sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:58:53 -0000
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
news:c7ed025e5vd6a89j2s36aure3fi3464c5n@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:55 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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.

> 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.

>>>>> 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.
>
> and they all support the BaTh.

No, Ives-Stilwell and Sagnac both contradict it.

...
>>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.
>
> This type of experiment is full of assumtions and uncertainties.

The uncertainties are quanified as systematics
in the error analysis and would be peer reviewed.
You are welcome to try to argue for higher values
but even an order of magnitude wouldn't make any
real difference.

> You might belioeve it but I certainly would be looking for alternative
> explanations.

The value is what is measured regardless of
explanations, that is the difference between
science and philosophy.

George



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