Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

angular velocity omega , but it should be paid special attention to the fact that it is also proportional to radius R . Although the angular velocity of earth revolution was much less than that of earth rotation, the earth revolution’s radius R was much larger than earth rotation’s radius r .


I have answered this several times, and you can look up any reference if you don't believe me: R is the radius of the loop, not the radius of the orbit. A circular loop between China and Japan has R ~ 1000km.

.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

Of course, it could not be used to measure linear velocity relative to the Sun.

I want to say is that Professor Wang's experiment

pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/90c6e3416e98735215c8a094f01f5917.jpg

tells us that even if the straight line Sagnac effect also exists. Therefore, we have reason to believe that, the two-way time transfer experiment between China and Japan should be able to detect the Sagnac effect by the Earth 'revolution. At least it should be about 2000ns.
But we did not detect it. What does this mean?

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

tells us that even if the straight line Sagnac effect also exists. Therefore, we have reason to believe that, the


Yes, I understand that Wang's experiment can measure linear velocity. But so what? You can measure linear velocity with a car's speedometer. Mine says 0 right now, shouldn't it say 1000 miles/hour? Wang's experiment only finds the relative velocity of the TX/RX with respect to the pulleys. The China-Japan experiment is rigid. It may be moving through space, but the transmitter/receiver are fixed relative to China and Japan.

Originally Posted By: HXW

At least it should be about 2000ns.
But we did not detect it. What does this mean?


This means you put the wrong numbers into the equation.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Please see
pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/e454c8bea5931d61f448220e6c6e3215.jpg

If Sagnac effect of a circle of light around the earth orbit
T = 0.628 s ,

then Sagnac effect between China and Japan
t = 0.628 s × 3000 / (1.5×10^8×3.14×2) = 2000 ns .

But the experiment tells us that t = 90 ns,
and it is considered to be caused by Earth's rotation.

If t = 0 ns , then T = 0 s.
But T can not equal to 0, but only equal to 0.628 s.

If t = 90 ns / 365, then T = 0.0000774 s.
But T can not equal to 0.0000774 s, but only equal to 0.628 s.

Someone says t = 0 or 90 ns / 365, but T = 0.628 s.
This means that either he did not understand physics,
or he does not know math.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
OK, I see the picture. I understand your analogy. You already explained it before. I already told you where the mistake was. I could be wrong, but you need to find my mistake to show that.

Originally Posted By: HXW

then Sagnac effect between China and Japan
t = 0.628 s × 3000 / (1.5×10^8×3.14×2) = 2000 ns .


Imagine a circular light path centered on the sun. It has radius R=268,000km. It's rotating with the Earth's orbit. The Sagnac effect is:
delta_t = 4 pi R^2 omega / c^2
= 2000ns
How is a 3000km straight path equivalent to a 540,000km diameter path?

Or if it spins with the earth (1rev/day), it would need a 14,000km radius to cause a 2000ns time difference.



Originally Posted By: HXW

and it is considered to be caused by Earth's rotation.

I find this quite annoying. I really am curious what caused the 90ns. But you refuse to reveal anything except 'somebody says'.


Last edited by kallog; 04/01/10 08:45 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Hi kallog,

It has radius R=268,000km ?
No, R=150,000,000km. Please find the relevant information.

Electromagnetic waves sent from China, arrived in Japan via geostationary satellites, less time than the return of about 90ns. This is the experimental results.

Why is it so? It is considered the result of the Earth's rotation, rather than revolution around the sun.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW
Hi kallog,
It has radius R=268,000km ?
No, R=150,000,000km. Please find the relevant information.

Not the Earth's distance. I was talking about an imaginary experiment. Please consider it again to see the spectacular size difference between a 2000ns path and a 3000km one.


Originally Posted By: HXW

Why is it so? It is considered the result of the Earth's rotation, rather than revolution around the sun.


That's only somebody's opinion. The person didn't give enough information to reproduce the result so it has no scientific value.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Are we far from the topic? I think we should return to this question. Please see
pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/eb38a9f9bbe7be0a8e3358dcba1e4da0.jpg

Can they return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit ?

Please note that the principle of constant light speed is just a hypothesis.
This hypothesis is based on MMX above.
According to this hypothesis, the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.
But according to the MMX, they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit.

Which is the credible result derived from the hypothesis or the experimental ?
Of course, the credible result is derived from the experimental rather than the hypothesis.

Many people think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.
Please note that if the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. But has it ever been detected?

Some people try to explain why MMX can not detect the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s. They think it is reasonable and understandable.
However, they did not realize that this is against the theory of relativity.

Why? They think that the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s should exist, but the MMX can not detect it. In other words, MMX is invalid experiment.

This is equivalent to say that the MMX can not prove the principle of constant light speed!

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

According to this hypothesis, the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.
But according to the MMX, they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit.


Yes, the CCW signal returns first.
No, it doesn't disagree with MMX.
Why? Because the length of each light path is different. The light that travels further takes longer. They both have the same speed.

These pictures show the fundamental difference between the circular and straight paths. It's caused by the straight path having a moving mirror.




Nevermind what somebody says, or who believes what. That isn't physics, that's politics. It doesn't prove anything.


Last edited by kallog; 04/06/10 07:10 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
The link pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/eb38a9f9bbe7be0a8e3358dcba1e4da0.jpg is failed.
Please see pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/d6c698c33153555f2d41488b9769ec82.jpg

Please seriously consider, if you think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%,so the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km / s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment.
Do you think so?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Regarding the apparent non-c speed of light seen by someone standing on the planet's surface. That's explained by special relativity. If you doubt that explanation then you have to derive the result and show that it contradicts any other part of accepted theory, or any valid experiment.

However you can avoid that difficulty entirely. Use a non-rotating planet, and point O is attached to a plane flying around the stationary planet. Furthermore, the plane can stop moving when it transmits, and stop again when it receives. It only flys while it's waiting for the light to return. Sagnac gives the same result, but without any relativistic concerns.

I've learnt a lot talking to you HXW, but I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. You've clearly made a big investment in this idea so are reluctant to consider possible problems with it. I think you would do yourself a big favor by calculating the expected results of these experiments yourself, without prejudice, and without depending on the opinions of others. People, including professors often say things without thinking, because they're more interested in appearing to know the answer than actually being correct. After a rigorous analysis you'll identify exactly what's supposed to happen. If you find a genuine new discovery you'll know exactly why it is. Then you can write a paper that will be easily accepted by a mainstream journal.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Many people can not understand why two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal.
The question now is whether their journey is equal after gyrating a circuit they return to point O.
Many people think that they are not equal. Because of the rotation of the planet, the optical path of the light in counter-clockwise is less than that of the light in clockwise direction.
Although I remind that they analyzes this issue in the inertial system that never rotates together with the planet, which completely ignores the results of the analysis on the planet's surface. But they turned a deaf ear. They always impose the result analysing from the inertial system to the planet's surface.

I had to ask them to think about another question. Please see
api.ning.com/files/3-g0fF2x84RbBfYC8UIGakiS8f-yOI6UQyKWGQlgb9NJNhUPgZIouG6NcGyUGptucq1IiJHjztF2ogup7IVW1X884suQTr6J/file.JPG

Viewing from the rotating disk, is the person's journey about 100 meters or about 300 meters ?
Of course it is about 100 meters.
Here, why not impose the result viewing from the inertial system to the rotating disk?

Many people think that two beams of light can not return to point O at the same time because Sagnac effect.
They said Sagnac shows effect up in GPS satellites.
Yes, Sagnac effect shows up in GPS satellites. However, please note, the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is not C, but the C±V.
However, the light speed relative to the planet is not C±V, but C.
Sagnac effect exists because the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C±V.
If the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C, does Sagnac effect still exist?

My question is to reveal this.

I think that the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
If I am wrong, why the PRA's editors and reviewers do not point it out? Do they not understand physics ?
They attacked me in the past published papers, not this paper.
This shows I was right.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal.

MMX only tested light travelling back and forth along straight paths, not around rotating circular paths. You're extrapolating to this case, and possibly introducing some incorrect assumption.



Quote:
api.ning.com/files/3-g0fF2x84RbBfYC8UIGakiS8f-yOI6UQyKWGQlgb9NJNhUPgZIouG6NcGyUGptucq1IiJHjztF2ogup7IVW1X884suQTr6J/file.JPG
Of course it is about 100 meters.
Here, why not impose the result viewing from the inertial system to the rotating disk?

Which path you choose depends what you're interested in. Equally his path is 1000 meters as seen from somebody moving past pretty fast.

Quote:

please note, the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is not C, but the C±V.
However, the light speed relative to the planet is not C±V, but C.

No, it's C relative to both the satellite and the planet. It's the path length which differs between the two reference frames. Remember that in SR length depends on the observer, and is not equal for everybody.

Quote:

If I am wrong, why the PRA's editors and reviewers do not point it out? Do they not understand physics ?
They attacked me in the past published papers, not this paper.
This shows I was right.

Not necessarily. It may show that they misunderstood you or your misunderstood them or some other human problem. Don't rely on people, they are all fallible.

Simply derive the result of a thought experiment using two parts of accepted theory, and point out that the two results differ. After you do that, anybody can examine your calculations and look for mistakes. There may be subtle mistakes which are difficult to see, so don't trust anybody who cannot find any.

You can also do experiments. The equipment needed is quite simple. Cheap electronics can measure nanosecond time differences. Cheap lasers can be used to measure sub-wavelength differences by interference. Cheap radio gear can transmit signals over large distances. If you are correct then its worth a large investment. It's your responsibility to do it, nobody else will spend their time and money working on your idea.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
I think I have said everything. But there are still many people can not recognize that relativity theory is wrong. I hope they can think deeply.
I believe that eventually people will think I am right.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Now relativity is wrong? What else? Is the Earth flat too?

To show that a theory is wrong you must either:

- Show that the result of an experiment is inconsistent with the prediction of the theory.
or
- Show that two results of the theory are inconsistent with each other.

You have done neither. Millions of people have thought relativity was wrong ever since it appeared. They thought that because it's counterintuitive and they never bothered to actually use it.

Science isn't politics. It doesn't matter who believes you. Even if you are correct, you'll never get the credit for it because you didn't actually show it.


Last edited by kallog; 04/21/10 04:22 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5