0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I am travelling at less than a meter per second relative to the rotating frame of my laptop. Relative to the inertial frame of Earth, I travel 100 km in about 5 minutes. Relative to the sun, it takes about 3 seconds to go that far. Relative to the galaxy, it takes under half a second. But your statement above lacks a frame reference, hence is still meaningless, and not something with which I can agree.
But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.
Quote from: Centra on 27/01/2022 14:38:55 But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.What effect did the rotation of the Earth have on their experiment?
The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.
Quote from: Centra on 27/01/2022 18:56:51The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.Excellent! You're talking about the rotating frame. Yes, in that frame, it takes an hour to go 100 km in your car. In that frame, Neptune moves faster than c, and light takes longer to go from SF to NY than the other way around (assuming a reasonably straight path and not one that goes the long way around). Such is a known property of rotating frames. Einstein wasn't considering a rotating frame in the sections at which we've been looking. So for instance, relative to the inertial frame of Earth, your eastbound (near the equator) car really does go east at 1100 mph (sorry, I was using metric before), and the westbound car goes -900 mph westward, and thus isn't really westbound, is it?With relativity discussions, confusion results from omitting frame references. You may think they're implied, but mistakes are made by assuming distances, durations, times, and locations are the same from one frame to the next. The references are absolutely necessary to make unambiguous statements.So if you're discussing some value (say distance between events), it matters whether you're using the S coordinate system or the R coordinate system to express that distance. Without the reference, all you'll get is annoying replies saying that your statements lack meaning.
Anyway, point being, on the earth's surface you don't get the swimming up and down a river effect, so Michelson's experiment would not show earth rotation effects on light, but would it show effects from earth's orbit around the sun?
So Michelson did prove a lack of aether but not a lack of Sagnac effect from earth's rotation.
Apparently you agree that said Sagnac effect exists
but you explain it as a relativity consistent effect because it involves a rotating frame.
It doesn't actually confirm relativity
Einstein just gave himself an out by saying that rotating frames are not inertial.
Now there's the conundrum of why a rotating frame can be confirmed to be in rotation like that, what is it in rotation relative to?
The same would apply to binary stars in orbit with each other, what are they rotating in relation to? Presumably an imaginary point between them called the barycenter, but how is the barycenter a stationary reference? It seems counter to relativity theory.
If there are two equal disks with the same axis, with a space between the two, what is the difference between one being stationary and the other rotating and the other way around, or both rotating in opposite directions at equal angular velocity?
The only difference between the two disk frames is that an observer on one would perceive centrifugal force and one on the other would not.
The use of energy to create force to produce rotational motion in one.
Kinetic energy had been stored in the disk as inertial motion. The disk would continue to rotate, assuming no external friction or resistance, until that kinetic energy was transferred to another mass by exerting a force moving it outward from a position close to the axis to one farther away from it.
It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction.
Quote from: Halc on 28/01/2022 13:50:23It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction.Excellent post, too bad Centra won't read it with an open mind, I have no doubt many of the members and guests will however. I admire your patience with posters like Centra, keep up the good work.
Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.
Quote from: Origin on 28/01/2022 19:03:52Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.This is a science site and your pseudoscience attitude is insulting. It's also insulting to take time to help you understand a concept and have you ignore it. Purposely or not you are trolling so don't be surprised to be treated like a troll.
so why should they be given equal relative motion?
Granted the velocity would be the same, but the relative motion would not.
Quote from: Centra on 29/01/2022 18:36:59so why should they be given equal relative motion? Because it's exactly as far from A to B as it is from B to A.So, when you write stuff like this, and then say Quote from: Centra on 29/01/2022 18:36:59Granted the velocity would be the same, but the relative motion would not. It looks like you are trolling.Because the time taken is the same, and the velocity is the same, but somehow, you think the distance (which you can calculate by multiplying the same velocity by the same time) is different.Why don't you stop this nonsense?
but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why
Now Why don't you stop this nonsense of critiquing things which are apparently beyond your level of comprehension?
Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why.
It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m?
Quote from: Centra on 29/01/2022 20:54:02Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why.I'd like to see a source that supports this claim.
Quote from: Centra on 29/01/2022 18:36:59 It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m?No that would be absurd. We are talking about relative velocity between objects. It takes exactly the same amount of force to maintain the velocity of a 10 ton object as it does a 1 gram object. They both require 0.0N to maintain their velocities.