MMX and the earth's rotational sagnac

  • #26
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
7,876
1,175
I want to desist. But that would mean I need to toss all of the GPS evidence proven everyday in the trash.

GPS proves light is not isotropic in the ECEF frame everyday. Do you refute the mainstream evidence?
The key is the following:

"So, what is the experimental basis of special relativity without MMX?"

Your way of dealing with this is intellectually fraudulent. A tendentious misinterpretation of MMX is taken to refute it plus hundreds of other experiments supporting SR.
 
  • #27
182
0
Try searching "Michelson-Morley" on google books, you'll find plenty of books more recent than the GPS system (which dates to 1973).
No,GPS did not consider Sagnac until the 80's. You live in flat earth times.

Anyway bring a modern article from a mainstream university. I want to see it.
 
  • #28
182
0
The key is the following:

"So, what is the experimental basis of special relativity without MMX?"

Your way of dealing with this is intellectually fraudulent. A tendentious misinterpretation of MMX is taken to refute it plus hundreds of other experiments supporting SR.
So, are you claiming all the mainsteam papers are false on GPS which is proven everyday in which MMX is false?

Can you prove MMX is true and GPS is true? I will knock that one down quick.


That is where we are for your argument to be true. Are you going to defend your position under this logic?
 
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
19,251
5,251
chinglu1998, this is your thread and these are your claims being discussed. You need to start substnatiating them with mainstream, peer reviewed papers. Laying down a claim and demanding to be proven wrong is not acceptable.

Putting words in other peoples' mouths is also not acceptable. Like with your other thread, the mainstream view, obviously, is that Relativity is correct and no mainstream experiments - as interpreted by mainstream scientists in mainstream journals - contradict this. The other posters are following that, so implications that they are contradicting the mainstream view is putting words in their mouths they didn't say.

This forum is not a game, it is here to teach people science. If you're not here to learn, then stop wasting our time.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
7,876
1,175
So, are you claiming all the mainsteam papers are false on GPS which is proven everyday in which MMX is false?

Can you prove MMX is true and GPS is true? I will knock that one down quick.


That is where we are for your argument to be true. Are you going to defend your position under this logic?

MMX was intentded to measure anisotropy from a particular source, based on a particular model, and the expected effect was a particular size. Whether done now or a 100 years ago, an effect of the then expected size does not occur. Therefore MMX came out against expectations, leading to the Lorentz interpretation and also verified Einstein's SR interpretation. That a different, much smaller effect, might be detected (though even this is disputed - whether any design of MMX could detect Sagnac) is irrelevant.

Further, there are hundreds of other experiments in the link I provided validating SR.

To sum up your response to this with the following, which is your concluding quote from your post #18:

"So, what is the experimental basis of special relativity without MMX?"

is, pure and simple intellectual dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
JesseM
Science Advisor
8,496
12
No,GPS did not consider Sagnac until the 80's.
Are you just saying that until the 80s all the calculations involving GPS devices were done in the nonrotating ECI frame rather than the ECEF frame? If not, where are you getting this claim? Certainly the GPS designers would have known about the Sagnac effect, which dates back a lot further than 1973.
chinglu1998 said:
Anyway bring a modern article from a mainstream university. I want to see it.
Find it yourself--try google scholar. It's pretty obvious this isn't a matter of you accepting relativity but believing modern physicists don't accept MMX, you are trying to say physicists are wrong to accept MMX as evidence for relativity, and are using this argument to question SR itself (as evidenced by your rhetorical question "So, what is the experimental basis of special relativity without MMX?") I'm not going to play the game of looking for a source that exactly matches your specifications, but just so you can't say you weren't shown a source, here is a book that discusses modern variations on MMX on page 152 which you can read on google books, it's published by Springer which is a respected publisher of scientific texts (and the book's original publication date is 1999, this is a 2nd publishing from 2006). And here is the abstract of a published journal article which backs up my claim that rotational effects into account are not precisely zero, but in the MMX they would be too small to make any observable difference to the experimental results:

Reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on the GPS Sagnac correction
By examining the effects of rotational and orbital motions of the Earth on wave propagation in the global positioning system and an intercontinental microwave link, it is pointed out that the Earth's orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations, while the Earth's rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect. As the propagation mechanism in the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be different from that in the aforementioned ones, it is concluded that due to the Earth's rotation, the shift in interference fringe in this famous experiment is not exactly zero. However, by virtue of the round-trip propagation path, this shift becomes second order and hence is too small to observe within the present precision.
Anyway, feel free to try to continue to argue that relativity should predict a non-null result for the MMX, but you can't claim ignorance now, so doing that will probably just get you banned.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
berkeman
Mentor
56,506
6,405
Not sure about the ban yet, but this thread is closed for now.
 

Related Threads for: MMX and the earth's rotational sagnac

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
10K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top