sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

 Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment "George Dishman" Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:16:05 -0000 sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
 ```"Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:m8uj02dpulac61k3hlms3p2m552b2ihkb1@xxxxxxxxxx > On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:58:53 -0000, "George Dishman" > > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" wrote in message >>news:c7ed025e5vd6a89j2s36aure3fi3464c5n@xxxxxxxxxx >>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:55 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> >>> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" wrote in message >>> >>>>>>> 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". >>> >>> I understand your point...but what I'm saying is that there is a >>> physical >>> universe that doesn't rely on observers at all. >> >>I was making the same point actually. Pythagoras >>Theorem tells us the relationship between length >>in a right-angle triangle but that relationship >>would apply to three rocks that happened to form >>a right angle, lying on a flat plain of lava when >>the Earth first cooled. It didn't need Pythagoras >>or even anyone to measure the lengths. The same >>is true for light, it's speed was invariant in >>the early universe because of the geometry of >>spacetime even though there were no observers >>there to measure it. The Doppler shift between >>atoms affected say Lyman alpha absorbtion by the >>same amount as Ives and Stilwell measured in the >>lab in 1938. > > George, Einstein's second postulate is just a postulate no matter what > geometry > you use to represent it. Henry, the Earth is round even if you represent it on a flat sheet to hang on your wall. The geometry of spacetime is Riemann and that is the physical reason why the speed of light is invariant. >>> Observers only 'interpret' what >>> they observe. >> >>You can look at it that way as long as you >>understand that "observer" can equally well mean a >>hydrogen atom absorbing light during the dark ages >>before the first stars formed. > > Of course. Any 'target' is an observer. Every frame has an observer. > My point George is that measurements buy those observers are not > fundamental to > the operation of the universe. We agree the point then, the speed of light was invariant long before life arose to observe it. George ```
 Current Thread Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Jeff Root Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman <= Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Craig Markwardt Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Craig Markwardt