On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

Well, there is an infinity of inertial frames. You fail again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you don't understand the repeated questions about frames, don't worry, it only means that you are at the same level of understanding SR as MD. The questions are not arbitrary, they are set to gauge MD's understanding of RoS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet, in MMX, you do not get any fringe shift, meaning that the roundtrip is isotropic in ALL frames of reference. Why is it so, RJBeery?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can not answer for that poster but I can answer for me.

Why does not the earth's sagnac show up in MMX when it shows up in GPS?

 

Because the area enclosed by the MMX interferometer is zero.
When Michelson and Gale modified MMX to have a non-zero area (creating the Michelson-Gale experiment) the Sagnac effect showed up. You should try to take a class in special relativity, you would learn much faster than posting on the internet.

 

The area enclosed argument should also apply to GPS.

While the GPS signal moves toward receiver, receiver move toward signal.

Likewise, while MMX source moves toward receiver (earth motion), one arm should move toward or away from receiver making enclosed area.

This mean if GPS unit at MMX location, GPS unit does not measure isotropy of light speed yet MMX does and they measure same thing. Can you explain that?

 

It does. This is why there is Sagnac effect in GPS, because the enclosed area is non-zero.

Well, you seem to have failed geometry as well. The MMX interferometer is a LINE, so the enclosed area is ZERO.

You are utterly confused, try learning basic geometry first. Come back in a few years.

 

Let's make arms MMX real long like say distance to GPS satellites. What result you get?

Does that help you understand you are false?

 

ZERO. The area of a line segment, no matter how long it is , is ZERO.

I don't see much hope for you.

 

Many sorries but I gave simple example of very long MMX to look the same as GPS satellites and receiver. Did you study geometry?

It fails MMX.

 

Light path is a LINE SEGMENT in MMX.
Light path is a CIRCLE in Sagnac.
Do you understand the difference between line and circle? No? Don't worry, you will never get the above.

Yes, you fail. Miserably. Hopefully there aren't many more like you in China, that would be a national disaster.

 

Does MMX sit on earth? How did you make an absolute linear light path on a rotating earth in MMX?

To the simple mind it looks linear. To the educated mind it is not.

I made very long MMX to GPS satellites to refute your false claim.

Why do you not understand this? It makes you look like education was not good.

 

Simple, the arms of the interferometer are straight lines. This is the 4-th time I'm telling you.

Then, you should try thinking about it. Engage brain this time.

Congratulations! You can make it as long as all the way to the Sun, you are still wrong because you refuse to learn.

What can I do? Listen to you? No, thank you.

 

chinglu, I believe MMX differs from GPS because GPS Sats are not in geosynchronous orbit; they move in relation to a fixed point on Earth.

 

There are much more significant differences between GPS and MMX.

 

Maybe you could elaborate? Take the MMX experiment apparatus, stretch it to roughly 22k miles, and point it straight up from the equator. How is that different from geosynchronous orbit satellite communication?

 

You are asking the same exact silly question as chinglu has kept asking. You can make the interferometer reach the Sun and the answer is still the same. The answer is very simple, the area enclosed by the light path in the interferometer is ZERO, resulting into a ZERO Sagnac effect. By contrast, the area enclosed by the satellites is a huge circle, so the Sagnac effect is significant.

 

So what you're saying is that if you performed MMX vertically it would produce a positive result?

 

What gives you this idea?

 

What gave me that idea is that when I wrote the following, you said it was a silly question.

How is performing the MMX experiment vertically DIFFERENT from performing the MMX experiment vertically with apparatus arms 22k miles in length? You're saying that if the MMX experiment is done in a lab it shows a negative result, regardless of orientation, but if it's done with very long arms it shows a positive result? If you're going to insult people on this forum for not understanding elementary concepts I'm pretty sure you had better know what the hell you're talking about.