Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS

[kenseto]

The problems are as follows:
1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.

2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The problems are as follows:
> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.

Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
many times you get this wrong.

>
> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
>

And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this
"flawed concept"? Will you give up on that?


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > The problems are as follows:
> > 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
>
> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
> many times you get this wrong.

idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.

>
> >
> > 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
> >
>
> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this
> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that?

Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> The problems are as follows:
>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
>>
>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
>> many times you get this wrong.
>
> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.

The center of the rod is moving.

I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to
talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want.

>>
>>>
>>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
>>>
>>
>> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this
>> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that?
>
> Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid.

Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It
is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the
premise.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The problems are as follows:

These are, as usual, problems in YOUR misunderstandings.

> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of
> the OWLS in the rod frame.

But only for clocks synchronized as these signals are synchronized, but no
sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like that in the rod frame.

Setup a lab straddling the CST/EST boundary, set one
clock to CST and one to EST, and use them to measure OWLS.
You will of course get an ENORMOUS anisotropy, but no
sensible person would ever use such clocks for such a
measurement. This is just like measuring OWLS in the rod
frame using clocks synchronized like my signals.
(CST and EST are adjacent time zones in the U.S.A.)

> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.

Not necessarily. It could be that there is a problem in instrumentation or
technique. But fortunately, we will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to
distinguish instrumentation problems from RoS not being present.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.08.2016 04:54, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> The problems are as follows:
>
> These are, as usual, problems in YOUR misunderstandings.
>
>
>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected
>> anisotropy of
>> the OWLS in the rod frame.
>
> But only for clocks synchronized as these signals are synchronized, but
> no sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like that in the rod
> frame.
>
> Setup a lab straddling the CST/EST boundary, set one
> clock to CST and one to EST, and use them to measure OWLS.
> You will of course get an ENORMOUS anisotropy, but no
> sensible person would ever use such clocks for such a
> measurement. This is just like measuring OWLS in the rod
> frame using clocks synchronized like my signals.
> (CST and EST are adjacent time zones in the U.S.A.)
>

'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'.

What is irrelevant, that is to which time-zone they are set.

But we want to have seconds of the same length, hence clocks to tick at
the same rate.

Then we want to know the time our remote counterpart would reed at a
certain instant. So we would like to know the remote time. This is then
feed into a specific 'remote-time-clock' in our lab, which shows remote
time.

Now the question is, how we could communicate with someone far away, so
that we could know his time and whether or not he does measure the same
length of a second as we do.

If e.g. the remote partner sends a signal with a few one second beeps
and a reading from his clock, we cannot use these signals directly.

Reason: the remote partner does move and the signal could be red- or
blue-shifted.

Then we have the problem, that the signal takes a long time to travel
(say: a year).

Now we solve the problems by artificially correct the errors with a
calculation. The run-time of the signal is added to the reading of the
remote clock. The red-/blue-shift we could also correct.

As a next step we correct our own lab-clock to the remote settings and
correction factors (for red- or blue-shift).

So if our lab clock show a certain time, we know (actually hope) the
same reading would be what our remote partner would read of his clock at
the same time.


TH

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> The problems are as follows:
> >>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
> >>
> >> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
> >> many times you get this wrong.
> >
> > idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
> > not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.
>
> The center of the rod is moving.

So are the ends of the rod.

>
> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to
> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want.

There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'.

No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier.

Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be
synchronized.

[kenseto]

No he assumed that the speed of light is isotropic c in the observer's coordinate system then he assumed that any object moving in his coordinate system is c+v or c-v.....these are false assumptions because the speed of light is isotropic c in the moving object.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:54:31 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > The problems are as follows:
>
> These are, as usual, problems in YOUR misunderstandings.
>
>
> > 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of
> > the OWLS in the rod frame.
>
> But only for clocks synchronized as these signals are synchronized, but no
> sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like that in the rod frame.
>
> Setup a lab straddling the CST/EST boundary, set one
> clock to CST and one to EST, and use them to measure OWLS.
> You will of course get an ENORMOUS anisotropy, but no
> sensible person would ever use such clocks for such a
> measurement. This is just like measuring OWLS in the rod
> frame using clocks synchronized like my signals.
> (CST and EST are adjacent time zones in the U.S.A.)

But your experiments have no clock....so your argument of using CST/EST clocks is irrelevant. You compare the phase difference (or fringe shift) between the two light fronts from the ends of the rod. That means that you are measuring the isotropy or anistropy between the two light fronts. If your result was anisotropy then you will have found RoS. But that will also mean that the OWLS is not isotropic e in the rod frame as posited by the P2.

>
>
> > 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
>
> Not necessarily. It could be that there is a problem in instrumentation or
> technique. But fortunately, we will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to
> distinguish instrumentation problems from RoS not being present.

Sound like that if you don't get RoS with actual results then you can use errorbars to get RoS?

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'.

No. That is necessary but not sufficient. To be synchronized, a pair of clocks
must not only tick at the same rate, they must also display the same time when
looked at simultaneously.


Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> The problems are as follows:
>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
>>>> many times you get this wrong.
>>>
>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.
>>
>> The center of the rod is moving.
>
> So are the ends of the rod.

So?

>>
>> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to
>> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want.
>
> There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object.

Empty a false assertion.

> That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this
>>>> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that?
>>>
>>> Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid.
>>
>> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It
>> is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the
>> premise.

You don't understand this? Or you don't want to look at it?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It
>> > is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the
>> > premise.
>> >
> No he assumed that the speed of light is isotropic c in the observer's
> coordinate system

Yes.

> then he assumed that any object moving in his coordinate system is c+v or
> c-v.....these are false assumptions because the speed of light is
> isotropic c in the moving object.

Gibberish and not in the paper.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
> But your experiments have no clock.

Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal.

[Odd Bodkin]

And to carry this a step further, it isn't even necessary that the units
on the synchronized clocks be the same. For example, one could "tick" in
seconds and the other "tick" in millihours. Thus, strictly speaking,
they don't tick at the same rate. However, since there is a well-defined
conversion factor between seconds and millihours, you can correct for
that simply by doing a delta-t conversion from one clock's units to the
other clock's units, to verify that the clocks are running at the same rate.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.08.2016 15:38, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'.
>
> No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier.
>
> Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be
> synchronized.
>

If my understanding of the term 'simultaneous' is not correct and
synchronisation of clocks means something else, than what actually is
correct?

I regard time measurement as something local. So I would use my local
clock, which shows GMT + 1 , which is the timezone of Germany.

If I would communicate with someone from a different solar-system one
light-year away, the least thing I want to have is his local time-zone.

Much less I would like to 'sync' GMT+1 to Alpha Century mean time + 7.

That would make no sense.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

The question of synchronisation of clocks occurs only in circumstance,
where the observation of only one of these clocks is possible.

If you can look at both of these clocks at the same time, the problem
does not occur, since then the clocks already belong to the same 'time
domain'.

But if you have a counterpart in significant distance and unknown state
of movement, things get difficult.

So we have three factor, which we expect to have an effect on the
time-rate in signals from remote clocks:

- delay caused by distance
- blue- or redshift of the signal
- movement of the counterpart 'sideways'

Possibly there is also an effect caused by gravity and/or all sorts of
things or stuff along the way through space.

So the synchronisation signals come distorted and with significant delay.

Now we need to define, what we would like to express with 'simultaneous'.

Somehow I would like to compensate the errors in the transmission of the
signals.

But what I cannot do, that is looking at the remote clocks.

It wouldn't help anyhow, since (supposed I would have such a good
telescope), I had to apply delay corrections to visual signals as well.

TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/7/16 8/7/16 11:40 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]

There's no point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true. You need to
LEARN what we mean by this.

Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 4:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.08.2016 15:38, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'.
>>
>> No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier.
>>
>> Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be
>> synchronized.
>>
>
> If my understanding of the term 'simultaneous' is not correct and
> synchronisation of clocks means something else, than what actually is
> correct?
>
> I regard time measurement as something local. So I would use my local
> clock, which shows GMT + 1 , which is the timezone of Germany.
>
> If I would communicate with someone from a different solar-system one
> light-year away, the least thing I want to have is his local time-zone.

And note that even in this case, the two clocks are ticking at the same
rate. Therefore you've just demonstrated that having them tick at the
same rate is not sufficient for calling them synchronized.

There are a couple decent ways to test if clocks are synchronized.
1. Go to a place midway between the two clocks at at rest relative to
them. Send a signal traveling at the same speed in both directions. If
the clocks read the same time when the signals arrive, they are
synchronized.
2. Stay with one clock and send a signal from this clock to the other
clock. Record the time on the other clock when the signal arrives and
immediately send the same signal back to the first clock. Record the
time on the first clock when the second signal arrives. If the time on
the other clock is midway between the two readings on the first clock,
then the clocks are synchronized.

>
> Much less I would like to 'sync' GMT+1 to Alpha Century mean time + 7.
>
> That would make no sense.
>
>
> TH
>

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.08.2016 14:14, schrieb Tom Roberts:

> There's no point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true. You
> need to LEARN what we mean by this.

Since you are no teacher and I'm not in school, I have the right to
'make things up', if I wish to do so.

But in case you are in fact a teacher (or would like to apply for such a
job), you should behave like a teacher and tell, what in particular you
do not like.

It does not help too much, if you complain about the stupidity of your
students, if you not able to tell, what were the mistakes.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.08.2016 17:07, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/7/2016 4:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.08.2016 15:38, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'.
>>>
>>> No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier.
>>>
>>> Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be
>>> synchronized.
>>>
>>
>> If my understanding of the term 'simultaneous' is not correct and
>> synchronisation of clocks means something else, than what actually is
>> correct?
>>
>> I regard time measurement as something local. So I would use my local
>> clock, which shows GMT + 1 , which is the timezone of Germany.
>>
>> If I would communicate with someone from a different solar-system one
>> light-year away, the least thing I want to have is his local time-zone.
>
> And note that even in this case, the two clocks are ticking at the same
> rate. Therefore you've just demonstrated that having them tick at the
> same rate is not sufficient for calling them synchronized.

In my understanding remote clocks do not necessarily tick at the same rate.

To do so, these clock should have no relative motion. But usually, those
remote objects, where such clocks are located, have a velocity in
respect to each other different from zero.


I use a term I call 'time domain'. That means the set of places, where
clocks tick at the same rate.

This is - for instance - the surface of planet Earth.

But we could think about a world, where time is vvveerrryyy slooowwww...
(in our understanding).

So a process, that would take one second for us seemingly takes an hour
there, if observed in such a world (by us).

But being there means: everything is as always and time ticks with on
second per second.

Seen from there we would look like moving extremely fast, since we could
do in a second, for what they would need an hour.


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/8/2016 3:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.08.2016 14:14, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>
>> There's no point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true. You
>> need to LEARN what we mean by this.
>
> Since you are no teacher and I'm not in school, I have the right to
> 'make things up', if I wish to do so.

To what end?

>
> But in case you are in fact a teacher (or would like to apply for such a
> job), you should behave like a teacher and tell, what in particular you
> do not like.

If you want to ask a teacher to provide that service, are you not
obligated to pay tuition? Teachers do not behave like teachers on
demand, for free, to anyone who asks.

>
> It does not help too much, if you complain about the stupidity of your

> students, if you not able to tell, what were the mistakes.\

I don't think you can claim status of student without paying tuition.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.08.2016 23:42, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> But in case you are in fact a teacher (or would like to apply for such a
>> job), you should behave like a teacher and tell, what in particular you
>> do not like.
>
> If you want to ask a teacher to provide that service, are you not
> obligated to pay tuition? Teachers do not behave like teachers on
> demand, for free, to anyone who asks.
>
>>
>> It does not help too much, if you complain about the stupidity of your
>> students, if you not able to tell, what were the mistakes.\
>
> I don't think you can claim status of student without paying tuition.
>

The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
Usually public schools and universities are free.

There exist private schools, of course, and those need to be paid. But
as a rule of thumb, schools are free.

But writing into UseNet groups isn't even remotely like a school. And
certainly I neither wait for tuition and definitely do not want to pay for.

So you may read my valuable contributions to the progress of mankind for
absolutely no charge whatsoever. And in return you will not be paid
neither.


TH

[JanPB]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> I don't think you can claim status of student without paying tuition.

:-) (I won't comment on that)

--
Jan

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:29:59 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 08.08.2016 23:42, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
> The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
> Usually public schools and universities are free.

Are you implying that German teachers work for free? :-)

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/9/2016 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
> Usually public schools and universities are free.
>
> There exist private schools, of course, and those need to be paid. But
> as a rule of thumb, schools are free.
>
> But writing into UseNet groups isn't even remotely like a school. And
> certainly I neither wait for tuition and definitely do not want to pay for.
>
> So you may read my valuable contributions to the progress of mankind for
> absolutely no charge whatsoever. And in return you will not be paid
> neither.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that all contributions are
valuable. This is not so in science. It may be true in politics or art,
where every perspective adds something. But in science, some
contributions are positive, some have no value, and some have negative
value.

It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used
in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply
making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> The problems are as follows:
> >>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
> >>>> many times you get this wrong.
> >>>
> >>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
> >>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.
> >>
> >> The center of the rod is moving.
> >
> > So are the ends of the rod.

> So?

So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. That's why the speed of light in the rod frame is isotropic. Gee you are stupid.

>
> >>
> >> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to
> >> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want.
> >
> > There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object.
>
> Empty a false assertion.

Idiot....the speed of light is isotropic in any frame and therefore there is no different closing speeds between light and any object. That's why closing speed is not measurable.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:24:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > But your experiments have no clock.
>
> Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal.

I didn't see any clocks in his proposal.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> The problems are as follows:
>>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
>>>>>> many times you get this wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
>>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The center of the rod is moving.
>>>
>>> So are the ends of the rod.
>
>> So?
>
> So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod.

No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the
ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same?

> That's why the speed of light in the rod frame is isotropic. Gee you are stupid.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to
>>>> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object.
>>
>> Empty a false assertion.
>
> Idiot....the speed of light is isotropic in any frame and therefore there is no different
> closing speeds between light and any object.

Nope. Two different things.

I find it interesting that you say that there IS a closing speed but
that it's not different, and you also say there IS NO closing speed.

You just babble self-contradictory nonsense.

> That's why closing speed is not measurable.
>
>>
>>> That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this
>>>>>> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It
>>>> is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the
>>>> premise.
>>
>> You don't understand this? Or you don't want to look at it?

Ken? How do you derive RoS from constancy of speed of light and end up
with a conclusion that contradicts the constancy of speed of light?

[Odd Bodkin]

That's because you can't read.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.08.2016 13:37, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>> The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
>> Usually public schools and universities are free.
>
> Are you implying that German teachers work for free? :-)
>

Sure, the teachers get paid. But pupils do not pay.

The reason: schools are among those public services, people usually
expect in return for their taxes.

There are also no fees for highways, bridges or tunnels, since the
streets have already been paid by the taxpayer.

To charge entrance fees for schools would be a little unfair for the kids.

TH

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:47:14 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 09.08.2016 13:37, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
> > > Usually public schools and universities are free.
> >
> > Are you implying that German teachers work for free? :-)
>
> Sure, the teachers get paid. But pupils do not pay.

Of course they do, or their parents do. You seem to have an entitlement
attitude.

> The reason: schools are among those public services, people usually
> expect in return for their taxes.

Exactly, so people do indeed pay for schooling. You seem to have an
entitlement attitude.

> There are also no fees for highways, bridges or tunnels, since the
> streets have already been paid by the taxpayer.

Which means people pay for those services. You seem to have an entitlement
attitude.

> To charge entrance fees for schools would be a little unfair for the kids.
>
> TH

When I went to elementary school, my parents paid the "tuition" directly.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> The problems are as follows:
> >>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
> >>>>>> many times you get this wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
> >>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.
> >>>>
> >>>> The center of the rod is moving.
> >>>
> >>> So are the ends of the rod.
> >
> >> So?
> >
> > So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod.
>
> No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the
> ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same?

1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable.
2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the OWLS is measurable to be isotropic.
3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:15:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:24:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> But your experiments have no clock.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal.
> >
> > I didn't see any clocks in his proposal.
> >
>
> That's because you can't read.
>

It is you who can't read......Tom was talking about calculating the time from the ends of the rod to the center.

[Odd Bodkin]

I think the main point here is that, though Tom Roberts is a teacher,
he's not supported by the taxes from Thomas Heger's commununity. If
Thomas Heger has the expectation that because education is free to the
student in Germany, then anyone with a question about physics should be
allowed to get an answer from German teachers, then he should pose that
question to physics faculty in Germany. At least then he can make the
argument that his citizenship in Germany should entitle him to that.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2016 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The problems are as follows:
>>>>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how
>>>>>>>> many times you get this wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely
>>>>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The center of the rod is moving.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are the ends of the rod.
>>>
>>>> So?
>>>
>>> So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod.
>>
>> No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the
>> ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same?
>
> 1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable.

Not true. Closing speed is measurable. Simply measure the initial
distance between the two closing things, and measure the time it takes
to close that distance. The ratio is closing speed.

> 2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the
> OWLS is measurable to be isotropic.

No, that's also incorrect. You do not know what closing speed.

> 3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic.

Two incorrect premises --> incorrect conclusion.

[Odd Bodkin]

Wrong place in the discussion.

[kenseto]

Idiot....why don't you give us the closing speeds for Tom's experiments.....gee you are so fucking stupid. Besides, the length of the fiberoptic is the same from both ends and the speed of light in the fiberoptic is c/n in both secments of the fiberoptic the time of travel from both ends will be the same.....gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Odd Bodkin]

The measurements have not been done yet. The experiment is in design stage.

> ....gee you are so fucking stupid.

You always get frothy like this when you realize you've said something

stupid.

> Besides, the length of the fiberoptic is the same from both ends and the speed of
> light in the fiberoptic is c/n in both secments of the fiberoptic the time of travel from
> both ends will be the same.

Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested
is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be
the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different
in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of
arrival will be different in the rod frame.

You didn't understand the point of the experiment?

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/10/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:

> Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested
> is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be
> the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different
> in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of
> arrival will be different in the rod frame.
>
> You didn't understand the point of the experiment?

Dont you find that he is a mirror image of idiot dono!? Something fishy going on...

[Odd Bodkin]

Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone
books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent
money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know.

[rotchm]

And that's because idiot dono is aware that he can not write anything sensible.
No publisher would want to publish his text that will contain 30% of slanders!

I find idiot ken more useful than idiot dono, since he is more funny!

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:27:55 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 8/10/2016 11:14 AM, rotchm wrote:
>
> > Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone
> > books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent
> > money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know.
>

> And that's because <snip cretinisms>

Coming from the anti-relativistic cretin Stephane Baune this is rich:

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/publications

Published any new crackpoteries in the rag journal Galilean Electrodynamics lately, Stephane ?

[Thomas Heger]

I do not want to pay Tom Roberts, because I meditate about the
possibility, he's actually a disinformation agent and gets money from
black funds.

Another possibility is, that 'Tom Roberts' is a pseudonym used by physic
students from Pakistan, who earn a few bucks for writing nonsense into
the UseNet.

Yet another possibility is, that the NSA has actually software to create
natural sounding contributions to the social media and uses for this
purpose certain 'persona'.

It is also possible, that he actually believes what he says, (what would
be even worse).

So I quit trusting people from the Usenet and unless proven otherwise I
regard them as hostile critters.


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2016 12:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> I do not want to pay Tom Roberts, because I meditate about the
> possibility, he's actually a disinformation agent and gets money from
> black funds.
>
> Another possibility is, that 'Tom Roberts' is a pseudonym used by physic
> students from Pakistan, who earn a few bucks for writing nonsense into
> the UseNet.
>
> Yet another possibility is, that the NSA has actually software to create
> natural sounding contributions to the social media and uses for this
> purpose certain 'persona'.
>
> It is also possible, that he actually believes what he says, (what would
> be even worse).
>
> So I quit trusting people from the Usenet and unless proven otherwise I
> regard them as hostile critters.
>
>
> TH

OK, you were doing reasonably well until this post. Then you veered
steeply into paranoia and unusual fantasies and conspiracy/persecution
theories.

Here's what I would suggest. If you mistrust people on Usenet, then
there is really no purpose in engaging with them in discussions. This
means that you should find a different outlet for doing your
"meditations" than Usenet. It is trivial and free, for example, to
create a blog, where you can post your meditations in any way you like,
and you will have complete control of any responses you get, including
whether you want to disallow any responses at all. I don't see why you
would continue to float your ideas in what you consider to be a hostile
and threatening environment.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.08.2016 20:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> I do not want to pay Tom Roberts, because I meditate about the
>> possibility, he's actually a disinformation agent and gets money from
>> black funds.
>>
>> Another possibility is, that 'Tom Roberts' is a pseudonym used by physic
>> students from Pakistan, who earn a few bucks for writing nonsense into
>> the UseNet.
>>
>> Yet another possibility is, that the NSA has actually software to create
>> natural sounding contributions to the social media and uses for this
>> purpose certain 'persona'.
>>
>> It is also possible, that he actually believes what he says, (what would
>> be even worse).
>>
>> So I quit trusting people from the Usenet and unless proven otherwise I
>> regard them as hostile critters.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> OK, you were doing reasonably well until this post. Then you veered
> steeply into paranoia and unusual fantasies and conspiracy/persecution
> theories.

Well, actually I did that before. So I have developed my own set of
'conspiracy theories'.

E.g. I think, that 'Hitler' was actually British and had the real
identity 'Noel Trevenen Huxley'.

Or: the so called 'Hitler diaries' were actually scripts, fabricated by
the MI6 front 'Tavistock Institute for Human Relations', which had at
that time a different name and was called by its nickname 'Freud Hilton'
(F.H.).

Or: the book 'My Struggle' is the actual original and was later
translated into (poor) German by that false Hitler and his buddy Hess.

The real Hitler (from Austria) was captured in Flanders and exchanged
for a spy.

This spy was trained in Bavaria and lived in the house of Isolde Beidler
in Munich, to were Julian Huxley took him in 1913.

> Here's what I would suggest. If you mistrust people on Usenet, then
> there is really no purpose in engaging with them in discussions.

Among my friends I had a guy name 'Siegfried Schmidt', who used the
pseudonym 'Sigbang'.

He was actually a physicist, but worked mainly as painter and musician.

Some years ago there was a flood of spam in the German UseNet
physics-section, caused by a 'Siegfried Schmidt', who used the nickname
'Sigbang'.

So I tried to address this persons attention, but failed.

So I wondered, how this could happen and found, these posts didn't come
from my former friend. Reason: he was mainly artist and very
short-sighted. So he avoided to write on the computer, if possible.

So how does this happen?

Actually I think, that UseNet content is in parts artificial, in parts
disinformation and in parts from usual people, who want to learn
something or want to discuss own ideas.

So, I don't mind, if I talk to a computer. It's just a hobby and it
would bother me much if someone rejects my ideas.


TH

[Larry Harson]

How did he fail?

I have to give him credit for sitting down and putting in a book his ideas, which has managed to sell on Amazon.com with 10 used available:

https://www.amazon.com/Model-mechanics-new-interpretation-nature/dp/0964713608

Whether those used copies come from the same person, I can't say :)

LH

[Odd Bodkin]

If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
a failure?

I suppose if you have invented a better toilet brush, and you have
invested a few thousand dollars and made $30 in revenue from your
invention, you could always say you put your ideas into a real product,
even if it's one that nobody wanted and consumed your savings.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:

> Coming from the anti-relativistic

How can you say that I'm an anti-relativist when I support/defend SR?
You're very confused idiot dono...very confused.

> Published any new crackpoteries in the rag journal Galilean
> Electrodynamics lately, Stephane ?

Wrong name, but you know that. No crackpoteries. We know that you are jealous of us all and that you have nothing to show for yourself except for your continuous errors here in this NG. Yes I published more articles, but not in GED. I have another in the Can.Math.Soc. and another in a physics publication (I will let you find it).

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2016 2:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote frankly weird stuff....

[backs slowly away]

[Michael Moroney]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:48:27 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone
> books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent
> money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know.

Ken has at least one other self-published book out there. "The Physics of
Absolute Motion (A New Theory of Everything)", 1998. No idea whether it's
really the same as "Model Mechanics", but the same sock-puppet gave both a
5 star rating.

[kenseto]

Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time.

>
> You didn't understand the point of the experiment?

It was you who didn't read the experiment.

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
>of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
>a failure?

I wonder what the actual cost (and minimum run) is/was for self-published
books? I think these days there are print-on-demand books which would be
much less, so I suspect there will be more kookbooks available soon..

[Odd Bodkin]

Rank of this book: 11,389,477 among all books on Amazon.

Rank of the 1995 book: 6,961,191 among all books on Amazon.

Rank of the 2016 book: unranked because it has sold no copies. This book
ships from Ohio (Ken's home).

I think it's worth noting that Jim McGinn's books have sold better.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2016 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested
>> > is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be
>> > the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different
>> > in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of
>> > arrival will be different in the rod frame.
> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab
> and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time.

Not in the rod frame.
Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority,
even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says
that no frame takes priority. :)

[Odd Bodkin]

I did a little research on this about a month or so ago. You save a
little if you publish only in ebook format, which is what McGinn did,
but not in print like Ken did. I don't think Ken is clever enough to
find the ways to save money.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.08.2016 23:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/10/2016 2:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote frankly weird stuff....
>
> [backs slowly away]
>

I could actually understand that.

But I could also provide evidence, which would support my claims.

Here is a webpage, created by Paul Woods (aka 'Wollywoods'), who
mentions my name and that of SigBang Siegfried Schmidt:

http://www.design-partners.org/wallywoods/diaries%202005%20jan%20thru%20april.htm

So I know this 'Sigbang' in person.

He left Berlin ten years ago and I have lost contact.

In the meantime someone used his identity in various forms and flooded
the group de.sci.physik with spam.

Since the SigBang I know wouldn't do this, the spam came from other
sources. Possibly it is artificial and actually stems from
speach-generating software and from 'the usual suspects' (CIA, NSA, KGB,
MI6, BND,....).


TH

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
>
> > Coming from the anti-relativistic
>
> How can you say that I'm an anti-relativist when I support/defend SR?

Liar , liar , pants on fire:

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/publications

[rotchm]

??

Those publications support SR. So, how do you figure out that they are anti-relativistic ?? You are mighty confused idiot dono.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:48:42 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/10/2016 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested
> >> > is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be
> >> > the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different
> >> > in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of
> >> > arrival will be different in the rod frame.
> > Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab
> > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time.
>
> Not in the rod frame.

Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption.

> Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority,
> even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says
> that no frame takes priority. :)

The PoR got nothing to do with it.

[kenseto]

I tried to publish in ebook form but the equations and diagrams do not show up correctly. I got an ebook in pdf format but amazon will not accept such format.

[Odd Bodkin]

I think you just haven't figured out how to publish an ebook without
breaking the equations and diagrams. There are plenty of epub-format
files that have embedded equations and diagrams and they are on my Kindle.

But if you don't want to pay anyone a consulting fee to do this work or
teach you how to do it, so that you would not spend thousands of dollars
on self-publishing a print book but instead only hundreds in publishing
an ebook, I suppose it's your money to throw away.

How much have you invested over the years on your books, Ken, and how
much revenue have you earned?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/11/2016 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab
>>> > > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time.
>> >
>> > Not in the rod frame.
> Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the
> equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption.

A TESTABLE assumption. You are declaring that you know the experimental
result before the experiment is actually done. The experiment being
proposed will be able to measure a shift in phase IF special relativity
is right. If SR is not right, then the experiment will show no shift.

So there are two possibilities for the FUTURE, which I wouldn't dream of
saying I know already.
1. Tom's experiment shows the shift, and you would be proven wrong, and
SR would be supported.
2. Tom's experiment shows no shift, and you would be proven right, and
SR would be found lacking.

Now, do you claim to know the future?

>
>> > Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority,
>> > even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says
>> > that no frame takes priority. :)
> The PoR got nothing to do with it.
>
>

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:52:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab
> >>> > > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time.
> >> >
> >> > Not in the rod frame.
> > Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the
> > equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption.
>
> A TESTABLE assumption. You are declaring that you know the experimental

> result before the experbiiment is actually done.

I didn't declare anything. I merely stated the known fact that the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel an equal distance.

>The experiment being
> proposed will be able to measure a shift in phase IF special relativity
> is right. If SR is not right, then the experiment will show no shift.

Yes I agree......but my money is on no phrase shift.

>
> So there are two possibilities for the FUTURE, which I wouldn't dream of
> saying I know already.

I wouldn't dream of saying that either.

> 1. Tom's experiment shows the shift, and you would be proven wrong, and
> SR would be supported.
> 2. Tom's experiment shows no shift, and you would be proven right, and
> SR would be found lacking.
>
> Now, do you claim to know the future?

I claimed no such thing.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:48:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 9:19 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:50:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2016 4:42 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
> >>>> of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
> >>>> a failure?
> >>>
> >>> I wonder what the actual cost (and minimum run) is/was for self-published
> >>> books? I think these days there are print-on-demand books which would be
> >>> much less, so I suspect there will be more kookbooks available soon..
> >>>
> >>
> >> I did a little research on this about a month or so ago. You save a
> >> little if you publish only in ebook format, which is what McGinn did,
> >> but not in print like Ken did. I don't think Ken is clever enough to
> >> find the ways to save money.
> >
> > I tried to publish in ebook form but the equations and diagrams do not show up
> > correctly. I got an ebook in pdf format but amazon will not accept such format.
> >
>
> I think you just haven't figured out how to publish an ebook without
> breaking the equations and diagrams. There are plenty of epub-format
> files that have embedded equations and diagrams and they are on my Kindle.

I know....but I don't have the time to learn how right now.

>
> But if you don't want to pay anyone a consulting fee to do this work or
> teach you how to do it, so that you would not spend thousands of dollars
> on self-publishing a print book but instead only hundreds in publishing
> an ebook, I suppose it's your money to throw away.

I wanted a printed book in the library of Congress.

>
> How much have you invested over the years on your books, Ken, and how
> much revenue have you earned?

None of your business.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/11/2016 5:48 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:52:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab
>>>>>>> and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the rod frame.
>>> Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the
>>> equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption.
>>
>> A TESTABLE assumption. You are declaring that you know the experimental
>> result before the experbiiment is actually done.
>
> I didn't declare anything. I merely stated the known fact that the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel an equal distance.
>
>> The experiment being
>> proposed will be able to measure a shift in phase IF special relativity
>> is right. If SR is not right, then the experiment will show no shift.
>
> Yes I agree......but my money is on no phrase shift.

Then we'll see if you lose your money or not.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:48:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 9:19 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:50:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2016 4:42 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
>>>>>> of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
>>>>>> a failure?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what the actual cost (and minimum run) is/was for self-published
>>>>> books? I think these days there are print-on-demand books which would be
>>>>> much less, so I suspect there will be more kookbooks available soon..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did a little research on this about a month or so ago. You save a
>>>> little if you publish only in ebook format, which is what McGinn did,
>>>> but not in print like Ken did. I don't think Ken is clever enough to
>>>> find the ways to save money.
>>>
>>> I tried to publish in ebook form but the equations and diagrams do not show up
>>> correctly. I got an ebook in pdf format but amazon will not accept such format.
>>>
>>
>> I think you just haven't figured out how to publish an ebook without
>> breaking the equations and diagrams. There are plenty of epub-format
>> files that have embedded equations and diagrams and they are on my Kindle.
>
> I know....but I don't have the time to learn how right now.

I just learned last week. Took two hours.

>>
>> But if you don't want to pay anyone a consulting fee to do this work or
>> teach you how to do it, so that you would not spend thousands of dollars
>> on self-publishing a print book but instead only hundreds in publishing
>> an ebook, I suppose it's your money to throw away.
>
> I wanted a printed book in the library of Congress.

And is your book in the Library of Congress holdings?

>>
>> How much have you invested over the years on your books, Ken, and how
>> much revenue have you earned?
>
> None of your business.

That bad, huh?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, kenseto wrote:

>> But if you don't want to pay anyone a consulting fee to do this work or
>> > teach you how to do it, so that you would not spend thousands of dollars
>> > on self-publishing a print book but instead only hundreds in publishing
>> > an ebook, I suppose it's your money to throw away.
> I wanted a printed book in the library of Congress.
>> >

I see the 1995 book is in fact in the Library of Congress. The 2016 book
is not. Congratulations for being one of 24 million books there.

You may want to know that the LoC also has a large number of digital
files in its holdings, including PDFs.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 8:13:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:48:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2016 9:19 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:50:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/10/2016 4:42 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
> >>>>>> of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
> >>>>>> a failure?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wonder what the actual cost (and minimum run) is/was for self-published
> >>>>> books? I think these days there are print-on-demand books which would be
> >>>>> much less, so I suspect there will be more kookbooks available soon..
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I did a little research on this about a month or so ago. You save a
> >>>> little if you publish only in ebook format, which is what McGinn did,
> >>>> but not in print like Ken did. I don't think Ken is clever enough to
> >>>> find the ways to save money.
> >>>
> >>> I tried to publish in ebook form but the equations and diagrams do not show up
> >>> correctly. I got an ebook in pdf format but amazon will not accept such format.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think you just haven't figured out how to publish an ebook without
> >> breaking the equations and diagrams. There are plenty of epub-format
> >> files that have embedded equations and diagrams and they are on my Kindle.
> >
> > I know....but I don't have the time to learn how right now.
>
> I just learned last week. Took two hours.

Good for you....but I am not a fast learner....I still type with two fingers and have to look at the key board while typing.

>
> >>
> >> But if you don't want to pay anyone a consulting fee to do this work or
> >> teach you how to do it, so that you would not spend thousands of dollars
> >> on self-publishing a print book but instead only hundreds in publishing
> >> an ebook, I suppose it's your money to throw away.
> >
> > I wanted a printed book in the library of Congress.
>
> And is your book in the Library of Congress holdings?

The copy right office told me that it will be in a few months.

[kenseto]

The problem is: I won't get any benefit from such PDF filing.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/12/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> I see the 1995 book is in fact in the Library of Congress. The 2016 book
>> > is not. Congratulations for being one of 24 million books there.
>> >
>> > You may want to know that the LoC also has a large number of digital
>> > files in its holdings, including PDFs.
> The problem is: I won't get any benefit from such PDF filing.

So here's the choice:
1. Spend thousands to generate a print book, which you can sell on
Amazon, but which doesn't sell well, and so your financial loss is great.
2. Spend a hundred or two to generate a PDF, which you cannot sell on
Amazon, and so your loss is guaranteed but it is much smaller.

Either route you will get a catalog entry in the LoC.

So what's important to you? Getting into the LoC, or managing your loss
risk?

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 9:29:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/12/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> I see the 1995 book is in fact in the Library of Congress. The 2016 book
> >> > is not. Congratulations for being one of 24 million books there.
> >> >
> >> > You may want to know that the LoC also has a large number of digital
> >> > files in its holdings, including PDFs.
> > The problem is: I won't get any benefit from such PDF filing.
>
> So here's the choice:
> 1. Spend thousands to generate a print book, which you can sell on
> Amazon, but which doesn't sell well, and so your financial loss is great.
> 2. Spend a hundred or two to generate a PDF, which you cannot sell on
> Amazon, and so your loss is guaranteed but it is much smaller.

Idiot.....the book is already printed.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/12/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 9:29:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/12/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>> I see the 1995 book is in fact in the Library of Congress. The 2016 book
>>>>> is not. Congratulations for being one of 24 million books there.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may want to know that the LoC also has a large number of digital
>>>>> files in its holdings, including PDFs.
>>> The problem is: I won't get any benefit from such PDF filing.
>>
>> So here's the choice:
>> 1. Spend thousands to generate a print book, which you can sell on
>> Amazon, but which doesn't sell well, and so your financial loss is great.
>> 2. Spend a hundred or two to generate a PDF, which you cannot sell on
>> Amazon, and so your loss is guaranteed but it is much smaller.
>
> Idiot.....the book is already printed.

Yes, I know. The question is whether you made a sound choice or not.
It's also about whether you're going to make the same choice AGAIN,
investing thousands to produce another print book that will earn
virtually nothing in sales.

The fact that you have made this mistake three times now, does not mean
that you should make it four times.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> We will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish
> instrumentation problems from RoS not being present.

Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus would just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with some Fizeau effect to account for the index of refraction), which is measured very precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc. The first-order Sagnac effect doesn’t have much value for testing special relativity, since the same effect is consistent with (for example) pre-Lorentzian stationary ether theories. It certainly does not constitute an unambiguous detection of the “relativity of simultaneity” (RoS) because that’s a coordinate-dependent concept (as is simultaneity itself), i.e., RoS is an attribute of some classes of coordinate systems and not of others. For any operationally defined class of coordinate systems we can empirically establish whether or not the foliations of constant t are common. But your “experiment” does not do this. (An example of an “experiment” that does this is the demonstrations of the increasing inertia of high-speed particles in accelerators, which directly implies RoS for standard inertial coordinate systems.)

> No sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like
> that in the rod frame.

If someone chooses to define a class of coordinate systems that all share the same temporal foliations, they are free to do so... but then they must realize that they are not dealing with coordinates in terms of which inertia is both homogeneous and isotropic. For example, coordinate systems related by “Tangherlini transformations” do not exhibit isotropic inertia, so they are not inertial coordinate systems in the full sense (i.e., the equations of Newtonian mechanics do not hold good to the first order in terms of such coordinates). Of course, even though we can measure RoS (and the one-way speed of light) in terms of inertial coordinates, nothing can ever demonstrate that inertial coordinate systems are the “true” measures of space and time, since that is a metaphysical assertion. We can only demonstrate phenomena described in terms of operationally-defined coordinate systems, and explain why sensible people prefer some coordinate systems over others. But demonstrating the first-order Sagnac effect for the zillionth time doesn’t really clarify anything.

[Odd Bodkin]

Interesting comment. I think actually Tom has already made the
stipulation that all he is doing is testing a particular implication of
the choice of coordinates that are related by the Lorentz
transformations, and doing it in as straightforward and as direct a way
as he can. I think it's legitimate to do that, because (as you say) even
time dilation or increase of inertia with speed are also evidence in
support of Lorentz invariance, which in turn requires RoS, but
physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway.

I've always understood (perhaps incorrectly) that other synchronization
schemes are of course possible, but that one ends up with other
esthetically undesirable effects, such as anisotropic inertia or the
appearance of frame-dependent force terms or other variations of the
loss of principle of relativity.

[Larry Harson]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:58:28 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/10/2016 3:23 PM, Larry Harson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:48:27 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> >
> >> Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone
> >> books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent
> >> money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know.
> >

> > How did he fail?
> >
> > I have to give him credit for sitting down and putting in a book his ideas, which has
> > managed to sell on Amazon.com with 10 used available:
> >
> > https://www.amazon.com/Model-mechanics-new-interpretation-nature/dp/0964713608
> >
> > Whether those used copies come from the same person, I can't say :)
> >
> > LH

> >
> >

> If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
> of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
> a failure?

People have their differing reasons for publishing. Not everyone publishes something for the sole purpose of making a profit. They may do it for the pleasure of seeing their ideas in print.

> I suppose if you have invented a better toilet brush, and you have
> invested a few thousand dollars and made $30 in revenue from your
> invention, you could always say you put your ideas into a real product,
> even if it's one that nobody wanted and consumed your savings.

But in the process of trying to create something unlike most people, they've succeeded in developing new skills, met new people, experienced new experiences, helped people live their lives by employing their services... there's many sides to what people do. Upon retiring, most resort to moping around the house looking for something useful to do with the rest of their life. Ken decided to take up criticizing relativity, publishing his own book so people can read about his ideas, even if the informed see them as naive and ill informed.

The same thing on a far more sophisticated level is going on with Tom and his experiment. One person is ridiculing Tom's proposed experiment as a failure; most are jumping to Tom's defense and can see the value in what he's doing and so can I. People's endeavours aren't quite 100% either success or failure from one another's viewpoint.

LH

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway.

Sure, but Tom’s experiment isn’t testing Lorentz invariance, it's just demonstrating (for the zillionth time) the first-order Sagnac effect, which is consistent both with theories that are Lorentz invariant and with theories that are not. (Lorentz invariance is a second-order effect.) This can be done much more cheaply and with much greater precision by just buying an off-the-shelf fiber optic gyro. Also, simple optical demonstrations don’t establish relatively moving systems of coordinates in which inertia is isotropic, so they can’t be said to demonstrate RoS for such systems. Of course, the Sagnac effect rules out some emission theories, but no one espouses those anyway. Admittedly, if fiber optic gyros suddenly stopped working tomorrow, it would be a problem for special relativity, but that would be the least of our worries.

> time dilation or increase of inertia with speed are also evidence in

> support of Lorentz invariance...”

Yes, those are both second-order effects, neither of which is demonstrated in Tom’s experiment.

> which in turn requires RoS

To avoid confusion, it’s best to be careful... Lorentz invariance “requires
RoS” only for the class of coordinate systems in which inertia is homogeneous
and isotropic, but not for general classes of coordinate systems.

> I've always understood (perhaps incorrectly) that other synchronization
> schemes are of course possible, but that one ends up with other
> esthetically undesirable effects, such as anisotropic inertia or the
> appearance of frame-dependent force terms or other variations of the
> loss of principle of relativity.

I’m not sure what “variations of the loss of principle of relativity” means. It’s true that neither the (special) principle of relativity nor the invariance of light speed apply to the behavior of phenomena described in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems. They apply only to the descriptions of phenomena in terms of coordinates "in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (i.e., to the first approximation)", meaning standard inertial coordinate systems in which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. But the first-order Sagnac effect doesn't really demonstrate any of this.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 11:51 AM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> We will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish
>> instrumentation problems from RoS not being present.
>
> Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus would
> just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with some Fizeau
> effect to account for the index of refraction), which is measured very
> precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc.

Not true. There are CRUCIAL differences between this experiment and Wang's (or
any Sagnac measurement). Let me discuss the idealized calculation using pulses
(but this also applies to the real experiment measuring phases).
1. The light pulses at the two mirrors in my experiment are CONSTRAINED
by the optical processing to be simultaneous in the lab. Wang and
Sagnac have nothing comparable (and couldn't -- no 50% mirrors, no
place to impose simultaneity in the lab).
2. Wang's and Sagnac's fringe shifts are proportional to the area A of
the light path; my delay between pulses is proportional to L, not A.
With L fixed, I could make A arbitrarily large (or small) without
affecting the result (the optical processing would compensate).

While superficially this might look similar to what Wang did, these differences
make this completely different. Conceptually it is also quite different. In
particular, the optical processing CANCELS the Sagnac effect.

> For
> any operationally defined class of coordinate systems we can empirically
> establish whether or not the foliations of constant t are common. But your
> “experiment” does not do this.

Sure it does. The light pulses at the mirrors are simultaneous in the lab frame
and not in the rod (moving) frame.

Both frames are inertial to far better accuracy than required
(even though the rod is swinging back-and-forth, the earth
rotates and has gravity, etc.).


> [... digression to Tangherlini omitted; what he says is correct]

> But
> demonstrating the first-order Sagnac effect for the zillionth time doesn’t
> really clarify anything.

Also true. But that is not what my experiment is doing. This is NOT a Sagnac
interferometer -- the synchronization at the mirrors is an essential difference
that CANCELS the Sagnac effect.

Applying a Sagnac analysis to my experiment requires assuming the flexing of the
fibers has negligible effect and removing the optical processing and mirrors;
the time difference between pulses depends on the area of the light path [#],
and in general the pulses will not be simultaneous in the lab at the ends of the
rod. In my actual experiment this Sagnac effect merely contributes to the work
the optical processing must do, and the time difference between pulses depends
on the length of the rod between the mirrors (where the simultaneity in the lab
is imposed), not the area.

[#] Note that the Sagnac effect does not always depend only
on the area and rotation rate -- that applies only for a
rigid light path; flexible fibers require a more careful
analysis. Still, the basic ideas come close....

Note that by varying how the fibers are routed (far apart or together as close
as possible), by varying where the mirrors are located on the rod, and by
turning the optical processing on and off, I can vary A and L independently and
observe both of these effects (both are first order in v/c). I can also observe
the effects of fiber flexing by holding the rod fixed and wiggling the middle of
the fibers.

I can, of course, route the fibers so A=0 with mirrors at the ends of the rod --
SR's RoS still predicts a nonzero interval between pulses (optical processing
on), but Sagnac does not (processing off). I can then reconfigure so L=0
(mirrors placed together at the center of the rod) but A is large -- SR's RoS
predicts simultaneous pulses (processing on), but Sagnac predicts nonzero
interval (processing off).


Thanks for bringing this up. I had not realized that the optical processing must
also cancel the Sagnac effect; fortunately it does. In some configurations it
could well be larger than the effect of fiber flexing.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/12/16 8/12/16 1:37 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway.
>
> Sure, but Tom’s experiment isn’t testing Lorentz invariance, it's just

> demonstrating (for the zillionth time) the first-order Sagnac effect, [...]

Not true. See my recent response to your earlier post on this. The optical
processing I use cancels the Sagnac effect (as well as effects due to fiber
flexing and temperature variations).

> (Lorentz invariance is a second-order effect.)

Some aspects are, some aren't. RoS is first-order in v/c.

> Also, simple optical demonstrations don’t
> establish relatively moving systems of coordinates in which inertia is
> isotropic, so they can’t be said to demonstrate RoS for such systems.

Nonsense! In my experiment we can easily establish that both the lab frame and
the rod frame are inertial to vastly better accuracy than the measurement. It is
not intended to demonstrate "inertia is isotropic", but it would be perverse to
think that doesn't apply to (locally) inertial frames like these.

> To avoid confusion, it’s best to be careful... Lorentz invariance “requires
> RoS” only for the class of coordinate systems in which inertia is
> homogeneous and isotropic, but not for general classes of coordinate
> systems.

Yes. But inertial frames qualify, and the frames in my experiment are inertial
for the purposes of the measurement.

That is, one asks the question "If we use the equations of
SR specific to inertial frames for the actual frames of this
experiment, how much error is introduced?", and the answer
is "vastly less than the resolution of the measurements".

> It’s true that neither the (special) principle of relativity nor the
> invariance of light speed apply to the behavior of phenomena described in
> terms of arbitrary coordinate systems.

This depends in detail on what you mean. Using coordinates x' which does not
correspond to length, and/or t' which does not correspond to time intervals, OF
COURSE dx'/dt' for light won't equal c. But if spacetime curvature can be
neglected, and one applies the metric to convert dx' to distance and dt' to time
interval, then distance/time will equal c (in vacuum).

I'm not sure how one could apply the PoR to non-inertial coordinates, as it
internally limits itself to inertial frames.

> They apply only to the descriptions
> of phenomena in terms of coordinates "in which the equations of Newtonian
> mechanics hold good (i.e., to the first approximation)", meaning standard
> inertial coordinate systems in which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic.
> But the first-order Sagnac effect doesn't really demonstrate any of this.

Yes. Not only is "inertia" isotropic (whatever that means -- "inertia" is
ambiguous), also space is homogeneous and isotropic, and time is homogeneous.
These last seem to me to be more fundamental. And I am not "demonstrating
Sagnac", I am CANCELLING it and demonstrating RoS.


Tom Roberts

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:33:08 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed
>> apparatus would just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect
>> (combined with some Fizeau effect to account for the index of
>> refraction), which is measured very precisely every day in
>> off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc.
>

>There are CRUCIAL differences between this experiment and Wang's...

>2. Wang's and Sagnac's fringe shifts are proportional to the area A of
> the light path; my delay between pulses is proportional to L, not A.

The Sagnac effect is proportional to A only for the special case of a rigid light track. At the other extreme, where the fiber optic line’s motion is paralell to the direction of light (as in Wang and Roberts), the effect is purely proportional to L, not A. Sagnac had a rigid track, but Wang’s conveyor belts and your experiment both have fiber optic lines of length L moving parallel to the direction of travel of the light. It’s precisely the same effect. Thorough analyses of the general Sagnac effect, covering all possible motions of the optical path, can be found in the literature.

>1. The light pulses at the two mirrors in my experiment are CONSTRAINED

> by the optical processing to be simultaneous in the lab...

In Sagnac and Wang the sources for both directions are coincident, so they are simultaneous in all frames by definition. That’s the most efficient way of doing things. Your apparatus does essentially the same thing, but in a more laborious way, because you focus your analysis on just part of the loop, which requires you to account for the timing of the pulses in the rest of the “loop” separately. This is just an overly laborious accounting task which doesn’t change the physics. Obviously the timing in the set-up portions of the path can be adjusted to give any desired results over just the “rod” segment.

> While superficially this might look similar to what Wang did, these
> differences make this completely different.

Your apparatus is identical to Wang’s “linear Sagnac” conveyor belts. The only superficial difference is that you are segmenting the belt into a test portion (the rod) and a set-up portion (the fibers feeding the rod), and focusing your analysis on just the test portion. Naturally we can, in principle, arrange to inject pulses to the two ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab frame (assuming we accept as given the standard inertial coordinate synchronization of the lab frame), but this just amounts to an overly laborious way of demonstrating the general Sagnac effect. To demonstrate RoS between the inertial rest frame coordinates of the lab and the inertial coordinates in which the rod is at rest we would need to establish the time coordinate of the rod’s inertial rest frame coordinates, but nothing in your experiment does this. (This requires consideration of dynamical effects of Lorentz invariance, which are completely absent from your "experiment".) So (at best) all you are demonstrating is a “linear” variant of the Sagnac effect.

> Conceptually it is also quite different. In particular, the optical
> processing CANCELS the Sagnac effect.

The only first-order effect that is present in your apparatus is the Sagnac effect. If you cancel this effect (correctly), there will be nothing left. Conversely, if you detect something, it will be because you haven’t correctly compensated for the Sagnac effect. Think about sending radio pulses between San Francisco and New York: we can use ECI to synchronize the transmissions, but the pulses will take different “times” eastbound versus westbound due to the Sagnac effect. Same for GPS signals. If we compensate to eliminate the Sagnac effect, there is nothing left.

> The light pulses at the mirrors are simultaneous in the lab frame
> and not in the rod (moving) frame.

Your apparatus does nothing to establish the temporal foliation of the inertial coordinates in which the rod is at rest, so it does not (and can not) demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity between the lab frame inertial coordinates and the rod frame inertial coordinates. Your apparatus is identical to Wang’s “linear Sagnac fiber optic” devices. The only difference is that he interpreted the resulting shift as proof that special relativity is wrong, whereas you interpret it as a measurement of the relativity of simultaneity. Neither of those interpretations is valid. It’s just the Sagnac effect.

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:47:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/12/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 9:29:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> I see the 1995 book is in fact in the Library of Congress. The 2016 book
> >>>>> is not. Congratulations for being one of 24 million books there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You may want to know that the LoC also has a large number of digital
> >>>>> files in its holdings, including PDFs.
> >>> The problem is: I won't get any benefit from such PDF filing.
> >>
> >> So here's the choice:
> >> 1. Spend thousands to generate a print book, which you can sell on
> >> Amazon, but which doesn't sell well, and so your financial loss is great.
> >> 2. Spend a hundred or two to generate a PDF, which you cannot sell on
> >> Amazon, and so your loss is guaranteed but it is much smaller.
> >
> > Idiot.....the book is already printed.
>
> Yes, I know. The question is whether you made a sound choice or not.
> It's also about whether you're going to make the same choice AGAIN,
> investing thousands to produce another print book that will earn
> virtually nothing in sales.

To ME it is a sound choice. In any case it is irrelevant.....I am spending my own money so why does it bother you so much?

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:51:25 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > We will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish
> > instrumentation problems from RoS not being present.
>
> Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus would just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with some Fizeau effect to account for the index of refraction), which is measured very precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc. The first-order Sagnac effect doesn’t have much value for testing special relativity, since the same effect is consistent with (for example) pre-Lorentzian stationary ether theories. It certainly does not constitute an unambiguous detection of the “relativity of simultaneity” (RoS) because that’s a coordinate-dependent concept (as is simultaneity itself), i.e., RoS is an attribute of some classes of coordinate systems and not of others. For any operationally defined class of coordinate systems we >can empirically establish whether or not the foliations of constant t are common. But your >“experiment” does not do this. (An example of an “experiment” that does this is the >demonstrations of the increasing inertia of high-speed particles in accelerators, which >directly implies RoS for standard inertial coordinate systems.)

Right....RoS is an artifact of an absolute rest coordinate system set up by the observer.....since no object in the universe is in a state of absolute rest then the concept of RoS is an abstraction. Tom's experiment is an attempt to measure an abstraction that doesn't exist.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

The usefulness of an experiment mimicking as closely as possible Einstein's
train and lightning bolts thought experiment, is that the relativity of
simultaneity concept seems to be an oddly difficult one for beginning
students of relativity to grasp. I quite agree with you that Tom's
experiment really does not demonstrate much more than linear Sagnac
fiber optics devices, but the prolonged arguments taking place on these
newsgroups demonstrate that otherwise fairly intelligent individuals can
find themselves unable to "get it".

The Sagnac effect *is* a manifestation of relativity of simultaneity.

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 6:33:08 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 11:51 AM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> We will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish
> >> instrumentation problems from RoS not being present.
> >
> > Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus would
> > just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with some Fizeau
> > effect to account for the index of refraction), which is measured very
> > precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc.
>
> Not true. There are CRUCIAL differences between this experiment and Wang's (or
> any Sagnac measurement). Let me discuss the idealized calculation using pulses
> (but this also applies to the real experiment measuring phases).
> 1. The light pulses at the two mirrors in my experiment are CONSTRAINED
> by the optical processing to be simultaneous in the lab. Wang and
> Sagnac have nothing comparable (and couldn't -- no 50% mirrors, no
> place to impose simultaneity in the lab).

I don't understand.....I thought the fiberoptic from the two ends of the rod continue on to the detector mounted at the center of the rod. So why the need for the 50% mirrors at the ends of the rod? Are you saying that you are comparing the phase difference between the two beams that moving in the free air?

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 2:30:45 PM UTC-4, Larry Harson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:58:28 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 8/10/2016 3:23 PM, Larry Harson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:48:27 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone
> > >> books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent
> > >> money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know.
> > >
> > > How did he fail?
> > >
> > > I have to give him credit for sitting down and putting in a book his ideas, which has
> > > managed to sell on Amazon.com with 10 used available:
> > >
> > > https://www.amazon.com/Model-mechanics-new-interpretation-nature/dp/0964713608
> > >
> > > Whether those used copies come from the same person, I can't say :)
> > >
> > > LH
> > >
> > >
>
> > If you spend a few thousand dollars publishing a book, and you get sales
> > of five copies at $6 apiece, would you consider it something other than
> > a failure?
>
> People have their differing reasons for publishing. Not everyone publishes something for the sole purpose of making a profit. They may do it for the pleasure of seeing their ideas in print.
>
> > I suppose if you have invented a better toilet brush, and you have
> > invested a few thousand dollars and made $30 in revenue from your
> > invention, you could always say you put your ideas into a real product,
> > even if it's one that nobody wanted and consumed your savings.
>
> But in the process of trying to create something unlike most people, they've succeeded in developing new skills, met new people, experienced new experiences, helped people live their lives by employing their services... there's many sides to what people do. Upon retiring, most resort to moping around the house looking for something useful to do with the rest of their life. Ken decided to take up criticizing relativity, publishing his own book so people can read about his ideas, even if the informed see them as naive and ill informed.

NO......I did not published my book to criticize relativity. My theory IRT includes SR and LET as subsets. What this mean is that SR and LET are incomplete theories....the incompleteness is the result that each SR or LET observer considers himself to be in a state of absolute rest and therefore he has only one set of transform equations to predict the rate of a clock moving wrt him.

An IRT observer does not consider himself to be in a state of absolute rest but he does not know if the observed clock is in a higher or lower state of absolute motion. Therefore he has two sets of transformation equations: one set to predict the moving clock is accumulating clock seconds at a higher rate and the other set to predict the moving clock is accumulating clock seconds at a lower rate.

>
> The same thing on a far more sophisticated level is going on with Tom and his experiment. One person is ridiculing Tom's proposed experiment as a failure; most are jumping to Tom's defense and can see the value in what he's doing and so can I. People's endeavours aren't quite 100% either suction and therefore he ccess or failure from one another's viewpoint.
>
> LH

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:36:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> NO......I did not published my book to criticize relativity. My

> theory IRT includes SR and LET as subsets. What this <snip>

I have noticed a dramatic change in "ken's" writing style of the past few days. Its a great improvement & too great. So either he's being spoofed (thus, word of caution), or he is on stronger/better meds. Since the "real" ken has not manifested foul play, this lends us to believe that its actually ken!

Ken, can you confirm that you are on new meds or treatment? And if so, which one(s)?

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh, it doesn't bother me at all. It's your money, not mine.
Whether it's sound or not, to me depends on results not ambitions.
You have ambitions of making your money back, you say. How are the results?

>>
>> The fact that you have made this mistake three times now, does not mean
>> that you should make it four times.
>

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/12/16 8/12/16 1:37 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway.
> >
> > Sure, but Tom’s experiment isn’t testing Lorentz invariance, it's just
> > demonstrating (for the zillionth time) the first-order Sagnac effect, [...]
>
> Not true. See my recent response to your earlier post on this. The optical
> processing I use cancels the Sagnac effect (as well as effects due to fiber
> flexing and temperature variations).

I don't believe that you are explaining the unique aspects of your proposed
experiment properly.

The Sagnac effect has been subject to nearly a century of popular
misinterpretation. In textbooks, one almost invariably sees the Sagnac
effect explained in terms of rotating platforms, and one finds frequent
reference to the magnitude of the effect as being "dependent" on the
enclosed area. For example, the fact that the MMX is not sensitive to
rotation is often explained as due to the fact that the MMX light path
does not enclose an area.

There has long been a misunderstanding that the Sagnac effect is due to
rotation, i.e. non-inertial motion.

The fiber conveyor form of the Sagnac apparatus demonstrates that there is
in reality no dependence of the magnitude of the Sagnac effect on the
enclosed area or on rotation. Rather, the total time advance/delay
experienced by a beam is equal to the cumulative time advances/delays along
the entire length of fiber, regardless of rotation or geometry.

In response to the publication of the fiber conveyor experiment, Tartaglia
wrote: "In the present paper...we want to show that the real ingredients of
the Sagnac effect are two: a) a closed circuit followed by light in opposite
directions; b) a relative (even inertial) motion of the emitter/receiver
with respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light."
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401005

A significant aspect of your demonstration will be that even the generalized
statement provided by Tartaglia is wrong. In reality, a) neither a closed
circuit of light, nor b) a relative motion of the emitter/receiver with
respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light are
necessary.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/12/16 8/12/16 9:19 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> The only first-order effect that is present in your apparatus is the Sagnac effect.

Not true. There are two effects that are first-order in v/c: Sagnac and SR's
RoS. By varying the fiber configuration and turning the optical processing on
and off I can measure them separately.

Here are the three setups that convinced me that I can cancel the Sagnac effect
and measure RoS. They show unequivocally that I can separate Sagnac from RoS.

These are all the idealized calculation using light pulses, using idealized fibers.

In all figures I do not draw the moving rod or its supports, I draw only light
paths in fibers, and components: PD=photodetector, M1,M2=50% mirrors, X=optical
processing; the source sends simultaneous light pulses into two fibers and is at
rest in the lab. In all cases when two paths are together, consider them right
on top of each other, not separated as my ASCII art shows. At the right are
frame labels bracketed by "!". View in a fixed-width font.

================================ Setup A ================================

The fibers are bent 180 degrees at the ends of the rod, infinitesimally outside
the mirrors. At the center of the rod (below PD) and at the optical processing
(X) the fibers hinge without changing length (at *). The rod frame moves
left-right, here shown at its center-of-motion moving right.

M1 M2 !
|---------------------------->PD<----------------------------| ! Rod
-----------------------------* *------------------------------ ! Frame
| |
| |
| |
| | (Fibers don't
| | flex, they
| | hinge at *)
| |
| |
* * !
X X ! Lab
Source ! Frame

With the optical processing off there is NO delay between pulses at the PD.
There is no Sagnac effect, because A=0. A more careful analysis of light speed
in the rod frame shows that the pulses in the two fibers arrive simultaneously
at the center of the rod, move to M1 and M2 over equal distances with equal
speeds, and also from M1 and M2 to PD, hence no time offset at PD. Note the
pulses do NOT arrive at M1 and M2 simultaneously in the lab frame: in the lab
frame the pulses arrive simultaneously at the center of the rod, move to M1 and
M2 at different speeds over different distances (so they don't arrive
simultaneously at M1 and M2), but those differences are exactly canceled in the
paths from M1 and M2 to PD, hence no time offset at PD.

With the optical processing on there IS delay between pulses at the PD,
displaying SR's relativity of simultaneity. (Remember the optical processing
keeps the pulses simultaneous in the lab at M1 and M2 by changing the individual
fiber lengths at each X.)

================================ Setup B ================================

The fibers are bent 90 degrees at the ends of the rod, infinitesimally outside
the mirrors. At the ends of the rod and in the lab below them the fibers hinge
without changing length (at *). The rod frame moves left-right, here shown at
its center-of-motion moving right.

M1 M2 !
|---------------------------->PD<----------------------------| ! Rod
* * ! Frame
| |
| |
| |
| |
| (Fibers don't flex, |
| they hinge at *) |
| |
| |
* * !
----------------------------- ----------------------------- !
X X ! Lab
Source ! Frame


With the optical processing off there IS delay between pulses at the PD. By
construction the pulses arrive at M1 and M2 simultaneously in the lab, so there
is delay between them at PD which can be attributed to either the Sagnac effect
or to SR's RoS.

With the optical processing on there IS delay between pulses at the PD, as this
is the same as with it off.

================================ Setup C ================================

The fibers are bent 90 degrees at the ends of the rod, far outside the mirrors
which are moved toward the center of the rod. At the ends of the rod and in the
lab below them the fibers hinge without changing length (at *). The rod frame
moves left-right, here shown at its center-of-motion moving right.

M1 M2 !
--------------|-------------->PD<--------------|-------------- ! Rod
* * ! Frame
| |
| |
| |
| |
| (Fibers don't flex, |
| they hinge at *) |
| |
| |
* * !
----------------------------- ----------------------------- !
X X ! Lab
Source ! Frame

With the optical processing off there IS delay between pulses at the PD. By
construction the pulses arrive at the ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab,
so there is delay between them at PD which can be attributed to either the
Sagnac effect or to SR's RoS. Note the pulses do NOT arrive simultaneously in
the lab at M1 and M2.

With the optical processing on there IS delay between pulses at the PD, but it
is DIFFERENT from that with the processing off. This demonstrates SR's RoS, and
the processing has cancelled the additional effect of Sagnac.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/13/16 8/13/16 8:45 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> [...] I quite agree with you that Tom's

> experiment really does not demonstrate much more than linear Sagnac
> fiber optics devices

I suspect my recent response to dancouriann (with 3 diagrams) will convince you
this experiment demonstrates RoS and Sagnac, separately and together. It does
convince me.

> The Sagnac effect *is* a manifestation of relativity of simultaneity.

Hmmm. I think of it more as a manifestation of the Lorentz composition of
velocities. Because in performing the analysis that is what is used, not RoS.
But I agree they are intimately related.


Tom Roberts

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 3:16:03 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> In response to the publication of the fiber conveyor experiment, Tartaglia
> wrote: "In the present paper...we want to show that the real ingredients of
> the Sagnac effect are two: a) a closed circuit followed by light in opposite
> directions; b) a relative (even inertial) motion of the emitter/receiver
> with respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light."
> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401005

It is rather difficult to find non-fringe papers dealing with the fiber
conveyor. This one reaches rather similar conclusions as the Tartaglia paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403111

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:44:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> There are two effects that are first-order in v/c: Sagnac
> and SR's RoS. By varying the fiber configuration and
> turning the optical processing on and off I can measure
> them separately.

Suppose you transmit radio pulses from San Francisco and New York simultaneously in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) coordinates (i.e., the “lab”), and you receive the pulses at a detector at the geometrical midpoint between them. They will arrive at different times, because the “rod” between SF and NY is sliding (more or less linearly) relative to the ECI frame during the transit. That is called the Sagnac effect. Now, if you adjust the transmissions times to eliminate the Sagnac effect, by making the pulses arrive at the midpoint simultaneously, the pulses will arrive at the midpoint simultaneously.

What you’re measuring (when you inject the pulses to the ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab frame) is nothing but the general Sagnac effect. We have a problem with terminology, since you keep saying the Sagnac effect is zero if the area enclosed by the path is zero, which suggests that you define “Sagnac effect” as just the special case of a rigid rotating track. When I refer to the “Sagnac effect” I’m talking about the general effect associated with any motion of the track, not necessarily rigid motion, and of course it applies to segments of loops, not just to entire completed loops. In general, the time difference for the two directions along a track is (2/c^2) times the integral of the dot product of v (the speed of an incremental portion of the track) and ds (the incremental path segment of the track). If the path is always moving parallel to the segment, the time difference is 2vL/c^2 where L is the length of the path. On the other hand, for a rigid track, in rotation, the time difference is proportional to the enclosed area and the angular velocity. Detailed descriptions of the general Sagnac effect, covering things like fiber optic conveyor belts, etc., can be found online.

On 8/13/16 8/13/16 8:45 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> I quite agree with you that Tom's experiment really does
> not demonstrate much more than linear Sagnac fiber
> optics devices

Not “much” more? It demonstrates nothing but the Sagnac effect. If he compensates the timing to eliminate the Sagnac effect, there will be no effect remaining.

> The usefulness of an experiment mimicking as closely as
> possible Einstein's train and lightning bolts thought
> experiment, is that the relativity of simultaneity concept
> seems to be an oddly difficult one for beginning students
> of relativity to grasp.

Students don’t have any difficulty with the fact that, if the lightning bolts are simultaneous in the inertial coordinates of the embankment, and the light propagates at c in those coordinates, and the train is moving in those coordinates, then the light will meet the middle of the train at different times. This is just the Sagnac effect, and it does not (by itself) challenge any of the student’s preconceptions, nor does it imply the relativity of simultaneity for relatively moving systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (i.e., to the first approximation). So a demonstration is this time difference is of no value to the student, nor will it amaze the student that we can make the time difference go away by adjusting the timing of the pulses.

The typical student’s difficulty is with the seemingly arbitrary assertion (in poor expositions – which, alas, includes Einstein’s sketchy popularization) that the coordinate system for the train “should” (or “can”, or “must”, or “does”) use time coordinates in terms of which those same flashes also propagate at c. THIS is what the student questions. Demonstrating that the pulses do indeed arrive at different times is beside the point. No one disputes that they arrive at different times. What the student doesn’t expect (and, to be fair, what no one expected) is the fact that mechanical inertia is frame dependent (because of the inertia of energy), and therefore the time foliations of relatively moving systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (to the first approximation) are skewed. This is demonstrated by (for example) the increasing inertia of particles in accelerators, but it is not demonstrated by the Sagnac effect.

> the prolonged arguments taking place on these newsgroups
> demonstrate that otherwise fairly intelligent individuals can
> find themselves unable to "get it".

Without commenting on the intelligence (or sanity) of the individuals on these newsgroups, I’ll just say that students don’t typically dispute that the pulses will arrive at different times. (In fact, they would surely baulk if anyone claimed the pulses arrive at the same time.) The reason they fail to “get it” is because no one has ever clearly explained to them the operational definition of coordinate systems in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (to the first approximation). The key empirical fact that implies relativity of simultaneity of such coordinate systems is the inertia of energy, as shown by (for example) the increasing inertia of particles in accelerators.

> The Sagnac effect *is* a manifestation of relativity of simultaneity.

Relativity of simultaneity is not an absolute thing, it is an attribute of some classes of coordinate systems and not of others. It goes without saying that the Sagnac effect demonstrates relativity of simultaneity for a class of coordinate systems defined so that the speed of light is c (in all directions) in terms of every coordinate system. This relativity of simultaneity is tautological, and it would be true whether physics was Lorentz invariant or not. Students have no trouble understanding this, they merely think it is a “false” or unjustified way of defining coordinate systems. Why, they wonder, don’t we use good old inertial space and time coordinate systems, meaning systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (at least to the first approximation)? What they don’t realize is the empirical fact that these two classes of space and time coordinate systems (defined by isotropic light speed and isotropic inertia respectively) are identical. This identity is NOT tautological; it is true only because physics is Lorentz invariant (and because light is massless energy), equivalent to the assertion that energy has inertia (E = mc^2, as shown by increased inertia of particles in accelerators, etc.), which was the key ingredient missing from Newtonian physics. These things can be (and have been) demonstrated empirically, but not by the Sagnac effect.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

A good deal of your disagreement is, I believe, semantic in origin.

Just what *is* the Sagnac effect? A few years ago, I had discussion with a
Wikipedia editor on whether or not reference to the fiber conveyor belonged in
the article on the Sagnac effect. To that editor, making reference to the fiber
conveyor in the article was improper because it had nothing to do with the area
inside the loop or to rotation, and as stated at the head of the Wikipedia
article, the Sagnac effect is "a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that
is elicited by rotation."

This description of the Sagnac effect as necessarily being elicited by rotation,
would be one that I imagine would be shared by the great majority of textbook
articles on the subject.

In Tartaglia and Ruggiero's re-definition of the Sagnac effect, the "Sagnac
effect is not necessarily due to the presence of a rotating observer, but
rather to the closed path of light in space and an even inertial relative
motion between the observer and the physical device forcing light to move
along a closed path."

This re-definition of the Sagnac effect does not encompass Roberts' apparatus,
because in Roberts' proposed experiment, there is no closed path of light in
space.

What you have done is to provide a personal re-definition of the Sagnac effect
that encompasses the phenomena that are to be measured in Roberts' experiment.
But after a literature search (admittedly rather casual), I do not see any
precedent for a definition of the Sagnac effect along the lines that you
propose.

Roberts' experiment represents a technological tour de force far more than it
represents an experiment that could possibly provide any great advancement in
knowledge. Tom's experiment is, in many ways, like the Hafele–Keating experiment.

Honestly, was there any way whatsoever that the HK experiment proved anything
about relativity that we didn't already know? So far as I'm concerned, HK was
a cheap publicity stunt, one that nearly a half century after it was conducted,
is still routinely mentioned in textbooks and hotly debated on forums such as
this one. Were the atomic clocks that HK used truly reliable enough to detect
the relativistic effects that HK reported? Are the original printouts available
so that science historians can confirm the correlated rate change analysis that
HK used to tease out results from the rather noisy data that their primitive
atomic clocks provided them?

Technological tour de force experiments do indeed have their place. It has never
before been possible to recreate what may be Einstein's most famous (or second
most famous) thought experiment.

[astro...@interia.pl]

You are another stupid man in this forum.

The Sagnac is a direct consequence of the obvious fact:
c' = c +/- v, wrt the moving source/detector..
along a closed loop.
finito.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/14/16 8/14/16 2:25 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> [My experiment] demonstrates nothing but the Sagnac effect.

You cannot see the forest for the weeds. You are focusing on a purely
instrumentation effect THAT THE INSTRUMENT CANCELS.

The principle of the measurement is to generate simultaneous events in one
inertial frame (the lab) and measure their time difference in an inertial frame
moving relative to it (the rod). I'll describe it that way, and nobody --
ABSOLUTELY NOBODY -- will be thinking "Sagnac".

When I describe the instrument used to make the measurement, as usual I'll
discuss noise, backgrounds, and instrumentation effects, and how they are
minimized or avoided. One background is the Sagnac effect, introduced due to the
design of the instrument; I'll point out that the optical processing cancels it
completely, leaving RoS. And we KNOW that in this experiment the Sagnac effect
is purely an instrumentation effect, because it depends on how I choose to route
the fibers (if I have space for it, I may include an appendix showing this,
similar to my recent post with 3 diagrams). I'll probably include a brief
mention of the "fiber conveyor" experiments, primarily to discuss how the
presence of the optical processing makes this experiment quite different from
them (it not only cancels their major systematic error from fiber flexing, it
also cancels their signal).

I have no idea why you think the potential presence of the Sagnac effect in the
instrument somehow compromises the measurement, because identifying and dealing
with such backgrounds is business as usual in experimental physics. The Sagnac
effect does NOT affect the measurement, because the instrument cancels it.


Tom Roberts

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 4:44:24 PM Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> A good deal of your disagreement is, I believe, semantic in origin.

The disagreement is not semantic. The time difference in Tom’s apparatus (when the pulses are injected at the ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab frame) is simply due to the different optical path lengths that the pulses travel in the two directions, and this does not demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity between relatively moving systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (to the first approximation). There ARE experiments that demonstrate this, but showing that light takes different times to traverse different path lengths is not one of them. That’s the substantive disagreement.

As for the semantics, notice that the time difference in a fiber optic gyro is simply due to the different optical path lengths that the pulses travel in the two directions. Sound familiar? In fact, if we take the rod in Tom’s apparatus and bend it into a circle, so that the end points are coincident, we can easily inject pulses in both directions simultaneously, and we can rotate instead of translating, to produce exacting the same difference in optical path lengths in the two directions, which results in exactly the same time difference to reach the midpoint. It is the same effect, and it is demonstrated every day to fantastic precision in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros (as well as GPS timing, and the ECI timing of eastbound and westbound radio waves, etc.).

> Roberts' experiment represents a technological tour de force...

I would say just the opposite. It strikes me as an incredibly clunky and unnecessarily laborious way of unwinding a fiber optic gyro, and showing (for the zillionth time) that light takes different times to traverse different optical path lengths.

> Tom's experiment is, in many ways, like the Hafele–Keating experiment.

Hafele-Keating provided a direct demonstration of second-order relativistic time dilation, which is a real relativistic effect. Granted, this effect had already been established by other means, so it was arguably (as you said) just a publicity stunt, but at least it was looking at a real relativistic effect. In contrast, Tom is just striving to demonstrate the first-order difference in travel times for light traversing different optical path lengths, which really isn’t even a relativistic effect (experiments like this were once touted as proof of the existence of an ether), and has been demonstrated zillions of times before to much greater precision.

> It has never before been possible to recreate what may be
> Einstein's most famous (or second most famous) thought
> experiment.

That’s not true at all. The lightning/train scenario in Einstein’s little booklet is perfectly isomorphic to the timing of eastbound and westbound radio transmissions synced in the ECI, and to GPS signals, and to ordinary off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, and conveyor belt fiber optics, etc., which have all been demonstrated for many years, and with much greater precision.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:05:35 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> The principle of the measurement is to generate simultaneous
> events in one inertial frame (the lab) and measure their time
> difference in an inertial frame moving relative to it (the rod).

Right, that's precisely isomorphic to emitting radio pulses from San Francisco and New York simultaneously in the ECI frame and measuring the time difference when they arrive at the mid-point. This is a well-known phenomenon, due to the different optical path lengths, because the country has moved sideways a little bit (in the ECI) during the transit of the light. It is called the Sagnac effect.

> I'll describe it that way, and nobody -- > ABSOLUTELY NOBODY --
> will be thinking "Sagnac".

I think any competent person who reviews your proposal will recognize immediately that it is demonstrating nothing but the Sagnac effect, i.e., the fact that light takes different times to traverse the different optical path lengths in the two directions.

> I have no idea why you think the potential presence
> of the Sagnac effect in the instrument somehow

> compromises the measurement...

I sense that we are not communicating at all. It almost sounds as if you think I'm talking about the Sagnac effect due to the rotation of the Earth, or some other tiny effect. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying the main time difference that you are measuring, the one that you think shows the relativity of simultaneity, is actually just due to the change in the optical path lengths of the rod in the two directions caused by the linear motion of the rod in the lab frame. You've just taken a fiber optic gyro and unwound it into a straight rod, which you translate instead of rotate, but the effect on the optical path lengths in the two directions is identical.

You see, I'm not talking about a little noise, I'm saying you are completely misinterpreting your signal. The time difference you measure when you have synchronized the pulses in the lab frame is nothing other than the Sagnac effect of the translating rod (which, remember, has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation, etc). We measure this time difference every day for eastbound and westbound radio signals, synced in the ECI (which is the equivalent of your "lab frame"). If you cancel this effect, there will be no remaining time difference.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:82a2a783-5d19-482c...@googlegroups.com...

|The Sagnac effect *is* a manifestation of relativity of simultaneity.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic trash.
Let's assume your unsynchronized clocks are not as proper as
your bunch of idiots insist. Does this assumption influences
Sagnac's effect somehow?

[rotchm]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:

> but showing that light takes different times to traverse different
> path lengths is not one of them. That’s the substantive disagreement.

But the light pulses DONT take different times to travel from their respective ends to the (center) detector; they take the *same time* (all this wrt the rod frame). Since they take the same time , but dont arrive together, that means (in the rod frame) they left their respective ends at different times, yet in the lab frame, they left simultaneously. That is all what Tom has set out to measure. Call it RoS or not, wont change the (expected) result of his exp.

[kenseto]

How do you know that they left their respective ends at different time in the rod frame and that they left their respective end at the same time in the lab frame. I think that you are just making assumptions to support your claims.