Relativity is wrong...

My answers to previous posts are all here...

quote:

---

The best evidence for General Relativity is the binary pulsar system PSR B1913+16 and studying what is called its periapsis precessions.

---

Explain how this is any evidence for GR.

quote:

---

There is no real evidence that inertial motion can be detected. All experiments designed to test if it can be detected have continuously ruled it out to a higher and higher degree and there is no experimental evidence of the aether.

---

This is of course false.

quote:

---

In 1991 Roland De Witte carried out an experiment in Brussels in which variations in the one-way speed of RF waves through a coaxial cable were recorded over 178 days. The data from this experiment shows that De Witte had detected absolute motion of the earth through space, as had six earlier experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California.

---

The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

For the trajectories of the particles in the magnetic fields, as well as their trajectories around the accelerator. Also for the dynamics of the magnetic fields themselves.

---

Where does it say that?

quote:

---

Please explain to me how one can measure time without referring to it.

---

It's not an important parameter.

quote:

---

Read it. It extensively describes both the theory of relativity and the Sagnac effect in detail in relation to synchronization of GPS satellites and other phenomena. Relativity and the Sagnac effect ARE NOT mutually exclusive concepts. If so show me how.

---

I already explained how. Now it's up to you to explain why it is not.

quote:

---

And you wonder why people tell you that you are full of shit. I have provided with scientific peer reviewed articles by subject matter experts in the physics fields and you choose to ignore them. This shows your lack of credibility and gullibility to accept any crap from non-scientific sources you find on the internet.

---

No, I didn't ignore it. The stuff you cited agrees with me that it is the Sagnac effect that is used in GPS.

quote:

---

Ditto. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. This is like saying that because Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation does not mention Galileo's free fall experiment w/ gravity than all of Newton's laws are bogus.

---

Yes they are exclusive. You still didn't explain why.

quote:

---

Go get an education at a real college and stop believing every conspiracy theory that comes off the internet.

---

Stop believing in anything you read from "official" sourcs.

quote:

---

I don't know what dime dilation is (is that putting dimes on a railroad track to strech them)? Oh, you mean time dilation? Well, isn't that your whole argument that the Sagnac effect is causing time dilation-like effect that must be taken into account to synchronize the GPS clocks as opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity? If not what the heck are you talking about?

---

No, it's not. You obviously misunderstood everything.

quote:

---

Physicists around the world and engineers of the GPS satellite system take into account both the GR/SR (gravitational induced time dilation) and the Sagnac effect (errors in synchronization caused by rotating frames of reference in this case the Earth) to synchronize the clocks on these satellites to determine accurate positions. If you have a problem with this, go tell the US Navy, US Air Force and the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation, which helped develop the original GPS and follow-on applications, that they are wrong (I would love to be a fly on the wall why I see them laugh you out of the facility). Here is a PP presentation by Dr. Robert Nelson, PhD in Physics, writer of several textbooks on satellite communications and director of the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation in Bethesda, MD for you (pictures, charts and short bullets might be easier for you to swallow):

---

This is an argument from authority. A logical fallacy.

quote:

---

Of course, any attempt to show that the Sagnac effect implies non-isotropic light-speed with respect to some system of inertial coordinates is doomed from the start, because the simple and correct quantitative description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of inertial coordinates, and all inertial systems of coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that preserve light speed.

---

But the speed of light is NOT preserved! That's the point!

quote:

---

The fundamental fallacy underlying such claims is the idea that the beams of light are travelling the same, or at least congruent, inertial paths through space and time as they proceed from the source to the detector. If this were true, their inertial speeds would indeed need to differ in order for their arrival times at the detector to differ. However, the two pulses do not traverse congruent paths from emission to detector (assuming the device is absolutely rotating).

---

Yes, yes they are! They are traveling the same path. Did the detector get bigger or shorter or something?If you are talking about the two lines that are going in the opposite directions, than no, they are not traveling the same path, obviously. One will come sooner, and one will come later. But the thing is, that when you turn the device in teh other side the SAME light beam is faster that was faster in the previous test.

quote:

---

The author clearly illustrates the logical fallacy in stating that the Sagnac affect implies anisotropic light speeds. You in your stubborn tenacity just choose to ignore it.

---

No, it' syou who doesn't get it!

quote:

---

Ok, a non-peer reviewed article by a former physics professor who was opposed by the entire physics community on his views on relativity. You will always have an oddball out of the bunch that will oppose the status-quo. Not to say that he was not a good scientist but sometimes even scientists can be wrong on his research/findings.

---

Neither was your article peer reviewed, so? Stop with the arguments from authority.

quote:

---

LOL, whatever bub. If you can’t provide any evidence of your own to counter my evidence, than I am writing you off as an ignorant, gullible idiot. I tried being nice but evidently this is lost on you. Have a nice life and have fun with your delusions.

---

Well you must be blind not to see all the links I posted...

quote:

---

Huh? You're not seriously claiming that because the clock has a mechanical "On" switch, that means its method of measuring time is mechanical?

​

Question: Is the functioning of your computer mechanical or electrical? That is, in your computer chip are "gates." They control the flow of electricity. Is this gate mechanical?

​

Now, there is no ether, but there is gravity. So thank you for agreeing that clocks are affected by gravity just as relativity theory predicts. Again, it is affecting the clock not by changing the way it functions but rather by changing the way time flows.

---

The whole computer has mechanical parts. So does the atomic clock which cal be slowed down.

quote:

---

But if you are with the clock, you do not experience time any differently. By your logic, you as an external observer to the clock would notice that the clock was slowing down...unless you're saying that the human sense of time is also mechanically affected.

---

No you woulndn't because the field is acting on you too.

quote:

---

By the very experiment I just described to you: The clock's method of measuring time is not mechanical and therefore is invariant under mechanical shifts such as gravitational fields pulling on it or acceleration.

---

Yes it is mechanical, I showed you a picture of a giant atomic clock.

quote:

---

Suppose you have a photon generator and a detector. You can measure how much time it takes for a photon to leave the generator and reach the detector. You set up an electronic trigger so that when a photon is detected, it triggers the release of the next photon. You have created a kind of clock. Since you know how much time it takes for one photon to travel the distance, by counting the number of photons that have been released, you can calculate how much time has passed.

​

Now, suppose we make two of these contraptions, one of which we leave here on the ground and one of which we send on a journey through space and gravity. When the clock that made the journey returns, we find that it hasn't counted as many photons as the one that stayed here on the ground. And yet, this setup is invariant under motion. The motion of the clock does not change the distance between the generator and detector, right? Be careful as that is a bit of a trick question.

---

And again, this contrapiton you built is mechanical and is affected my gravity and other fields.

quote:

---

Except it does. We can directly measure it. Are you saying there is something wrong in the experiments that were done that measured it?

---

No, I'm saying we are measuring the slowdown of the mechanism itself.

quote:

---

There is no ether. There is gravity, however, and it is affecting the clock, but not by affecting the mechanism. Instead, it is affecting time itself. Our photon clock is not affected by mechanical means. It can only be affected by changes in time and space itself. So adding gravity to the mix and finding that it introduces a discrepancy beyond that of simple motion, we necessarily conclude that gravity changes time and space.

---

Yes there is an aether and absolute motion has been detected through it.The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

Did you not see your own picture? You really think an oscilliscope is crude?

---

Does it have mechanical parts? Obviously.

quote:

---

No you.

---

Why should I be explaining your position?

quote:

---

No you.

---

What a great argument.

quote:

---

Read this!

---

I gave you a PR article, and you give me crap.

quote:

---

What, that your an idiot. Your mama!

---

That is not an argument.

quote:

---

No, you are unimportant and a rabbit!

---

This is not an argument.

quote:

---

But I explain why not and how. Now it is your job to explain why I am correct.

​

Stop believing stuff from "unofficial" sources.

---

You're an idiot, I have no time to waste on you anymore...Go away from my topic.

quote:

---

Well it's very simple. General Relativity predicts what the periapsis precessions should be and the value it predicts is the exact value observed.

---

Links please...

quote:

---

You accept one experiment, which when repeated with better equipment by others (Braxmaier et al., (2002)) gave results in support of relativity. Yet you don't accept the several million (yes, million) experiments which support relativity?

---

It's not one experiments it's lots of experiments that agree with each other. And you would have known that if you actually only read the abstract.Where exactly is the link to the experiment you are describing?

quote:

---

You provided only unsubstantiated one-liner replies to most of our arguments outlining the evidence for relativity.

---

That's because you did the same.But I also geve you links to PR articels about the detection of absolute motion which you disregarded.

quote:

---

By the way, you do not own this topic. Percy, the administrator does. If you don't like it, than take your happy ass somewhere else.

---

Well I was told to go away from the last topic about relativity because some guy got his feeling hurt. Big deal. So I can also ask for people who are contributing nothing to the topic, like you, to go away.But just so you don't say I didn't do anything righ...Here:Michelson—Gale—Pearson experiment - WikipediaThisis teh Michelson-Gale experiment. It detected the rotational motion between Earth and aether. So it's either the aether rotating or, it's the Earth. But the point remains there is aether. The predicted value was 237 shifts out of 1000, +/- 5 shifts of error . The measured value was 230. This would represent the Earth rotation in 24 hours. This shows that they got almost the exact number. Which means they detected aether.Now what do you have to say?

quote:

---

Their prediction was wrong. They predicted a range from 232 to 242. It fell outside of that range. So their model, their prediction, and their margin of error were not what they measured. That means their idea was wrong. It came close, but close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.

---

Too bad you didn't even bother to read the abstract where it says that the predicted walue is, and I quote:"0.230 +/- .005, agreeing witht he computed value 0.0236 +/- .002 within the limits of experimental error."http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..140MThe only reason you "missed" this is because you did not even bother to read it. Please go away...

quote:

---

Hmm, I used your argument, and baed my reply off your argument. if you're saying that your argument is not what the article is saying, then why did you bother linking the article? I'm not here to debate an article, I'm here to debate you. If you can't say, in your own words, what the article is saying, then again, I have no need to read the article since you obviously don't understand it yourself.

---

Where exactly did I use numbers like 232 and 242? Nowhere!

quote:

---

So, if you're not going to debate in good faith, you're the one who can go away. I've been here far longer than you, I know how to debate on a forum, and I know, without having the understanding of this topic of some of our other posters, that you're full of shit and are unable to understand when someone explains to you, in great detail, where you're wrong, why you're wrong, and how you're using the incorrect data in an incorrect way to come to incorrect conclusions.

---

You are the one who is inventing numbers out of thin air, not me. Therefore, take your crap, and get the hell off my topic.

quote:

---

So, I did a little elementary math, forgive me if I go a little too quickly. 237 is the predicted number, right? It has an error of plus (addition) or minus (subtraction) 5, right? So, if we take 237 and ADD 5, what do we get? That's right class, 242.

​

Now, and this is a little trickier, if we take 237 and SUBTRACT 5, we get? Right again, very good class. We get 232.

​

So, if we see 230, does that fall within the predicted range of 232-242? Wow, class, you're batting 1000. You're right, it doesn't!

​

So, does this mean the prediction was a good one or a bad one?
Bad!! Very good class. Time for cookies and a nap.

---

If you went through all that trouble, than you at least could have done it right and calculated 230 + and - 2 and got 232. But than again, you didn't even bother to read the article's abstract...Anyway, even if it were out of the predicted value, the experiment would still show the existance of aether, since only the value of 0 means no aether. It was their assumption of rotating Earth that predicted the number 237.So if the Earth is not rotating, but the aether is, at half the assumed speed. We would get 115 shifts. Which is half of what they measured. So, it would still give evidence for a rotating aether.

quote:

---

General Relativity predicts the periapsis precessions

​

Keplerian Orbits

​

This is basic relativity stuff, taught to first year undergrads.

---

I know all about those, so which onese do you want do discuss first? Make an argument.This is the bad assumption:

quote:

---

In this time, the Earth completes over half its circuit around the Sun and — accounting for the rotation of the Earth — the velocity of the Konstanz lab changes by about 30 kilometres per second.

---

The test of the speed of light is based on the idea that we are moving. Do you have any evidence for that?

quote:

---

Do you need any more or will these suffice?

---

I need soem tests that are not based on the idea that we are orbiting the Sun, or some evidence that we actually are.

quote:

---

When? I provided substantial evidence in which relativistic calculations are required in modern day applications such as GPS which you totally ignored and metaphorically stuck your fingers in your ears. You even stated you did not read the links I provided.

---

Actually, what you provided were links that claimed that they were using the Sagnac effect as the main reference.

quote:

---

We can go on this proverbial merry-go-round say "my source is better than your source", however if you want to try to disprove the theories of relativity and the 90+ years of work based on them, you will have to provide something more conclusive than a wikipedia article, which ironically states that SR explains the MM experiment while saying that the M/G experiment is compatible with both the stationary aether and SR ideas (meaning this experiment does not conclusively prove one or the other, however there are many, many other experiments as well as applications that do prove SR).

---

Actually I also gave a link to the PR article. But the thing is, the test does not square with the SR. No if you take into account the Michelson Morley experiment too!That experiment gave the measured speed of 8 km/s. The predicted speed was 30 km/s. So they actually interpreted this as a null result and said that there was no aether. So in other words, relativity came along and said that light speed is independent from the observer and that's why we got the null result.But than came the MG experiment which gave the right predicted results, which means that there is an aetehr, and that it is the aether that is rotating. So the only reason why we got the null result in the MM experiment is because the Earth is not moving. So you can't say relativity explains the MM experiment since the recorede speed was supposed to be 0.

quote:

---

Saying it so, doesn't make it so.

​

BTW, it detected the angular velocity of the Earth with no outside reference (in other words it measured the angular velocity of the Earth w/ reference to spacetime itself) as shown here:

---

The scientists said so, not me.And what they meant by an outside reference was something outside the mechanism. The aether is passing through all matter, so it is obviously inside the mechanism. Why do you think they used light? Becasue the aether is supposed to be a medium that carries light waves. And in reference to that they were measuring the rotation.

quote:

---

So are you saying the Earth does not rotate??

---

Isn't it obious?

quote:

---

Baseless assumption.

---

It's not an assumption it's a common knowledge. The firnge shifts in MG experiment would be 0 if there were no aether.

quote:

---

Or they detected the effects of SR which is why this experiment is inconclusive in proving one or the other.

---

How exactly does SR produce fringe shifts? It doesn't.

quote:

---

Actually, no you can't. Well, let me rephrase that, you can but we can just ignore you since you're no one to tell others what to do. The person who told you in the other thread to basically "fuck-off with your nonsense" was an Admin. They have the right to say who stays and who goes.

---

Actually some guy was whining first that he got his feelings hurt.

quote:

---

Yes, the "The Michelson—Gale—Pearson experiment" done in 1925. SonGoku refered you to an experiment, which I provided the link for you as well, which was done in 2002. It (the 2002 experiment) was more precise than any other conducted to date.

---

Yes, based on an assumption that the Earth is moving.

quote:

---

Yes, but the main discussion of the paper is one experiment. It's the only one of interest since it is more up to date than the others and the only with a chance at being statistically significant. The others are almost just there for historical flavour.
However even this "best" experiment is discounted. See the links provided Onifire, who has been kind enough to highlight the points most relevant to the discussion.

---

And I explained the problem with the assumption, and why the experiments fail.And the 1925 Miller experiment was reevaluated by Maurice Allais in 2003, and he called this work: "The fundamental and complete collapse of relativity theory". As you can see in the link below, he explains that over almost 500 years, the aether and absolute motion detecting experiments have given consistent results of 8 km/s. So there is nothing inconclusive about it.yellow08

quote:

---

If you knew all this, then why ask for the links?

​

I have no argument, this is your thread (remember). The onus is on you to establish a proper argument against the predictions made by GR, and show how the didn't match the results.

---

Actually they do match results but they are meaningless because there is no basis in reality for those numbers. Relativity is a purely mathematical theory so it makes no difference if some equations are made to match reality. It has as much meaning as modeling mathematically a person with 5 apples, and giving another person 6 apples. And that leaves him with -1 apple.Mathematically we would write 5-6=-1. Which would be mathematically correct, but it would not represent any real event. The same thing goes with relativity.

quote:

---

SonGoku answered that "GR predicts what the periapsis precessions should be and the value it predicts is the exact value observed."

​

That's the evidence you asked for. You now have to deal with that evidence in your rebuttle to your original question.

​

What is your argument?

---

Umm... no. That's how a hypothesis is tested in general. My question was why exactly is this test significant for relativity.

quote:

---

By "moving" do you mean rotating? If so:

---

Nope. I meant orbiting the Sun.

quote:

---

Corilis Effect

​

Foucault Pendulum

---

This is not evidence for a rotating earth but that there is a force pulling on the pendullum. It could be from a rotating cosmos as well.The Lense-Thirring experiment explains that if the Universe was a rotating shell of matter and inside the shell, in it center was the Earth. There would be the same forces produced.

quote:

---

"it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates [a heavy shell of matter] relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."[5]

---

This is called the Mach's principle. Einstein knew about this.Mach's principle - Wikipedia[/quote]

quote:

---

Or do you mean orbiting around the Sun? If you mean orbiting, then the answer is that all objects in our solar system are orbiting around the Sun. Predictions for their orbits were made and observed.

---

Predictions are not fact. I want evidene that all planets are orbiting the Sun. And even if they were, how does that make Earth orbit the Sun too?

quote:

---

Need links? Here they are, again: , General Relativity predicts the periapsis precessions, Keplerian Orbits. But then again, you already know this, right?

---

Yes, and I explained why this is meaningless since we have people like Paul Gerber who came to the same equation as Einstain for calculating the perihelion of the planets and he did it from a non relativistic point of view.Paul Gerber - WikipediaYeth his theory was later shown to have some errors. Meaning, math alone does not make evidence for your hypothesis.

quote:

---

The tests confirm the predictions, do you understand in what order predictions and verification of them goes in?

---

But they are based on an unproven assumptiion of an orbiting Earth!

quote:

---

No you didn't. You refered us to an experiment done in 1925.

---

And also explained how it worked.

quote:

---

Now you respond with another single person testimony from an economist (Maurice Allais), not even a physicist. Really?

---

Actually he is multi talented, his primary position is in economy, in which he got a Nobel prize. But he also works in physics.Ans yes, his review was peer-reviewed. Either disproove it, or don't come to me with this kind of ad hominem arguments.

quote:

---

Actually the Sagnac effect is fully consistent with relativity not contradictory. For example onf of the links I provided state this:

---

No, it doesn't. Why? Because it is based on a faulty assumption...

quote:

---

These effects include first- and second-order Doppler frequency shifts of clocks due to their relative motion, gravitational frequency shifts, and the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.

---

You see, it's based on the assumption that the Earth is rotating. Which is an unproven assumption. Got any evidence?But theres more...

quote:

---

the Sagnac effect, a special relativity effect attributable to the earth's rotation.

---

Yes, thanks for bolding this part out. It's an assumption. Do you have evidence for it?

quote:

---

See above. Quote the exact references in your replies so we know what you are talking about. It is useless throwing links back and forth to each other without knowing exactly where you are pulling this information from. I will do the same.

---

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..140M

quote:

---

BTW, the MM experiment which was created to test for the presence of a luminescent ether actually disproved the presence of this ether.

​

This is what Michelson himself says in his ‘The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether’ article describing his experiment in American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129:

---

Yes, I know. And guess on which false assumption it was based? Let me help you.

quote:

---

Earth travels a tremendous distance in its orbit around the sun, at a speed of around 30 km/s or over 108,000 km per hour. The sun itself is travelling about the galactic centre at even greater speeds, and there are other motions at higher levels of the structure of the universe. Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable "aether wind".

---

See?Michelson—Morley experiment - Wikipedia

quote:

---

My understanding is that they incorrectly calculated the rotational velocity of the Earth using in which they failed to utilize the superposition property of waves. Taking this into consideration the calculations accurately depict a rotational speed for the Earth of 30 km/s. However, they may have inadvertently also detected the absolute motion of the Earth through space itself Source:

---

No, you misunderstood the experiment. They didn't assume the Earth's rotation this time. That was the MG experiment. This time they assumed the Earth's movement around the Sun. And when they got only 8 km/s, they concluded that it was an experimental error. So they concluded that there was no aether.But few years later, in the MG experiment, they took into account Earth's rotation, and got the exact predicted numbers. Which means that there is aether, but the Earth is not moving, and that is why they didn't detect it's motion in the first MM experiment.

quote:

---

A null result means that they did not detect the presence of an ether based on the results of the experiment. There was 0.005 fringe shift compared to the expected 0.04 fringe shift if ether slowed down the light. Which in taking into account a 130 year old experiment using antiquated equipment is pretty close to 0?

---

Please don't preted that old results equal bad results. That's not how science works, ok?So you see, as I already said, they measured such a low shif because the Earth is not moving, but the aether is rotating. That is where the low fringe shifts come from. And as Maurice Allais points out. In repeated experiments, this number was consistant for other similar experiments. So it's not an error.

quote:

---

Those results being what? Please connect the dots. Again saying so doesn’t make it so.

---

I alredy gave the link and said what the results were. Please be more careful.Predicted value was => 0.230 +/- .005
Measure value was => 0.236 +/- .002http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..140M

quote:

---

I am not even sure if this is worth debating? Are you fucking serious?

---

Watch your mouth.

quote:

---

Um, ok. So how do you explain the retrograde motions of the planets in the sky? How about the phases of Venus?

---

Either with epicycles, which yes, contrarry to popular opinion heliocentirc system also has. Or the Tychonic model where all the planets except the Earth orbit the Sun, which orbits the Earth.

quote:

---

How do you explain a Foucault pendulum? The Coriolis effect of hurricanes and other weather phenomena? etc. etc.

---

Explained in the last post to onifre.

quote:

---

The parallax shift of stars every 6 months?

---

Yahoo

quote:

---

How the hell do we send geosynchronous satellites to orbit the Earth and not fall out of the sky if the Earth is not rotating?

---

Because the universe is rotating.

quote:

---

BTW, we get the null result (meaning virtually no fringe shifting) because there is no difference in time the light proceeds in both perpendicular directions and returns to the interferometer detector. This means there is nothing slowing down the light in either direction aka no ether.

---

Or, the Earth is simply not moving.

quote:

---

No, the differences between the speed of light going in two perpendicular directions are supposed to be near 0 (to prove there is no ether) not the recorded speed of light!?! This experiment was nearly 130 years ago and the results were pretty close to 0. New experiments result in an anisotropy of to 210-13. That is 0 when you take into consideration the inaccuracy of the equipment involved as I stated previously.

---

If that is so, why does the MG experiment gives the exact predicted numbers?

quote:

---

Show me.

---

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..140M

quote:

---

Are we talking about MM still? If so that was not measuring the rotation of anything. It was measuring the speed of light traveling in two perpendicular directions. As far as the MG experiment, accurately measuring the angular speed of the Earth in reference to spacetime was a beneficial by-product of this experiment and it very closely matched the sidereal estimate of the Earth’s rotation.

---

It measured Earth's rotatin in reference to what?

quote:

---

Answered above. Show me answers to the above questions about phenomena that can only be explained by a rotating Earth and heliocentric solar system.

---

Done.

quote:

---

Common by who? The flat earth society and geocentric nutcases?

---

You filthy heliocentris. The MG experiment would give the result of 0 if there was no aether. And what about Dirac who said that there is an aether?

quote:

---

Now we are shifting back to the MG experiment? No, because in the MG experiment we have to take into consideration the Sagnac effect which we didn’t have to do with the MM experiment due to its different construction (MM’s round-trip propogation path vice MG’s two rectangular interferometers). As a result the MG will result in a non-0 fringe shift when taking into consideration the Sagnac effect. See ‘Reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on the GPS Sagnac correction’ Ching-Chuan Su 2001 Europhys. Lett. 56 170-174 (I was able to access it using my university’s online research database).

---

But that can only work if there is an aether. Tell me what exactly is the cause of the firnge shifts if relativity is true.

quote:

---

SR doesn’t ‘produce’ anything. SR is a theory which explains the nature of spacetime.

​

Fringe shifts are the measurement of out of phase light patterns as a result of an interferometry experiment such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Fringe shifts result from a delay of one light beam going one direction from another going perpendicular the same distance. An ether would result in a fringe shift of 4% the size of a single fringe. This did not occur i.e. the fringe shift was less than 20% of what would be expected if an ether existed (recent more accurate experiments result in a nearly close to 0 fringe shift ). Therefore this experiment does not contradict the SR model of spacetime.

---

My question was, how exactly are shift fringes produced if there is no aether. The MG experiment was not rotated anwhere, it stood still. So why would there be any fringes if relativity is true?

quote:

---

Are you seriously advocating geocentrism?

---

Yes I am.

quote:

---

And if so, is your reason for doing so really the bible?

---

Nope, it's science.

quote:

---

You are asking how an experiment which matches a prediction of relativity is significant for relativity?
I really don't know what to say.

---

You misunderstood me. I asked you about what exactly does the theory predict and how is it significant to proving it. How does this test give evidence for relativty? That's my question.

quote:

---

I also see that you are advocating geocentrism and will first require proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Will we be asked next for evidence that grass is in fact green?

---

No, because we can see that the grass is green. We can't see the Earth orbiting the Sun, now can we?