Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wisp
As an observer, you cannot make any measurement in the interval between A and B that can tell the inertial and sagnac observers apart. As the observers travel along an almost identical path (A to B) their clocks must tick at the same rate. And yet one of the observers must measure the speed of light as c (according to relativity) and the other must measure it as c+v or c-v (sagnac effect).
Now relativity argues that if you reference the motion of the sagnac observer to a point in space 1 billion light years away (centre of circle) then everything’s OK, and there’s lots of maths to explain this.
But why should one observer experience changes that make the speed of light vary by v (which can be a very large value), and the other doesn’t. The paths and motions of the observers are indistinguishable by measurement in the interval A to B.
The explanation given by relativity is nonsense.
|
wisp, in terms of what you have written here, it seems that you have not considered the several posts rebutting the misunderstanding of relativity which this post seems to reflect.
A particularly cogent rebuttal is in post #23 in this thread (as
clj4 has noted).
If you feel this rebuttal contains flaws - either in logic, or application of relativity - then by all means please show us those flaws.
If you feel there is a different flaw in relativity, which you have not so far presented, either in this thread, or others on similar topics here in BAUT, then please make that (those) case(s).
However, if your case is merely one of repeating something that has been 'long-debunked'
1, then you are violating
the BAUT guidelines (and this is a warning - do not continue with such behaviour).
1From the ATM part of the BAUT guidelines (my bold): "If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned."