On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 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.
>

If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and isotropy of
light in non inertial frames then how do you know that if it *was* sensitive enough
it would not give a null result?
You also forget that if it was sensitive enough and did not give a null result...
it might refute constant isotropic speeds of light in non inertial frames. But
it would also refute SR. Because SR is based on the assumption that MMX
cannot predict a non null result.
Anyways, you also have a ridiculous contradiction in your logic when you
say above that MMX isn’t sensitive enough *currently* to detect rotation if
there were any. Yet in other posts you and other relativists have said...MMX
was designed NEVER to be able to detect rotation. Regardless of how sensitive
to rotation it could made to be as an experiment.
Special Theory of Maybe it can,Maybe it can’t Relativity.

On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> 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!

!!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
result.
Here’s your original post:
(Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null
result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.

> > 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!

Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves
relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes light
to go out and back on both arms?
Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this....
you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
And refute SR.

> >
> > 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?

Why do you ask?
Hmm. Let me guess...you haven’t got any evidence . Right?

On 10/2/23 3:46 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and
> isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that if
> it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?

You are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.

1. The MMX most definitely WAS able to operate successfully and yield a
null result for the non-inertial 'frame' of its lab on the surface of
the earth. Because the difference between that non-inertial 'frame' and
a truly inertial frame is too small for the instrument to measure.
2. Other non-inertial 'frames' were not used.
3. For most non-inertial 'frames' it would be impossible to use the
instrument at all.

Example: imagine putting the MMX instrument inside a truck, and then
accelerating that truck at 1 g along a smooth and straight highway. The
apparatus would not even rotate because the float carrying the
interferometer in the mercury bath would be stuck on the back edge of
the bath. If you imagine taking the 3-vector sum of the truck's
acceleration and the acceleration due to gravity, and orient the
instrument so that is "local vertical", then it would probably be able
to rotate, but the orientation-dependent strains on the arms would be
much larger than the rigidity necessary (gravity pulls equally on all
parts of the instrument, but the acceleration does not).

> [...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
> null result.

That is complete nonsense, and merely displays your comprehensive
ignorance. In 1905 Einstein was at most only distantly aware of the MMX;
he CERTAINLY did not use it in developing SR (just read his 1905 paper).

You REALLY need to learn what SR is, and what it isn't. Until and unless
you understand the theory, WITHOUT YOUR ADDED FANTASIES, you have no
hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do).

> [... further nonsense omitted]

You are overly repetitive. Don't expect me to continue.

Tom Roberts

On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> 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!
>
> !!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
> No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
> be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
> result.
> Here’s your original post:
> (Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
> enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
> rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)

You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
attached to earth, rotate with it.

> How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?

Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
up and without the mercury pool.
Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
interference from the two paths.

Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?

> It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null
> result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.

So now you disagree that the earth rotates? Time for YOU to check into
the Home for the Terminally Stupid or something.
>
>>> 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!
>
> Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves
> relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes light
> to go out and back on both arms?

Easily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.

> Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...
> you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
> And refute SR.

Make up your mind. Either the rotation of the earth affects the MMX and
invalidates its null result during the few nanoseconds it took light to
traverse the configuration, or the rotation of the earth doesn't affect
the biggest MMX-type setups in the world, the two LIGO detectors plus
the others now online. One or the other. You can't have both. One or the
other.

>>> 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.
> 💩

So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.

>>>
>>> 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.
> 😂💩

For a second time, you have no answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 😂🤣💩

And for a third time, no answer.

I'll ask again: Any examples of relativity failures? Not cosmology
issues, not particle physics issues, not repeats of irrelevant claims,
failures of relativity itself.

>> 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?
>
> Why do you ask?

Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
am making a point from your lack of data and observations.

On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:38:18 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/2/23 3:46 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 02:49:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > If you think MMx is not sensitive enough to to test for constancy and
> > isotropy of light in non inertial frames then how do you know that if
> > it *was* sensitive enough it would not give a null result?
> You are just making stuff up, and repeating your previous idiocies.
>
> 1. The MMX most definitely WAS able to operate successfully and yield a
> null result for the non-inertial 'frame' of its lab on the surface of
> the earth. Because the difference between that non-inertial 'frame' and
> a truly inertial frame is too small for the instrument to measure.
> 2. Other non-inertial 'frames' were not used.
> 3. For most non-inertial 'frames' it would be impossible to use the
> instrument at all.
>
> Example: imagine putting the MMX instrument inside a truck, and then
> accelerating that truck at 1 g along a smooth and straight highway. The
> apparatus would not even rotate because the float carrying the
> interferometer in the mercury bath would be stuck on the back edge of
> the bath. If you imagine taking the 3-vector sum of the truck's
> acceleration and the acceleration due to gravity, and orient the
> instrument so that is "local vertical", then it would probably be able
> to rotate, but the orientation-dependent strains on the arms would be
> much larger than the rigidity necessary (gravity pulls equally on all
> parts of the instrument, but the acceleration does not).
>
> > [...] SR is based on the assumption that MMX cannot predict a non
> > null result.
>
> That is complete nonsense, and merely displays your comprehensive
> ignorance. In 1905 Einstein was at most only distantly aware of the MMX;
> he CERTAINLY did not use it in developing SR (just read his 1905 paper).
>
> You REALLY need to learn what SR is, and what it isn't. Until and unless
> you understand the theory, WITHOUT YOUR ADDED FANTASIES, you have no
> hope of "disproving SR" (or whatever the Hell it is you are trying to do)..
>
> > [... further nonsense omitted]
>
You seem to have a problem reading my posts. You just pretend I
am talking about detecting an aether wind from earths rotation around sun.
I am NOT. You are fantasising about what I claim.
Look back in this thread and others. I have said in all threads that MMX rotates
around earth whilst giving the null result. Indicating that yes I already know that
there is *no aether wind*...
What Im saying is.... that because the setup rotates
AROUND THE EARTHS AXIS 24 hours a day it is in a non inertial frame and also
proves that contrary to predictions by SR...light can travel at isotropic constant
speeds in a non inertial source. And this is consistent with MMX results to date.

You relativists then claimed MMX null result isnt evidence enough to prove isotropic
constant speeds are possible in non inertial frames. Pretending that a more sensitive
MMX would prove me wrong and detect rotation of lab around earths axis even though
it detects no ether wind.
Fact free claim. Because you need the results of this imaginary super sensitive
MMX experiment to prove that in a aether free universe light cannot travel at
isotropic constant speeds in non inertial frames. And you haven’t got it yet.

And pretending LIGO is the MMX experiment proves me wrong is complete
illogical fact free nonsense. Because in a universe without an aether the only way to
check if the LIGO sized MMX arms can detect *lab/earths rotation* would be to have
both arms ROTATING in the LIGO sized lab whilst the setup itself rotates around
the earths axis.

On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> 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!
> >
> > !!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
> > No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
> > be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
> > result.
> > Here’s your original post:
> > (Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
> > enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
> > really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
> > rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
> You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
> attached to earth, rotate with it.
> > How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
> Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
> up and without the mercury pool.
> Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
> interference from the two paths.
>
> Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?

You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
around earths axis.
But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
our speed around sun.
Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds
isotropically in non inertial frames. Seeing as the MMX and lab are
in non inertial frames.
You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that
a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degrees
in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretended
I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.
I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot
travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle
within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to
check for path speed differences on the same arm.
LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle
in minutes...like the original MMX was.

> > It can’t be rotated at 90 degrees on a mercury bed to test for a null
> > result. Time to retire Volney. And study physics instead of magic.
> So now you disagree that the earth rotates? Time for YOU to check into
> the Home for the Terminally Stupid or something.
> >
> >>> 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!
> >
> > Still waiting. Do you know how your imaginary inertial frame moves
> > relative to the real non inertial frame during the finite time it takes light
> > to go out and back on both arms?
> Easily computed from the rotation of the earth/lab frame.
> > Probably not. Either that or you do know but you know if you admitted this...
> > you would prove that light paths in MMX could vary due to rotation.
> > And refute SR.
> Make up your mind. Either the rotation of the earth affects the MMX and
> invalidates its null result during the few nanoseconds it took light to
> traverse the configuration, or the rotation of the earth doesn't affect
> the biggest MMX-type setups in the world, the two LIGO detectors plus
> the others now online. One or the other. You can't have both. One or the
> other.
> >>> 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.
> > 💩
> So you have no answer to the lack of mention of relativity in this.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> > 😂💩
> For a second time, you have no answer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> > 😂🤣💩
> And for a third time, no answer.
>
> I'll ask again: Any examples of relativity failures? Not cosmology
> issues, not particle physics issues, not repeats of irrelevant claims,
> failures of relativity itself.
> >> 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?
> >
> > Why do you ask?
> Because you don't have any actual data and empirical observations, and I
> am making a point from your lack of data and observations.

On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>> !!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
>>> No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
>>> be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
>>> result.
>>> Here’s your original post:
>>> (Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
>>> enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
>>> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
>>> rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
>> You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
>> attached to earth, rotate with it.
>>> How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
>> Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
>> up and without the mercury pool.
>> Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
>> interference from the two paths.
>>
>> Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
>> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
>
> You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.

What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?

> AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
> around earths axis.

0.00225 Hz?

> But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
> our speed around sun.

Correct, so far.

> Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds
> isotropically in non inertial frames.

Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
frame is 10^-6 fringe, which is not detectable, you cannot realistically
claim that. Besides, there are no proofs in physics, only disproofs.

> Seeing as the MMX and lab are
> in non inertial frames.
> You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that
> a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
> both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant
> speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.

Except the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
to be sensitive to rotation, and the LIGO machines are designed to a
much higher standards than the original MMX interferometer which was
insensitive to rotation. The LIGO systems COULD, in theory, be super
sensitive to the ether wind...if it existed.

> I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degrees
> in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.

The earth does all the rotation that's needed.

> At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretended
> I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.

The ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.

> I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.
> I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot
> travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
> And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
> a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle
> within a time frame of *just a few minutes*

Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not a few minutes.

> Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to
> check for path speed differences on the same arm.
> LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle
> in minutes...like the original MMX was.

The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?

Anyway, you are talking in circles, holding both the beliefs that LIGO,
despite rotating with the earth can't detect the rotation, while the
original MMX system could, despite the rotation in several nanoseconds
is trivial. This is going nowhere, and as Gary reminds us, you are just
insane anyway. So go have the last word, I am done with this thread.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> > >>>>>>>>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > >>>>>>>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > >>>>>>>>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > >>>>>>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > >>>>>>>>> frame non inertial.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> > >>>>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
> > >>>>>> They don't.
> > >>>>>> They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> > >>>>>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
> > >>>>> Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> > >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> > >>>
> > >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > >>> Prove this.
> > >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> > >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> > >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> > >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> > >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> > >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> > >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> > >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> > >>
> > >> So three frames.
> > >
> > > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> > I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> > physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> > in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> > Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> > three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
> >
> > The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> > others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> > specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> > velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> > one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> > some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> > another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> > from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> > frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
> >
> > You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
> It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
> then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
> to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
> they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
> what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
> "an" inertial frame.
>
> So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
> general form, ....
>
> Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
> then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
> is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
> there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
>
> That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
> that they do, some, and don't, others.
>
> It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
> an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
>
> Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
> _and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
> the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
> is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".

An inertial frame is not an inertial frame as once it moves it is an "inertial-system".

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:27:14 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> 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!
> >>>
> >>> !!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
> >>> No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
> >>> be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
> >>> result.
> >>> Here’s your original post:
> >>> (Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
> >>> enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
> >>> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
> >>> rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
> >> You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
> >> attached to earth, rotate with it.
> >>> How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
> >> Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
> >> up and without the mercury pool.
> >> Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
> >> interference from the two paths.
> >>
> >> Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
> >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
> >
> > You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
> > ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
> What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
> > AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
> > around earths axis.
> 0.00225 Hz?
> > But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
> > our speed around sun.
> Correct, so far.
> > Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds
> > isotropically in non inertial frames.
> Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
> frame is 10^-6 fringe,

How do you know, stupid Mike?
Have you measured ideal inertial frame?

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 16:56:50 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 06:49:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> 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!
> >>>
> >>> !!You told me why they used the mercury bed!! Hilarious.
> >>> No you didn’t. You tried to claim that MMX, like LIGO didn’t ever even need to
> >>> be rotated in the lab and still be able to test for a null or non null
> >>> result.
> >>> Here’s your original post:
> >>> (Volney quote sept 20 this thread: “A ‘perfect’ MMX device will have a zero
> >>> enclosed area so it would be insensitive to earth's rotation so the answer
> >>> really is LIGO devices are really oversized MMX devices and the
> >>> rotation of the earth doesn't seem to bother them. “)
> >> You are very, Very, VERY confused. The LIGO detectors, obviously being
> >> attached to earth, rotate with it.
> >>> How do you figure a LIGO is a MMX type device?
> >> Because it has the EXACT SAME DESIGN as the MMX, just massively scaled
> >> up and without the mercury pool.
> >> Two arms at right angles to each other generating fringe shifts from
> >> interference from the two paths.
> >>
> >> Maybe you don't understand a MMX detecting an ether wind (if it existed)
> >> and (not) detecting rotation. Do you actually understand the difference?
> >
> > You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
> > ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
> What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?

You don’t know what k and s stand for?
k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze.
There. Feel better?

> > AND also detect the additional daily +-1600 k/hr speed from earths 24 rotation
> > around earths axis.
> 0.00225 Hz?
> > But MMX did not detect an aether wind. From earths rotation speed or
> > our speed around sun.
> Correct, so far.
> > Which is why I said that this proves that light travels at constant speeds
> > isotropically in non inertial frames.
> Since the difference between the earth frame and the ideal inertial
> frame is 10^-6 fringe, which is not detectable, you cannot realistically
> claim that. Besides, there are no proofs in physics, only disproofs.

Until such time as MMX gives a non null result then you are out of luck.
MMX confirms that light travels at constant speeds isotropically in non
inertial frames.
And even if a more sensitive MMX did find a fringe shift. It would refute
special relativity as well as an aether free emission theory.

> > Seeing as the MMX and lab are
> > in non inertial frames.
> > You relativists then said the null result wasn’t sensitive enough and that
> > a more sensitive LIGO sized MMX *could* detect speed differences on
> > both paths refuting my claim that MMX proves light travels at constant
> > speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
> Except the LIGO machines are MMX interferometers which are designed not
> to be sensitive to rotation, and the LIGO machines are designed to a
> much higher standards than the original MMX interferometer which was
> insensitive to rotation. The LIGO systems COULD, in theory, be super
> sensitive to the ether wind...if it existed.

Yes. But in an aether free universe there could still be a path difference
due to rotation if, as relativists falsely claim, light cannot travel at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames

> > I then said...only if you could rotate the LIGO sized MMX <>90 degrees
> > in the LIGO sized lab as the LIGO sized lab rotated around the earths axis.
> The earth does all the rotation that's needed.
> > At which point you guys went off into the Loony sphere and pretended
> > I was talking about detecting the 30 k/s aether wind again.
> The ether wind blows at 33.333 microhertz? That makes no sense.
> > I wasn’t. I know there is no aether or aether wind.
> > I’m discussing whether or not an MMX can detect if light can or cannot
> > travel at isotropic constant speeds in the non inertial lab frame.
> > And to do do that you have to see if the EW path of MMX arm had
> > a different path length then when it was if the arms were rotated in a circle
> > within a time frame of *just a few minutes*
> Light transverses the MMX in nanoseconds, not a few minutes.

I was quoting the Wiki MMX page which that says Michelson and Morley
rotated the device 380 degrees on a mercury frame in a time frame of minutes.
You think they did a full rotation in nanoseconds ?!?
That’s faster then c isn’t it? I thought that was impossible under relativity.

> > Just as the original MMX setup was rotated over *just a few minutes* to
> > check for path speed differences on the same arm.
> > LIGO size may be sensitive enough...but it cannot be rotated in a circle
> > in minutes...like the original MMX was.
> The earth does all the rotation. Sure it takes longer but so what?
>

I like the way you managed to snip the quotes from wiki proving that
Contrary to your false fact free claims that they didn’t...Michelson Morley
actually *did* rotate the experiment on a mercury bed in time frames of
minutes in order to see if there was a fringe shift.

> Anyway, you are talking in circles, holding both the beliefs that LIGO,
> despite rotating with the earth can't detect the rotation, while the
> original MMX system could, despite the rotation in several nanoseconds
> is trivial. This is going nowhere, and as Gary reminds us, you are just
> insane anyway. So go have the last word, I am done with this thread.
No youve got it all wrong. I never said LIGO couldnt detect an aether wind
in the solar frame.
Technically it’s 4km arms should be long enough and it could a shift
if there was an aether.
However it doesn’t detect a path difference. So there isn’t an aether

But being a low IQ relativist, you don’t seem to understand that path difference
due to earth rotation in an aether free universe is a different phenomena
than path difference due to earths speed around the sun in an aether universe.
Because LIGO could not detect a fringe shift due to the earths rotation speed
of 1600k/h rotation of earth in an *aether free* universe.
Because to do so you would have to rotate the two 4km arms so that each
arm could detect a path difference due to earths rotation. Otherwise if you didn’t,
each arm would always be showing the an unchanging path length for the whole
24 hour rotation. (rotation speed 1600k/hr never changes over 24 hours)
But you don’t understand maths or geometry.
So I doubt you will understand how LIGO can’t detect earths rotation in an
Aether free universe. Physics is hard for fact free relativists.
By the way... the only reason there could be a fringe shift due to earths rotation
....is because relativists like yourself inadvertently and incorrectly *predicted there
should be one* in an aether free universe when you falsely claimed light cannot
travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames. Because if your
prediction was correct than this would be observed by a sensitive enough
MMX as a....PATH DIFFERENCE due to earths rotation in an aether free universe
when the Experiment is rotated in the lab.
Personally I don’t think any MMX type setup however sensitive will ever deliver
a non null result. Because all other relevent experiments like Sagnac show
that light does indeed travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial
frames.

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:03:24 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> > > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > > >>>>>>>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > > >>>>>>>>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > > >>>>>>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > > >>>>>>>>> frame non inertial.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > > >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> > > >>>>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
> > > >>>>>> They don't.
> > > >>>>>> They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> > > >>>>>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
> > > >>>>> Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > > >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> > > >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > > >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > > >>> Prove this.
> > > >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> > > >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> > > >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> > > >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> > > >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> > > >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> > > >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> > > >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> > > >>
> > > >> So three frames.
> > > >
> > > > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > > > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > > > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> > > I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> > > physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> > > in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> > > Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> > > three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
> > >
> > > The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> > > others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> > > specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> > > velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> > > one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> > > some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> > > another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> > > from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> > > frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
> > >
> > > You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
> > It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
> > then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
> > to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
> > they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
> > what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
> > "an" inertial frame.
> >
> > So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
> > general form, ....
> >
> > Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
> > then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
> > is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
> > there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
> >
> > That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
> > that they do, some, and don't, others.
> >
> > It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
> > an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
> >
> > Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
> > _and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
> > the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
> > is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
>
>
> An inertial frame is not an inertial frame as once it moves it is an "inertial-system".

Interesting. I can’t get any clarification from relativists how their imaginary
inertial frames relate to real rotating frames like MMX /lab frame
So in your opinion under SR how does the relativist’s inertial frame relate
to the actual rotating lab frame. (The frame that rotates around the earth
whilst light goes out and back in MMX)
My best understanding of these SR wackos is that their “inertial” frame
goes in a straight path tangental to the lab due to earths rotation
from the point the light beam left the source. In which case I can only
assume that the imaginary “inertial” frame travels in a straight line relative
to earths axis whilst the lab rotates in a circle and slowly diverges
from the “inertial” frame.

Kind of like when you are driving on a motorway on the inside lane.
And the car on the outside lane starts to turn off the motorway as its
lane curves off from parallel to perpendicular to get off the motorway.
If both your car on the motorway lane and the car on its curved lane
are travelling at the same speed....the car on the curved lane still falls behind your
car relative to your cars direction of travel on the motorway.
Does that make sense to you?
Relativist don’t understand basic physics so it’s hard to describe
basic physics to them.

On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:

>>> You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.

>> What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
>
> You don’t know what k and s stand for?

In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
measured as a frequency?

> k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze.
> There. Feel better?

That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.

> [snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]

On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
> >>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
>
> >> What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
> >
> > You don’t know what k and s stand for?
> In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
> seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
> denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
> or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
> measured as a frequency?
> > k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze.
> > There. Feel better?
> That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
>

Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around
30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.

> > [snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]

Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you?
Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be
rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic
constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
No wonder you can’t respond anymore.

On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> [...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
> light speeds in non inertial frames

You keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid are
INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.

For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial frame
and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it essentially
repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or so, and during such
a very short time period the inertial frame and the lab diverge by an
amount FAR too small to be observed.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> > [...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
> > light speeds in non inertial frames
> You keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
> justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid are
> INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
>
> For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial frame
> and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it essentially
> repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or so, and during such
> a very short time period the inertial frame and the lab diverge by an
> amount FAR too small to be observed.
>

We’ve already covered this. If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough
to detect any rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the prediction
that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
Don’t forget the relativists mantra. A theory isn’t ever proven,.,its disproven.
After all if MMx gives a null result that is consistent with a prediction
of isotropic constant speeds in non inertial frames, and MMX is in a non
inertial frame then you haven’t disproven the prediction that light can
travel at constant speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
You need proof to disprove a theory. You can’t disprove a theory
with an assumption, as you are trying to do here.
And don’t forget. If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it
did not give a null result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.

On 10/4/2023 4:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 03:04:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:27:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2023 2:50 PM, Lou wrote:
>>
>>>>> You don’t seem to understand the difference. If there were an aether
>>>>> ( which there isn’t) then LIGO possibly could detect this imaginary 30k/s ether wind.
>>
>>>> What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
>>>
>>> You don’t know what k and s stand for?
>> In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
>> seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
>> denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
>> or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
>> measured as a frequency?
>>> k is for Kleenex and s is for sneeze. So that’s 30 kleenex per sneeze.
>>> There. Feel better?
>> That makes as much sense as measuring the frequency of an ether wind.
>>
>
> Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around
> 30k per second. But had nothing better to talk about.

Please explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not
existing.
>
>>> [snip insane dissonance I am no longer responding to]
>
> Can’t admit the lab isn’t in an imaginary inertial frame can’t you?
> Can’t admit that LIGO is not an oversized MMX because it cannot be
> rotated in the ‘Lab’ frame as all MMX must be able to be.
> Can’t admit that a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic
> constant light speeds in non inertial frames?
> No wonder you can’t respond anymore.
>
Tom R. has AGAIN explained this to you, so double the reason to skip
responding to this.

On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> [...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
>>> light speeds in non inertial frames
>> You keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
>> justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
>> are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
>>
>> For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
>> frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
>> essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
>> so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
>> the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
>>
>
> We’ve already covered this.

Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.

> If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any
> rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
> takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the
> prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
> non inertial frames.

In SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to
phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's
disingenuous.

> If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null
> result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.

ONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical
situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.

This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT
repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to
the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation
is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent
experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
their measurement.

Tom Roberts

Volney wrote:

> On 10/4/2023 4:36 AM, Lou wrote:
>> Petty pedantic nonsense. You already knew the ether wind is around 30k
>> per second. But had nothing better to talk about.
>
> Please explain why the ether wind is a frequency of 30 kHz, despite not
> existing.

it doesn't. That frequency doesn't exists. You always have 𝗮_𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺,
arbitrarily going up and/or down. But you are
𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲, whereas a hand of khazar goys are about
𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹_𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, from the local 86% of Christian population. Let's say it
as it is. That 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸_𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴 is also a khazar goy. I beg you to
reconsider. A khazar goy is "a dog not to sit with at a table", according
to the Bible.

𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹f_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe

𝗔_𝗯𝗶𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/F6ufHqaq0pF2

𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱..._
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/KfrMinlB9z6F

𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱..._𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗪𝗮𝗿
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/47YinAMofqpX

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘂_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_'𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮'_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗹_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘃𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/Y0Rsm8Hjzgkp

𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗨𝗞𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗔𝗡_𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧'𝗦_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗪𝗜𝗙𝗘_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵_𝗜𝗦_𝗔_𝗥𝗨𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗔𝗡_𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗭𝗘𝗡
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/VHF4cIWF3rHq

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 01:55:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> [...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
> >>> light speeds in non inertial frames
> >> You keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
> >> justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
> >> are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
> >>
> >> For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
> >> frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
> >> essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
> >> so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
> >> the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
> >>
> >
> > We’ve already covered this.
> Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
> > If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any
> > rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
> > takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the
> > prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
> > non inertial frames.
> In SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
> indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to
> phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's
> disingenuous.
> > If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null
> > result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
> ONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical
> situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
> the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
> of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
>
> This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT
> repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to
> the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
> intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation
> is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent
> experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
> their measurement.
>
You don’t understand basic maths and geometry. If you have a point x
situated on the circumference of a circle and it took two paths. One
was in a straight line in a tangent to the circle on an axis defined as the
x axis. And the second path was in a circular path around the circle.
If the speed of both was the same and you measured how far each
travelled in the x axis in time t ....then the point travelling in a circle DOES
NOT travel as far in the x axis as the point travelling in a straight line
on the x axis does.
Basic maths you can’t understand.
The x axis being the path taken by light in your imaginary inertial frame path

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 11:29:00 UTC+2, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 01:55:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 10/4/23 11:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 16:55:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >> On 10/4/23 3:36 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>> [...] a null result in MMX is consistent with isotropic constant
> > >>> light speeds in non inertial frames
> > >> You keep trying to phrase this to imply that it means more than is
> > >> justified. The only "non-inertial frames" for which this is valid
> > >> are INDISTINGUISHABLE from some inertial frame.
> > >>
> > >> For example, the MMX cannot distinguish between a locally inertial
> > >> frame and a lab at rest on the surface of the earth, because it
> > >> essentially repaints the fringes in the eyepiece every 70 ns or
> > >> so, and during such a very short time period the inertial frame and
> > >> the lab diverge by an amount FAR too small to be observed.
> > >>
> > >
> > > We’ve already covered this.
> > Yes. And YOU keep repeating nonsense, ignoring what we have already covered.
> > > If, as you say current MMX is not sensitive enough to detect any
> > > rotation of the experiment and lab during the finite time light
> > > takes to travel there and back, then this does not not disprove the
> > > prediction that light can travel at constant speeds isotropically in
> > > non inertial frames.
> > In SOME non-inertial frames, specifically those that are
> > indistinguishable from some locally inertial frame. You keep trying to
> > phrase this to imply it is far more general than it actually is. That's
> > disingenuous.
> > > If you could get a sensitive enough MMX and it did not give a null
> > > result as you hope it does....it will also refute SR.
> > ONLY if it is inconsistent with the prediction of SR, given the physical
> > situation of the measurement and the properties of the instrument. If
> > the instrument is sensitive to its rotation, then the rotation is part
> > of the physical situation, and one must apply SR to that rotation.
> >
> > This is all GROTESQUE SPECULATION on your part, because any COMPETENT
> > repetition of the MMX would make sure the instrument is not sensitive to
> > the rotation that is used. Because the MMX (and repetitions) are
> > intended to make measurements at multiple orientations, and the rotation
> > is an INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT used to implement that. Competent
> > experimenters ensure that such instrumentation effects do not affect
> > their measurement.
> >
> You don’t understand basic maths and geometry.

He doesn't need to, his idiot guru has announced
basic math geometry obsolete and inadequate.

Volney wrote:

> On 10/3/2023 5:51 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> What's a k/s? 30000/second? Or 33.333 microhertz?
>>
>> You don’t know what k and s stand for?
>
> In physics, when representing values, k = kilo, or 1000 times. s =
> seconds. So 30 k/s has no base unit in its numerator and second in the
> denominator. Meaning "per second", a rate or a frequency. 30000/second
> or 30 kilohertz. (correcting my own mistake). Why is the ether wind
> measured as a frequency?

we sure?? The 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 and 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗮. Hi hi hi hi hi.

𝗔_𝗯𝗶𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/F6ufHqaq0pF2

the most impertinent 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗴𝗮𝗿 on the face of the earth, begging in
parliaments 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀, not on streets and corners. And the
𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗮 khazar goy bitch just spent over $1.1_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 buying crap and shit
in 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮. Amazing the impertinence. In 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 america is number
1, 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮 number 2.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> > >>>>>>>>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > >>>>>>>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > >>>>>>>>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > >>>>>>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > >>>>>>>>> frame non inertial.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> > >>>>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
> > >>>>>> They don't.
> > >>>>>> They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> > >>>>>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
> > >>>>> Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> > >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> > >>>
> > >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > >>> Prove this.
> > >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> > >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> > >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> > >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> > >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> > >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> > >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> > >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> > >>
> > >> So three frames.
> > >
> > > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> > I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> > physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> > in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> > Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> > three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
> >
> > The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> > others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> > specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> > velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> > one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> > some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> > another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> > from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> > frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
> >
> > You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
> It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
> then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
> to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
> they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
> what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
> "an" inertial frame.
>
> So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
> general form, ....
>
> Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
> then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
> is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
> there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
>
> That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
> that they do, some, and don't, others.
>
> It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
> an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
>
> Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
> _and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
> the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
> is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".

All correct!

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> > > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > > >>>>>>>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > > >>>>>>>>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > > >>>>>>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > > >>>>>>>>> frame non inertial.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > > >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> > > >>>>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
> > > >>>>>> They don't.
> > > >>>>>> They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> > > >>>>>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
> > > >>>>> Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > > >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> > > >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > > >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > > >>> Prove this.
> > > >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> > > >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> > > >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> > > >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> > > >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> > > >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> > > >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> > > >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> > > >>
> > > >> So three frames.
> > > >
> > > > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > > > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > > > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> > > I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> > > physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> > > in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> > > Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> > > three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
> > >
> > > The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> > > others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> > > specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> > > velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> > > one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> > > some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> > > another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> > > from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> > > frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
> > >
> > > You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
> > It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
> > then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
> > to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
> > they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
> > what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
> > "an" inertial frame.
> >
> > So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
> > general form, ....
> >
> > Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
> > then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
> > is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
> > there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
> >
> > That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
> > that they do, some, and don't, others.
> >
> > It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
> > an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
> >
> > Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
> > _and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
> > the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
> > is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
> All correct!

If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...
It is not an inertial frame...

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:54:26 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 9/23/2023 4:13 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:39:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > > >> On 9/23/2023 9:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > > >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:22:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 9/22/2023 8:56 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 13:46:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> Den 21.09.2023 21:20, skrev Lou:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 13:39:36 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Den 20.09.2023 20:52, skrev Lou:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sagnac measures rotation yes. But don’t forget that the lab experiment
> > > > >>>>>>>>> is considered by relativists to be in an inertial frame. And the path difference
> > > > >>>>>>>>> calculated for Sagnac by SR is made assuming, as with MMX, that the lab
> > > > >>>>>>>>> doesn’t rotate significantly enough around earths axis to make that “inertial”
> > > > >>>>>>>>> frame non inertial.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > > > >>>>>>>> the Sagnac experiment.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Then why do relativists calculate the path difference for SR in Sagnac,
> > > > >>>>>>> in what they call the inertial” lab frame?
> > > > >>>>>> They don't.
> > > > >>>>>> They calculate it in an inertial frame.
> > > > >>>>>> The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Paul. It’s time for you to retire. Let me show you why.
> > > > >>>>> Here’s 2 quotes from YOUR posts to me on this thread:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Quote 1) “The lab frame can't be considered an inertial frame for
> > > > >>>>> the Sagnac experiment. “
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Quote2) “ The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame. ”
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> Trivial. The Sagnac ring is rotating in an inertial frame, which isn't
> > > > >>>> the lab frame but some other frame.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So you are suggesting that the mirrors axis of rotation is also
> > > > >>> rotating relative to the Sagnac lab?
> > > > >>> Prove this.
> > > > >> I already answered this a second time. I will type slower so that you
> > > > >> can keep up. There is the lab frame. Rotates once every 24 hours with
> > > > >> the earth. There is an inertial frame, centered on the center of the
> > > > >> Sagnac device, with its z axis along the axis of rotation of the Sagnac
> > > > >> device. There is the non-inertial frame of the Sagnac device itself,
> > > > >> with the same center as the second frame and the same z axis, but it
> > > > >> rotates such that the Sagnac device is stationary in it. Again note that
> > > > >> this is not an inertial frame, it rotates!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So three frames.
> > > > >
> > > > > You see 3 frames!!! That’s a rare affliction
> > > > > Normally when a person has had too much to drink they
> > > > > only see double. Did you take some extra pharma too?
> > > > I see you don't understand the concept of "frame" in the context of
> > > > physics. There are an infinite number of frames, and every single object
> > > > in the universe is in every one of these infinitely many frames. The
> > > > Sagnac device, the lab, the lab scientists, you and I are all in all
> > > > three of those frames, as well as infinitely many others.
> > > >
> > > > The three I mentioned are only selected because using them instead of
> > > > others makes calculations easier. All that (inertial) frames are are
> > > > specifications for an origin, directions (for x, y, z) and relative
> > > > velocity. They are not anything physical. To see how something viewed in
> > > > one frame appears in another frame, you have to use a transformation of
> > > > some sort. In modern physics when going from an inertial frame to
> > > > another inertial frame you'd use the Lorentzian transformation. To go
> > > > from the rotating-with-Sagnac frame to the inertial centered-on-Sagnac
> > > > frame you'd need a transformation to deal with the rotation.
> > > >
> > > > You should apologize for exposing your ignorance like that.
> > > It seems the idea includes that "pseudo-moments" include moments and metrics,
> > > then for "means, moments, and metrics", that the interface of different metrics is means,
> > > to make for a sort of "yes these inertial frames like the origin are everywhere, though,
> > > they're also boxed or encircled to the inertial systems within them", about basically
> > > what reflects for "Dirac positronic sea / Einstein white-hole foam", what is _about_,
> > > "an" inertial frame.
> > >
> > > So, when you look to the pseudo-differential, from quantum field theory, it sorts of a
> > > general form, ....
> > >
> > > Anyways these days I'm wondering about, "pseudo-moments", which conflate moment and metric,
> > > then for "moments, means, and metrics", about, that, "it's a gauge theory, but what the real gauge
> > > is, is about as inscrutable as Einstein's "just putting a well metric on the flat space-time wherever
> > > there's a gravity well", when really it's a bit more "the scribble".
> > >
> > > That metrics share frames and vice-versa, is a usual misperception, because it's also true,
> > > that they do, some, and don't, others.
> > >
> > > It's really geometry's "maybe it will help to think of points everywhere, but, that have
> > > an abstractly finite non-zero volume, or volume elements".
> > >
> > > Anyways with space constantly changing according to the motion of objects in frames,
> > > _and thusly their frames themselves_, squirting through space, that "at least some of
> > > the space an object is in goes along with it", it's to be kept in mind "remember: the geodesy
> > > is always instantaneously evaluated, and, immediately out of date".
> > All correct!
> If the Sagnac ring is rotating subject to friction...
> It is not an inertial frame...

So virtually zero friction in Low Earth Orbit or better out in interplanetary space is yet an additional reason for Michelson-Morley to be done in outer space.

Den 30.10.2023 21:23, skrev Alan B:
>
> So virtually zero friction in Low Earth Orbit or better out in interplanetary space is yet an additional reason for Michelson-Morley to be done in outer space.

And which 'friction' is it you should get rid of?
A Michelson interferometer isn't rotating.
It's turned in different directions, but it isn't
rotating while the measurements are done.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/