Re: Sagnac
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jul 2006 02:06:59 -0700
xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Douglas Rudd wrote:
It seems to me that the Sagnac effect would not contradict Einstein's
relativity. The reason a photon would take longer to go around a
rotating mirror system traveling one direction and a shorter time
traveling the other direction is because in the longer direction it's
actually traveling a longer path. If you divide the length of the
actual path by time you get the normal speed of light.
Douglas Rudd
Specifically, what about Einsten's relativity is claimed to be
violated and can you be very specific about the experiment
because many variations have to include moving dieletric
Fresnel-Fizeau type effects.
Sue...
xxein: The relativity between the constants change between each frame
of measure. This means that only one frame at a time can adhere to
SR-GR in its appearance. Lorentz.
SR-GR is an exact mirror of the absolute. It chooses only one of all
the many frames by which it supports its measurements. It is the frame
that is chosen to measure within. Why not the absolute wrt something?
Certainly it is as valid a frame as any other.
No... there is no matter in SR. It reduces to a 3D Pythagorean theorem
when its user removes the effects of matter.
<< If an absolute frame is possible, but not preferble to a theory,
Most consider the situation that an absolute cannot exist. Why? We
can fathom that lightspeed will be measured as c in any moving FOR. Do
we direct our attention to a Lorentz factor just to show a subjectivity
to the way we wish to think?
does
that mean that an absolute frame is impossible to distinguish? Yes,
but no. It all depends on how deeply you get into physics. >>
The more plausible explanations of fibre optic gyro operation
(they are few and far between) *do* relate the phase shift to
the dielectric moving relative to a local inertial frame of reference.
That is absolute as far as our planet is concerned. If you move
the device away from a planet, it still has a Machian 'image' of
nearby masses.
The notion is consistent with a coherent matter paradigm:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
The quantum extreme provides many useful relations that are only really
apparent to quantum-sized interactions. They will provide a "normal"
result only in gross considerations. Btim, a confluence - not a direct
influence that we can measure from the quantum to our ordinary view of
things.
The cosmology is another factor of consideration. We want both quantum
and cosmology to conform to a view (physical theory) that conforms to
the Einsteinian. It will not happen. There are no descriptors that
unite the two to Einstein, although it appears that Einstein only
worked in one direction - the cosmos.
But he got a Nobel for quantum! Well, we know better now.
That may not be quite a fair statement.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
<< Many would like to say that Einstein solved a problem. What
Look! When we take all this stuff together, we find no coherence other
than what we measure. Do we measure the same thing at .2c as .4c? Yes
and no. What is the basis of our measurement? Lorentz (and/or his
fellow contributors)? In the whole run of things, all Einstein did was
provide a math that described it. It doesn't come with a physical
explanation, though.
problem? >>
He dispelled a mostly philosophical problem; a perceived a conflict
between Maxwell's time independent equations (assuming displacement
current) and a rigid ether background that many assumed to exist at
the time.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Aside from gravity, Einstein only substituted a math that was more
workable than Lorentz. It showed how we will measure in a
circumstance.
Yes... it has to be considered a mathematical formalism because
it is too flawed in mechanism to illuminate much of anything else.
It makes more heat than light, just as QM does with its magnetic
monopoles and collapsing wavefunctions at a distance.
And gravity is such a circumstance. Should we let Einstein also tell
us how gravity works? I think not. Just as the quantum decieves us
for a relatvity type theory, a cosmological theory has no direct use
for an Einstein. The math (of Einstein) is much more correct, but to
what physical principle does it apply aside from his own making?
It is a fair formalism to relate time, mass and energy density. Because
much of it is derived in the Lorenz gauge, the accurate Pound-Snider
type experiments suggest some unification of EM and mass
equivalence and gravitational/inertial effects That is no small
accomplishment considering the level of abstraction required for
the derivations.
<< I'd like to hear any arguements that disfavor an objective reality.
In varying degrees, I know the difference between subjective
observation (from which to make such a theory as Einstein"s) and an
objective reality. Is there something wrong with recognising an
objective reality?
Ignorance is bliss. That is the argument I always use. ;-)
Sue...
.
- References:
- Sagnac
- From: Douglas Rudd
- Re: Sagnac
- From: Sue...
- Re: Sagnac
- From: xxein
- Sagnac
- Prev by Date: Re: Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names
- Next by Date: Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
- Previous by thread: Re: Sagnac
- Next by thread: Re: Sagnac
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
