sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:55 -0000
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
news:rfe902173s9pr4fuv4rd0cfvkfr1sbma1g@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:57:15 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:592702dr5v2tfsluf40r32g61utgii7rgi@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:15:15 -0000, "George Dishman"
>
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, that is just your postulate. If you
>>>>are going to approach it scientifically you
>>>>have to assume that they may or may NOT be
>>>>the same. Whether they are the same is then
>>>>to be determined by experiment.
>>>
>>> See, we always return to the basic philosophical question. Does the 
>>> period
>>> of
>>> rotation of something occupy an absolute or a relative interval of time?
>>> Similarly, do the end points of a rod occupy an absolute spatial 
>>> interval?
>>
>>I'm glad you appreciate that. Now in this forum,
>>we are not talking philosophy so the only correct
>>approach is to make no assumption one way or the
>>other and do experiments to find out objectively.
>>That is what science is all about.
>
> Thanks for the good laugh George...

I always suspected you didn't know the difference.

>>> Since we have established that nothing happens to the rotaing object or
>>> the rod
>>> after an acceleration, we must also assume that the two quantities ARE
>>> indeed
>>> absolute and invariant.
>>
>>Again you make the same mistake, we can assume they
>>are constant but that does not imply they are
>>invariant. You need to learn the difference.
>
> No...you need to learn that the universe functioned perfectly well long 
> before
> observers evolved.

Prior to baryogenesis? I wouldn't like to
comment, but after that every particle that
aborbed a photon was "an observer".

>>> Notice this doesn't rule out the basics of non-Einsteinian relativity.
>>>
>>>>> You have a strange notion that time in the target frame somehow 
>>>>> changes
>>>>> because
>>>>> the target is moving wrt the rod. You seem to believe that one
>>>>> 'rotation'
>>>>> occupies more time in the target's frame than in the gun's.
>>>>
>>>>That is what the experiments suggest.
>>>
>>> What bloody experiments?
>>> Not one is believable.
>>
>>Of course they wouldn't be as long as they
>>conflict with your philosophical beliefs.
>>All the key experiments have been repeated
>>many, many times and always with the same
>>results despite the ever-evolving technology
>>used.
>
> The only ones that have any credibility at all are those involving 
> particle
> accelerators.

MMX, Ives-Stilwell, Sagnac, all have been
repeated and checked, their results are
credible beyond doubt.

> I and others have given numerous and perfectly sound alternative 
> explanations
> for the so called relativistic 'mass increase'.

Mass is invariant.

>>>>> This is plain idiocy.
>>>>> One rotation period defines a universal time interval.
>>>>
>>>>No, the mechanism is at rest wrt the gun, so
>>>>the behaviour of the mechanism only provides a
>>>>definition in that frame.
>>>
>>> The movement of the target cannot and does not affect the absolute time
>>> taken
>>> by the rod to turn through one cycle.
>>
>>You are making the philosophical assumption that
>>there is such a thing as absolute time Henry, you
>>asume what you want to prove.
>
> universal rather than absolute.

Whatever you want to call it ...

> NOW here is NOW everywhere at that universal instant.

... it's the same old Newtonian philosophy.

> Astronomy relies on this principle...(but still ignores the willusory 
> effects)
>
>>>>> It doesn't change just
>>>>> because observers move past at different speeds.
>>>>
>>>>Right, it doesn't change, but that doesn't
>>>>mean it is necessarily the same value for
>>>>both observers. You are back to the same
>>>>mistake you were making last year, failing
>>>>to distinguish constancy from invariance.
>>>
>>> No YOU are making the same mistake.
>>> You are trying to measure something from a moving frame and when you get 
>>> a
>>> different answer you claim the thing itself has changed rather than
>>> accepting
>>> youtr method was flawed.
>>
>>The method has been checked by thousands
>>of experiments by different people over
>>the course of a century and more, it is
>>inconceivable that they all made matching
>>errors in simple measurements. In science
>>we don't discard measurements just because
>>they conflict with philosophy, we change
>>the philosophy to make sense of the
>>measurements.
>
> What are these 'thouands of experiments' George?

Estimate how many students world-wide in a
year repeat say the Ives-Stilwell experiment
as part of their courses and then work out
how many that is over the last century. Of
course I can't give an exact figure but it's
enough to be sure the results are repeatable.

George



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>