earth ruins the MMX results, despite the effect being so
small it is 10^-5 times smaller or more than its resolution. Then you
whine that 6 hours of rotation of an MMX can't be useful somehow, they
must use a mercury pool to rotate it. I already told you why they use
the mercury pool. Make up your mind!
>
> I notice you still haven’t been able to admit you don’t actually know what
> an inertial frame is. My advice to you is: Blame someone else for your ignorance.

Once again, it is YOU who cannot understand what an inertial frame is. I
knew this immediately when you went apocalyptic when I mentioned three
frames, you thought three frames was impossible!
>
> And regarding failures of relativity ...Heres 3 in just the last few months.

I already shot down these very same claims in flames, but you refer to
them again? Do you even read my replies?
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386042-astronomers-have-spotted-inexplicably-bright-light-coming-from-the-sun/

An issue about theories about the sun/stars/cosmology. Relativity not
even mentioned.
>
> https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics

An issue about theories about particle physics. As even the URL states,
this hints at new physics, not any issue with relativity. Again,
relativity isn't even mentioned.
>
>
> https://www.astronomy.com/science/we-just-discovered-the-impossible-giant-young-galaxies-shake-up-our-understanding-of-the-early-universe/

Again, an issue with cosmology, and relativity not even mentioned.

If you are going to try to shoot down relativity, don't try doing so
with the fighter jets which are already at the bottoms of smoking craters!
>
> Oh ! I forgot!! Relativists don’t like actual data and empirical observations.
> They never agree with the “Theory of Maybe it can, Maybe it can’t Relativity.”

Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE. Got any?

On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 07:49:24 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Again, in science, actual data and empirical observations RULE.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
lie, stupid Mike.