SAGNAC AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT

Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"ca314159" wrote in message ...
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but it would
if you stopped it turning.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
efficient for almost a century:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

"The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
(more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
different means including light signals. That is why it is not
surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."

Pentcho Valev

On May 26, 9:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:



"ca314159" wrote in ...
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but it would
if you stopped it turning.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
efficient for almost a century:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

"The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
(more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
different means including light signals. That is why it is not
surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."

Pentcho Valev


Now it is clear where you get all your ideas. Check this out, by the
same "scientist":

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810030v14.pdf

The idiot apparently never heard of Pound-Rebka. How can we be
surprised when Ken Seto comes up with the same stupidities?

While you are at it, check out all his unpublished (and unpublishable)
discoveries.

On May 26, 9:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:



"ca314159" wrote in ...
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but it would
if you stopped it turning.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
efficient for almost a century:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

"The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
(more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
different means including light signals. That is why it is not
surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."

By the same idiot:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf

who has apparently never herad of "closing speed".
Actually, he has a lot of papers on arxiv (none of them published).

Pentcho Valev

On May 26, 9:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:



"ca314159" wrote in ...
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but it would
if you stopped it turning.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
efficient for almost a century:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

"The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
(more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
different means including light signals. That is why it is not
surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."

Pentcho Valev



By the same idiot:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf

who has apparently never heard of "closing speed".
Actually, he has a lot of papers on arxiv.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light

This is plain and simply not true. The constancy of the speed of light
in SR applies ONLY to inertial frames. The rotating Sagnac apparatus is
manifestly not inertial. Indeed, applying an SR analysis in the inertial
frame of its center one obtains values that agree with experimental
observations.

Exercise for the reader: show QUANTITATIVELY that for a Sagnac
apparatus on the surface of the earth the effects of gravitation
and earth's rotation and revolution are all negligible.

Valev continually and repeatedly tries to discuss things he does not
understand, and makes numerous errors therein. And his stupid writing
style underscores his lack of knowledge. He needs to grow up and STUDY,
rather than wasting time posting nonsense to the net.


Tom Roberts

Dono wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf

While it is true that over a non-local distance GR predicts anisotropy
in the round-trip speed of light, in practice this is too small to
measure on earth. For instance, this requires rotating the apparatus in
a vertical plane, and keeping it rigid enough is not possible. The LIGO
interferometer would be sensitive enough to detect this effect from the
moon and sun, if it had sensitivity for signals with period 24 hours;
but it cannot have sensitivity there because of much larger microseismic
backgrounds.


Tom Roberts

On May 26, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf

While it is true that over a non-local distance GR predicts anisotropy
in the round-trip speed of light, in practice this is too small to
measure on earth. For instance, this requires rotating the apparatus in
a vertical plane, and keeping it rigid enough is not possible. The LIGO
interferometer would be sensitive enough to detect this effect from the
moon and sun, if it had sensitivity for signals with period 24 hours;
but it cannot have sensitivity there because of much larger microseismic
backgrounds.

Tom Roberts



The calculations in the "paper" are still wrong, right?

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: "ca314159" wrote in message
...
: The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
: "source" of the light in the interferometer can be
: wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
: the lab frame (where the null result occurs).
:
: The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
: must be represented by two separate frames:
:
: The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
: be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
: composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.
:
: The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
: different frame of reference; effectively,
: it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
: in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
: upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
: from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
: with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.
:
: But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
: effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
: frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of
them;
: so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
: the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
: when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?
:
: We can't, and that's why there's a null result.
:
: You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but
it would
: if you stopped it turning.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
:
: Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
: cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
: can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
: principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
: naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
: efficient for almost a century:
:
: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
: Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
: Vesselin Petkov
: Science College, Concordia University
: 1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
: Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8
:
: "The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
: emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
: along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
: M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
: main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
: the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
: Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
: speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
: observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
: two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
: the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
: inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
: speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
: constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
: (more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
: motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
: coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
: function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
: a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
: different means including light signals. That is why it is not
: surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
: disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."
:
: Pentcho Valev

Vesselin Petkov is a LIAR.

The word "inertial" appears nowhere in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies".
What special relativity DOES claim is contained in the last three paragraphs
of section 4,
which clearly refers to non-inertial frames.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

Miraculously this balance clock is balanced by GR so that it keeps exactly
the same
time as a balance clock at the equator.

Humpty Roberts will explain the meaning of words and not the concepts
they represent for you, and sigh as he does so.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...80c792 303a9f

"Dono" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On May 26, 9:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
:
:
:
: "ca314159" wrote in
...
: The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
: "source" of the light in the interferometer can be
: wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
: the lab frame (where the null result occurs).
:
: The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
: must be represented by two separate frames:
:
: The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
: be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
: composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.
:
: The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
: different frame of reference; effectively,
: it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
: in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
: upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
: from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
: with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.
:
: But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
: effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
: frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of
them;
: so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
: the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
: when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?
:
: We can't, and that's why there's a null result.
:
: You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but
it would
: if you stopped it turning.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
:
: Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
: cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
: can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
: principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
: naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
: efficient for almost a century:
:
: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
: Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
: Vesselin Petkov
: Science College, Concordia University
: 1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
: Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8
:
: "The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
: emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
: along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
: M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
: main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
: the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
: Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
: speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
: observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
: two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
: the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
: inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
: speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
: constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
: (more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
: motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
: coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
: function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
: a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
: different means including light signals. That is why it is not
: surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
: disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
:
:
: By the same idiot:
:
: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf

Wherein it says in the abstract "the average velocity of light"
'Nuff said.

Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light

This is plain and simply not true. The constancy of the speed of light
in SR applies ONLY to inertial frames. The rotating Sagnac apparatus is
manifestly not inertial. Indeed, applying an SR analysis in the inertial
frame of its center one obtains values that agree with experimental
observations.

References Roberts Roberts? (If possible available on the internet)

Exercise for the reader: show QUANTITATIVELY that for a Sagnac
apparatus on the surface of the earth the effects of gravitation
and earth's rotation and revolution are all negligible.

Valev continually and repeatedly tries to discuss things he does not
understand, and makes numerous errors therein. And his stupid writing
style underscores his lack of knowledge. He needs to grow up and STUDY,
rather than wasting time posting nonsense to the net.

I do not have time right now Roberts Roberts but tomorrow I am going
to compare my stupidity and your stupidity:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c45cb1c4adda7?
Tom Roberts in sci.physics.relativity: "The speed of the light is also
independent of source velocity, both in SR and GR, and experimentally.
The frequency and wavelength of the emitted light, however, are not
independent of source velocity, and depend upon the relative velocity
of the source and observer, including the direction of this velocity 3-
vector wrt the beam of light. The SR Doppler formula describes this
quite well (i.e. agrees with experimental measurements)." Tom Roberts


Pentcho Valev