Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 20:20:05 +0000
Subject: Re: If Sagnac gets non-null results, why should Michelson-Morley not?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <02062fba-d946-4db1-85b5-39542929d6ffn@googlegroups.com>
 <6bca0829-bd63-463b-9139-cac6b61d5b15n@googlegroups.com>
 <be7957a4-0bc7-4d0b-92c8-692210204a14n@googlegroups.com>
 <d43158d9-d894-42e9-824d-07e156453097n@googlegroups.com>
 <dd3349c6-2e75-4b08-b303-986fde4c2172n@googlegroups.com>
 <1d05d3f8-0c1b-4fc5-92c1-8efcbefb594fn@googlegroups.com>
 <lbqijcF7r8kU4@mid.individual.net>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 13:19:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <lbqijcF7r8kU4@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <scqdnVUou4HoQsX7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 49
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-L6Okub/WVjKUviWo6sFrP7ZRssGXSZ1Og9Wwkyc80TWHPzOgB4c0IYFC8VQKo0VNuddoydYILWnJyFg!YgTejHLOQB9YFfu2cdo6URI9bNkm/xIRyDNDeHH/PdSUyLjqg3SGZVETgC2sSHX4D0vm0xvIgcYS!Qw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3722

On 05/29/2024 10:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Samstag000018, 18.06.2022 um 04:59 schrieb Stan Fultoni:
>
>>>>>> No, you're wrong... see above. The subject line of your message
>>>>>> reveals your misunderstanding. A Sagnac device is measuring
>>>>>> rotation (i.e., acceleration), whereas a Michelson-Morley
>>>>>> apparatus is checking for any putative effects of inertial motion.
>>>>>> Classical ballistic theories give the right prediction for
>>>>>> Michelson-Morley but wrong for Sagnac, whereas classical ether
>>>>>> theory is right for Sagnac but wrong for Michelson-Morley. Special
>>>>>> relativity correctly predicts the outcomes of both experiments.
>>>>> Stan Fultoni, What I meant was has anyone ever tried to
>>>>> detect/measure the rotation of Earth using a Michelson-Morley
>>>>> apparatus. I know that's not what it's "supposed" to do, but *can*
>>>>> it/has it been done?
>>>> No, as explained above, a Michelson-Morley apparatus does not
>>>> measure rotation. Do you understand this?
>>> Can a Michelson-Morley apparatus be used to measure the tangential
>>> motion of the Earth's surface due to the Earth's rotation?
>>
>> This was answered in my first message.  Again (please try to
>> concentrate), the Michelson-Morley apparatus was designed to detect
>> translational motion under the hypothesis of a classical stationary
>> ether, and it was expecting to see the motion due to the earth's
>> orbital motion (i.e., 67000 mph), and it was able to rule that out,
>> and then one might ask about the 1000 mph of tangential speed due to
>> the earth's rotation... you might say "Has the experiment been done to
>> enough precision to rule out even 1000 mph?"
>
> The Earth moves WAYYY faster than that!
>
> Only the tangential rotation around the own axis is 'once per day'.
>
> But the Earth circles also around the sun and the sun araund the
> galactic center.
>
> The entire galaxy called 'Milky way' rotates, too, inside the local
> cluster and possibly that also.
>
> So: what would you mean with 'stationary'?
>
>
> TH
>


How is it that it works out the same as escape velocity v_E?