Quote:
|
yet again confirms that c is the same in all frames of references.
|
As mentioned the Sagnac experiment is different to the MM, it really depends on the corrections applied for the experiment. If you could post the paper to your reference, some measurement dilemmas can creep in depending on how the experiment is analysed.
Steve Bryant wraps it up quite well here:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/a...s/396#more-396
Nobel Laureate Maurice Allais (Allais effect) here on his analysis of Miller 1998:
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm
Quote:
|
Consequently the Special and General Theory of Relativity, resting on postulates invalidated by observational data, cannot be scientifically valid
|
Back to sagnac,
I'm not questioning the mathematics, the logic of the addition 3rd sagnac observer is bizarre... and it'self runs into problems... see here
http://www.anti-relativity.com/sagnac.htm
Quote:
|
This guy is actually explaining that the light is having to travel further in regard to an outside reference frame. So, in other words, he's saying that if three equidistant planets are all traveling in one direction with light emitted from the middle one, the light traveling to the lead planet is having to go through more space than the light going to the trailing planet when we add an outside reference point. This is implying a universal frame of reference. This is implying an Aether. If there is no Aether then there is no "Proper Time" and the motion of the three planet system should not affect how long it takes for light to get to the two outer planets according to relativity.
|
Anyone looking at Sagnac, can see the light is split by the splitter, interference recorded on the same platform. All components are in the frame. A null result is not found.
Again an onboard ccd version might be valuable to track down, Sagnac himself had the source and recording plates on board. The third observer is not part of the experiment, but the non-null result does however indicate a universal reference frame.
See this is how bad it's gotten:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
The emitter is in the frame of reference in the real experiment!! why it is said to be rotating around the emitter is a naughty explanation of the experiment... Essentially if you picture it, this video placed a pole up above the turntable, that does not rotate, whilst the turntable below rotates... handily to explain the effects. It is not part of the experiment! it was introduced.
see in red above
Kinda hijacked this hypothetical thread with some empirical discussion? sorry mark!
Steven could i have a reference to the paper or article of the german group, to inspect their interpretation. url = Empty.gif?