0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Centra on 17/01/2022 12:09:31I'm actually bored with the subject now anyway.It's difficult to maintain interest once it's clear that you are completely wrong, isn't it?Pity you didn't recognise it earlier.
I'm actually bored with the subject now anyway.
I'm not entirely sure I was wrong
Quote from: Centra on 17/01/2022 17:05:09 I'm not entirely sure I was wrongAsk around and see what you find out.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 17:26:03Quote from: Centra on 17/01/2022 17:05:09 I'm not entirely sure I was wrongAsk around and see what you find out.That does sound scientific, whatever the majority thinks must be right, just like when the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth.
Quote from: Centra on 18/01/2022 12:25:40Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 17:26:03Quote from: Centra on 17/01/2022 17:05:09 I'm not entirely sure I was wrongAsk around and see what you find out.That does sound scientific, whatever the majority thinks must be right, just like when the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth.It is more likely that the majority is, at least nearly right, than that a minority of one, known to be "misguided " will be right.Feel free to look for actual evidence.
It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all
If you are curious about aspects of physics ASK QUESTIONS, don't just make up stuff based on a lack of knowledge.
It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all.
agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago
Ever hear the saying "question everything"?
Quote from: Centra on 18/01/2022 14:34:27Ever hear the saying "question everything"?Yep. Ever hear the saying "listen to the experts"?
Quote from: Centra on 18/01/2022 13:36:36It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all.You have not "formulated a new theory".You have posted stuff that is plainly wrong because it does not agree with observation.Part of the problem is that you write of 200 years of observations as choosing toQuote from: Centra on 18/01/2022 13:36:36agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago
I formulated a new theory alright
Quote from: Centra on 18/01/2022 17:53:17 I formulated a new theory alrightWhere?
A person in a frame of reference on a space station measures the velocity of light between two points to be 300,000 km/s.
Quote from: Centra on Yesterday at 06:25:34" Me: "As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions"You: "Tosh. Sagnac is one of the predictions of SR, and is one of the falsification tests, which it passes precisely.SR isn't just about straight line motion any more than it's about non-accelerating cases."
2° Part of optical circuit is fixed to the revolving disc, the other part of the optical circuit remains fixed compared to the laboratory. – Under these conditions, which are those of our experiments, the shift of the fringes is due obviously to the optical course fixed to the revolving disc. We will calculate the values which return to us according to the two theories. In the experiments made in accordance with assembly of figure 6, the area included in the sector having for base the light path trained FDEOKJ and for top of the path the center C of rotation of the platform had as an algebraic full value (because the surface of the small basic triangle base ED in this figure must be counted as negative), A' = 1777 cm2 approximately, while the area of that of the same sector based light path FDEOKJ and whose top is the item 0 where the observer is pulled by the disc, had as an algebraic full value: A = 169 cm2 approximately By introducing these numerical values into the expression of the fringe shifts , one finds with = 0.56 um, for the two directions of rotation and for an angular velocity of 1 turn/sec, A' = 0.053 in fringes (according to the classical theory) eA' = 0.005 in fringes (according to the relativistic theory); ethat is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one. The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment. But given that, as the note of Mr. Largevin appeared to allow the value to be reported higher, we have considered that the center where the theoretical relativist must be presumedly placed can be arbitrarily selected. The relativistic theory is found contrary to agreement with the classical theory and the experiment if this center is obligatorily colinear with the center of rotation of the disc, the only point on the disc which can be the permanent origin of Galilean axes not subjected to the rotational movement of the unit. This is despite the explanation that Mr. Langevin said to us, and which he arrived at after having been informed of the result of our experiments.
Now it's BC posting the tosh.
Apparently these scientists would disagree, judging from their article:
The illusion of velocity. A person in a frame of reference on a space station measures the velocity of light between two points to be 300,000 km/s. A person in that space station then accelerates in a transparent rocket to, say, 100,000 km/s and measures the velocity again, it comes out the same. Meanwhile a person in the space station watches the rocket and thinks to himself "that light must be traveling at 400,000 km/s". That person is experiencing the illusion of velocity which results from thinking the two frames are somehow linked together such that velocity in one is the same as velocity in both when, in fact, there is really is no link.
Oh I formulated a new theory alright, one which agrees with observation.
Quote from: Centra on 18/01/2022 20:01:10Apparently these scientists would disagree, judging from their article: Just to clarify; do you mean this article? (Obviously, the original is in French)http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdfThe French version's here but it's paywalled anyway.https://jphysrad.journaldephysique.org/articles/jphysrad/abs/1942/09/jphysrad_1942__3_9_153_0/jphysrad_1942__3_9_153_0.html