A thread about Jack's capacity to discuss relativity

I suggest that simple logical consistency would make an adequate stand - in for academic credentials in these circumstances. A thorough knowledge of the topic areas comes in a close second as a matter of practicality.

I also have many light emission points in my house, some extend into the IR and others into the UV, though most are in the visible range.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then there is my Yellow Labrador.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't you even provide your username on PhysOrg?

Its my experience that I am vastly less egotistical than your average crank. Let's consider you and I.

You cannot display, even when asked, any ability or knowledge beyond a good high school leaver whose read for an afternoon. You proclaim knowledge and understanding you cannot back up. You post your 'original work' again and again on forums. You refuse to submit to review by people whose education in the relevant areas cannot be argued with. You proclaim your 'original work' not only sufficient but better than the sum total of the entire academic community of the last century in maths, physics and biology (given your claims about evolution). You refuse to read relevant material which you believe will not reinforce your views. You have no qualifications to 'wear like a badge' but you repeatedly tell people you don't need any such qualifications due to the supposed superiority of you compared to those who have such qualifications.

I have qualifications. And when relevant, ie playing the "Whose actually read about this stuff?" game with hacks, I'll trot it out. I tend to argue with hacks a lot so I mention it a lot. I do NOT post my 'original work' on these or any other forums. I DO submit to journals for review and all of my submitted work has passed. I can put my maths where my mouth is. I can provide links to posts where I demonstrate understanding on material at or above graduate level. I have and do admit mistakes, including in my 'original work'.

Your naivety shines through from your comments. If you think my posts are trying to show off, throwing in complicated stuff to look intelligent or whatever then you seriously underestimate what I know or can do. Like I've said, I have yet to see you post anything I would consider beyond a 1st year doing a relativity and motion course I've taught to be able to do. You're stuck failing to understand pretty much the first thing physics students cover at university. Much to the grumbling of my parents (though now I actually have a real job!) I'm in my eighth year of university. Doing a subject even other physicists think of as difficult. The limiting factor in our discussions is not I, I tried to raise the discussion to fibre bundles and representations, a topic not even covered in much depth in the 4th year of the Cambridge maths course, and you failed to raise to the occasion. Obviously you didn't learn from that just how far behind you are.

You believe you're taxing the abilities of the people who respond to you when in fact we're pandering to your ignorance to such a level if I did it to any of the people I work with they'd be insulted. But you don't realise that what you struggle with is basic assumed knowledge for anyone doing relativity.

Already done and despite your claim you'd responded when I ask you to prove it with a link you fail to provide.

Are you hoping your invisible silent audience has a very selective memory or are you just that stupid to try to lie to me about my own posts?

No, you've demonstrated you don't understand Lorentz invariance, the mathematical structure implied by the physical fact that the motion of light is independent of the motion of the emitter. You have produced no new result, no equation which is a contradiction. You have not done anything new. Your arguments have been tried by other cranks, you're not even original in that sense. The fact you are struggling to do the mathematics doesn't mean the rest of us are. If you stopped projecting your own short comings onto other people maybe you'd realise you're not special, unique or even interesting.

Do you think if you simply assert something it'll be true? I'm a millionaire. I'm able to run 100m in 8 seconds. I can hold my breath for 10 minutes and not die. If only life were like that but it isn't. Most people realise that around age 5 or so, where no matter how much they wish for a particular toy or that trip to Disneyland it ain't going to ping into existence just because they will it. Perhaps you missed that part of your emotional development?

Like I said, I'll help you submit your work to a reputable journal. This isn't even an offer, I'm requesting that you let me help you submit your work. You type it up as a PM, so you can use the tex tags, and then I'll convert it into the relevant LaTeX style for the journal previously agreed on. I'll then PM or email you a zip of all the relevant files so you can check I haven't altered them other than layout and then you can submit. I am happy to have absolutely no mention, ie all the credit etc goes to you, if you're published. If you don't want the fame then an anonymous submission is fine.

And if you wrote up your 'work' as a paper you'd never need to repeat yourself, just link to the paper. That's kinda the point of them, a single go to for someone's particular bit of work.

So you really have no excuse. You wish to reduce having to repeat yourself and writing up a paper would accomplish that and let you get published and win your Nobel Prize. Provided you aren't just completely wrong and well aware of that fact.....

Come on, put up or shut up. And to sweeten the deal (I've started adding this to my challenges since I do know how much cranks would love to stick it to me) if you get published in a reputable journal I hereby consent to you contacting one of the mods here and requesting I be banned. Permanently. And also you can contact Rpenner and ask him to remove my PhysOrg account. Permanently. You willing to do likewise if you fail to be published? Its basically physics Thunderdome, two people go in, one comes out. And it all rests on the validity of your claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Untrue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26946

You never showed the math as to why this is wrong if you are the same rpenner.

I would sure like to see it.

 

This is good.

 

SR is false and I am sure that will be no problem to publish. My twins cointradiction is just one that cannot be stopped.

I have run into a snag.

Sagnac is true for for the earth's rotation but not for the earth's orbit.

Both are sagnac operations.

Yet the earth orbit mathematically produces a sagnac correction of 60 times that of the rotation.

But, it is not there.


There is something very wrong.

 

Are you claiming not-yet-banned user Jack_ @ sciforums.com = banned user qwtyu @ physforum.com ?

In what sense do I "know" qwtyu? I tend not to think about those I don't pronounce.

 

I was hoping you could defend you comments.

I see that is the last thing on your mind.

So, have at it.
In fact, you suspended me for two weeks for that math.

Your creds should say you can support your logic. In fact, I think folks here will laugh at you if you cannot back up your logic.

I am looking forward to it.

 

rpenner is one of the most respected members at SciForums. Trust me, he's not the one we're laughing at.

 

Physforums, physicsforum, BAUT, sciforums...
Jack, is there any place you've posted where folks aren't laughing at you?

Can you point to any posters who support you?

Don't you think there's some reason why you keep getting the same answers, stated in a hundred different ways, everywhere you go?

Stop being this guy, Jack. It's sad:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ferrous Cranus
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.​

 

I don't think Jack_ (and other cranks) understand just how utterly alien their entire attitude is to how we actually do science.

 

Prove it. I've repeatedly challenged you to actually submit your work to a journal, even offering to help and to put money on the table (which if you're so damn sure you're right is effectively giving it to you) and you have just ignored me. In fact you quoted my very offer/challenge and then did your usual thing of just ignoring anything and everything I said in that quote. If you've got nothing to hide why can't you reply directly to anything I say? Why do you avoid responding to things I've said.

It has been stopped. I've repeatedly asked you to respond to my debunking of your claims but you refuse. In fact you tuck tail and run, ignoring any direct question, any mathematical result or anything which is over your head (which is everything). I keep responding to your posts point by point, I am not ignoring things you say. Why can't you do the same with me and retort things I say?

That you're a delusional idiot with a compulsion to lie? Yes, we know.

Yes, that you think you understand things you've never read and somehow have a better understanding of things you don't know than people who do know. If you see contradictions everywhere then it would be rational to first think "Perhaps its me". Its the classic doctor joke, a man says "I think I've really damaged my arm and both my legs, they hurt when I poke them", to which the doctor replies "No, you've broken your finger". You see problems and you blame other people, when its actually your lack of understanding. You haven't ever studied SR or GR and your algebra ability is no more than a decent high school leaver. You are simply ill equipped to understand physics and you refuse to put in any effort to even try to learn more.

If you're sure you'll get published submit to a reputable journal. You have no excuse other than you knowing you're a hack and you aren't man enough to admit it.

 

Let's see how you actually do science.

Saganc is only measured based on the relative speed to a fixed non-rotating frame.

Thus, the faster the rotating frame, the more the sagnac.

The earth's orbit is faster than its rotation compared to a fixed non-rotating frame.

Therefore, the orbital sagac should exceed the rotational.

Now, SR folks claim SR is proven because there is rotational sagnac. However, light is not measured c in the rotating frame violating SR.

But, SR claims that proves an absolute speed of light c in space.

Then, for the orbital sagnac which is null and is more than the rotational sagnac, SR folks say SR is validated because light is measured c but cannot be a constant speed in space.

So, this your version of science.

How do you work this out?

 

Let me know when you contribute.

 

Corrected.

 

Here let me correct you.

It is quite clear you are not up to speed.

I will give you a simple derivation.

Don't worry, many fall into this this illogical trap. So, you are not alone.

For the light path in the sagnac clockwise direction,
while light moves a distance ct, the receiver moves vt.

But, the circumference of the loop is 2πr.

Thus, while light moves a distance ct, light must move 2πr plus the distance the receiver moved which is vt.
So,

ct1 = 2πr + vt1
t1 = 2πr / ( c-v ).

For the light path in the sagnac counter-clockwise direction,
while light moves a distance ct, the receiver moves vt.
But, the circumference of the loop is 2πr.

Thus, while light moves a distance ct, light must move 2πr minus the distance the receiver moved which is vt.
So,

ct2 = 2πr - vt2
t2 = 2πr / ( c+v ).
So, the total sagnac corection os:
Δt = t1 - t2 = 2πr / ( c-v ) - 2πr / ( c+v ) = 2πr( 1/( c-v ) - 1/( c+v ) )

So, Δt = 2πr( 1/( c-v ) - 1/( c+v ) )

I have brought you up to speed of the mathpages. Hopefully, you can continue from there.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

You will note you are completely wrong.

 

Now, no SR folks claim SR is proven because there is rotational sagnac, because even ether theories of light propagation also predict Sagnac effect.

Would you like to explain this? So what,

This rules out any conceptually coherent ballistic theory of light propagation, according to which the speed of light is the vector sum of the velocity of the emitting particle plus a vector of magnitude c. Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein, since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed independent of the state of motion of the source.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

SR is proven by "Of course, both results are consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein, since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed independent of the state of motion of the source."

If rotational sagnac validates SR, then rotational sagnac validates SR.
The earth's orbit is rotational sagnac. Thee is not sagnac.

So, that invalidates SR.

Do you think much?

 

\(A = \pi r^2 \\ v = r \omega \\ \frac{1}{c-v} - \frac{1}{c+v} = \frac{c+v}{c+v}\times\frac{1}{c-v} - \frac{1}{c+v}\times\frac{c-v}{c-v} = \frac{(c+v)-(c-v)}{(c+v)(c-v)} = \frac{2v}{c^2-v^2} \\ \Delta t = 2 \pi r \left( \frac{1}{c-v} - \frac{1}{c+v}\right) = \frac{4 \pi r v}{c^2 - v^2} = \frac{4 \pi r^2 \omega}{c^2 - v^2} = \frac{4 A \omega}{c^2 - v^2}\)

Thus as I said, for a rigid light-loop, the effect is nearly proportional to the "product of the angular speed (\(\omega[/tex) ... and the total ... area enclosed by the light path ([tex]A\))". So far you have copied up to the first part of the first equation on that page at the reference site I gave you nearly a week ago.
(Post 45 of "Sagnac and the earth's orbit." http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2521977#post2521977 which references http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm which goes on to calculate the Sagnac effect for an arbitrary rigid geometry of the light path, as well as for a geometry where the optic fiber moves. \( \Delta t = \int \frac{2 \bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{c^2 - \left( \frac{\bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{| d\bf{s} | } \right)^2}\) * ) In addition, you miss out that in commercial fiber optic gyroscopes, the fiber loops many times in the same direction which is why the "signed area" was emphasized.

But in the earlier page you went to, right after the first equation is explained, the author writes: "This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the relativistic contexts," and goes into details about clocks and invariants. Thus, even before relativity the calculation can be performed.

Also, your English and communication skills appear to be wearing thin. Perhaps it is time for you to move on.

---

v is the velocity of the portion of the light loop, ds is an element of the light path, and we define the dot product as normal.
\(\Delta t = \int \frac{2 \bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{c^2 - \left( \frac{\bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{| d\bf{s} | } \right)^2}\)
For a moving belt, \(d\bf{s} = d \ell\) in the direction of movement so \(\bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s} = v d \ell\)
Thus, \(\Delta t = \int \frac{2 \bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{c^2 - \left( \frac{\bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{| d\bf{s} | } \right)^2} =\int_0^L \frac{2 v d \ell}{c^2 - v^2} = \frac{2 v L}{c^2 - v^2}\), where L is the length of the belt.

For the rotation of a N rigid circular loops of radius r, when the point of rotation is at the center, we have \(r \omega\) as the velocity of the portion of the loop, \( r d\theta\) is the element of the light path, and so \(\bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s} = r^2 \omega d \theta\)
Thus, \(\Delta t = \int \frac{2 \bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{c^2 - \left( \frac{\bf{v} \cdot d\bf{s}}{| d\bf{s} | } \right)^2} = \int_0^{2N\pi} \frac{2 r^2 \omega d \theta}{c^2 - r^2\omega^2} = \frac{4N \, \pi r^2 \, \omega}{c^2 - v^2} = \frac{4N A \omega}{c^2 - v^2}\)
and the same result happens if the ring rigidly rotates about another point in the plane, but the integral is no long dead simple. Likewise, the same result in terms of Area happens if the rigid loop is no longer a circle but an arbitrary rigid closed path.

 

Jack, you already have a [thread=100974]thread about the Sagnac effect[/thread]. Why restart that conversation here?

 

To what, science or your threads? I've contributed to science and I've repeatedly challenged you to do likewise, which you claim you can do easily. Why didn't you reply to my challenge? Scared you might be rejected? Unwilling to accept you're really a hack?

I have already offered to bet £1000 or $1000 or whatever your local currency is on you not getting published in a reputable journal. If you're so sure I'm wrong then I'm basically giving you £1000. That enough of a contribution? If you really believed what you say you'd put your money where your mouth is. Every time you avoid answering my challenge you demonstrate precisely what I've been saying about you, you know you're a hack and you haven't got the balls to admit it.