Dear Anonymous Coward,

Your statements demonstrate that you are avoiding to actively try to understand the controversies. Thus, you are failing to learn how a Sagnac interferometer actually works and what actually measures, you are stating arguments that have nothing to do with the real issue [who EVER claimed that the Sagnac interferometer could measure linear motion with respect to the all-pervading aether? It contracts with linear motion with respect to aether, as everything else], stating demonstrably false reasons for "why Michelson and Morley" chose a different setup than Sagnac, accusing me with denying the QUANTITATIVE usefulness of the conceptually meaningless quantum theory when I clearly stated otherwise before, etc.

Regarding your exceedingly optimistic statements about the Standard Model, this seems to relate to what Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin considers the worldwide "infection" by "quantum field theory idolatry". People interested in scientific progress need to watch this thought-provoking lecture:

https://youtu.be/yF869nAYlfQ?t...

As he argues, such an "infection" is the reason why people fail to see the forest for the trees. Laughlin remarkable statements are consistent with the conclusions of many analysts who have carefully studied all the multi-disciplinary aspects affecting particle physics research. For example, Alexander Unzicker, a committed physicist and academic whistleblower summarizes the disturbing situation as follows:

"The standard model is complicated beyond any credibility, it does not address a single fundamental problem of physics, it is a textbook example of a Kuhnian crisis, its experimental techniques make it increasingly more likely that researchers fool themselves, knowledge in the community mostly consists of parroting expert opinions, and the experiments are practically not repeatable and completely nontransparent. The standard model is bad science. Nobody has to be afraid of stating that."

Alexander Unzicker, "The Higgs Fake", How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee, p.141.

What everyone needs to always remember is that an updated “Neo-Ptolemaic” geocentric system with sufficient amount and sufficiently complex epicycles could provide the same rigorous quantitative results for planetary positions that our currently accepted heliocentric system provides. So, if you are happy working with the epicycles of particle physics, please enjoy!

Anyway, time is precious and you have failed to provide any meaningful challenge to my previous statements, so I will kindly leave you with the last word so I can continue with more productive matters. It was fun anyway. =)

Cheers!

Juan

Dear Anonumous Coward,

Re: "I'll give you that, I meant to say "inertial rotation". But it's just word play. My point still stands."

You may call it "absolute rotation" or "inertial rotation" — regardless of the arbitrary word of choice, the key point is that the speed of light in a sagnac interferometer is experimentally found to be constant ONLY with respect to "the fixed stars". In other words, a Sagnac interferometer detects rotation not with respect to a lab, not with respect to the Earth, nor to the sun, nor to the galaxy, nor with respect to any arbitrary frame of reference of choice but ONLY with respect to "the fixed stars", an experimentally-found preferred frame of reference that is identical to the one in which the original and not once falsified Theory of Relativity (i.e. The Lorentzian one) is based.

All this is explained in the paper that I pointed out to you, one that you apparently have not studied. Have you ever analyzed how a Sagnac Interferometer actually works? Let me help.

In 1951, P. A. M. Dirac wrote an article in the journal Nature titled "Is There an Aether?" in which he argued that we are “rather forced” to accept its existence. In 1953, Herbert Ives, the inventor of the television system that we all enjoy, explained the significance of the Sagnac Effect as follows:

"Further ground for rejecting the claim that Einstein's "view" renders the ether superfluous is furnished by the consideration that his scheme (even if it were valid) applies only to uniform rectilinear motion; rotational motion is excluded, yet optical signals are transmitted in such systems, and with results which point clearly and unequivocally to their transmission in an independent medium or coordinate system.

If light signals are sent out simultaneously in the "fore" and "aft" directions from a source moving in a circular path, and the two signals are brought back to the source by a series of reflections, they do not arrive simultaneously; the source has moved forward to meet one signal and has moved away from the other. This is the situation in the Michelson-Gale and Sagnac experiments, which yield positive first-order results exactly in conformity with the idea that the light signals travel in a fixed ether. The contractions of length and clock frequencies which account for null effects in uniform motion of translation, being of second order, do not materially alter the rotational effects. The optical phenomena in both uniformly and rotationally moving systems are completely explainable by a fixed ether and the Fitzgerald-Lorentz-Larmor contractions.

This survey of the background of the query "Is there an ether?" shows that the grounds for "abolishing" the ether were mistaken, and consequently Dirac's contribution would more properly have been entitled "Properties of the ether suggested by recent speculations."

Herbert Ives, "Genesis of the Query "Is there an Ether?", 1953.

Re: "You can easily derive it from the equations of SR, as summarized here [mathpages.com]. Also, you stated earlier that Lorenzian Relativity uses the exact same math as SR, so you're contradicting yourself here."

Please, I am not contradicting myself. That paper does not derive the experimentally-validated Sagnac formula using only the two postulates of SR. This shows again that you have not studied Marett's paper.

The original version of Relativity is based on the Lorentzian concepts of absolute time, a variable speed of light and an absolute frame of reference. From such concepts, the equations of Relativity that we continue to use today were derived. Afterwards, Einstein assumed instead his two postulates and derived the exact same equations, using different concepts to derive the exact same equations previously derived by Lorentz, Larmor, Poincaré, et. al.

However, such a mathematical equivalence is ONLY so for rectilinear uniform motion. For rotational motion like the one in the Sagnac Effect, there is a new equation that describes the phenomenon. Such equation is naturally derived from the conceptual framework of Lorentz, but it has never been derived from the conceptual framework of Einstein. To derive the equation, one needs to start from the two Einstein's SRT postulates and arrive to the equation that describes the rotational experiment, never violating the postulates along the derivation.

This derivation has never been done. The link that you have shared is just one of the well-known type of attempts to derive the equation, in which the one who is trying has to invariably use Lorentzian absolutistic concepts instead of Einsteinian relativistic ones to arrive to the experimentally-validated equation. This is thoroughly explained in Marett's paper.

Re: "Irrelevant. It can still be explained with SR."

It is very relevant, in my humble opinion, because wikipedia is very influential and the go-to answer for many people for many things, yet it is misleading the public, teaching them the falsity that there is no controversy about the Sagnac Effect. As mentioned before, the Sagnac effect has never been derived from the two SR postulates without assuming a Lorentzian preferred frame, so, in that important sense, the Sagnac effect cannot be explained from SRT.

Re: "Poor you. These manifolds are the basis for General Relativity. GR perfectly predicts things like the motion and orbital decay of two orbiting neutron stars, or lensing effects due to gravity. All experimental data agree with GR to a very high degree."

You are failing to distinguish the quantitative aspect of physics with its qualitative aspect, an approach that has led us to the long-standing conceptual crisis within physics. The quantitative is constructed from abstract equations, the qualitative is constructed from abstract concepts. Both are maps (or aspects of a map) trying to describe the real territory, i.e. the universe. Numerical predictions are part of the quantitative maps, not the qualitative ones.

If you recall, you said "There is no Aether, unless you update its definition to mean spacetime itself." I commented that spacetime is a "4D Pseudo Riemannian manifold", meaning that it is just a quantitative abstraction that may map or not the material world, just like a purely abstract scalar field may abstractly map or not the real pressure in the material planetary atmosphere (the atmosphere really exists, the scalar field that maps it does not). Now, if you equate aether with spacetime, and then declare aether to be physically real, then you are believing that a "4D Pseudo Riemannian manifold" is physically real. That is an anti-realistic idea, which any realist interested in a coherent and non-contradictory conceptual understanding of the physical world must necessarily reject.

Regarding the quantitative predictions that you are mentioning, please note that — as for any prediction in any context, forever — they can be also predicted from different frameworks. If you were tracking closely the "Electricity in space" controversy, you would know that astrophysics is ripe for disruption. As just one example, "lensing" can also be predicted classically. For this topic, I recommend "A Revolution Too Far: The Establishment of General Relativity" by Peter Rowlands (physicist and science historian).

Re: "You probably also don't believe in quantum mechanics then, where all fermions are made up of spinor fields."

For a realist, any real object is made from matter in motion and only from matter in motion. A realist cannot accept a "spinor field" as nothing else than a mathematical abstraction that may be part of quantitative maps that may describe successfully or not physical reality. An anti-realist, however, has no problem with reifications and their related conceptual incomprehension and incoherence.

Of course, the quantitative map of quantum theory is an incredible achievement of mankind. Its numerical usefulness as an abstract recipe that allows you to predict measurements in agreement with experiment is beyond questioning. Regarding its qualitative side, however, quantum theory explains absolutely nothing. What is really physically happening at the atomic scale? Mainstream physics has no answers.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." — Richard Feynman

A realist looks for ways to physically understand the realities abstractly mapped by the empty equations, challenging the usual conceptual absurdities and the assumptions underlying them, without necessarily challenging the accepted equations.

Re: "Yay, another pointless quote/history lesson. Sounds like something Chris Reeve would say. Which one were you again?"

How is it "pointless" to remark that a Nobel Laureate has very recently stated that the materiality of aether (in which Lorenzian Relativity is based) is confirmed everyday by experiment?

Re: "No it isn't. The absolute framework of aether doesn't exist. Science doesn't agree with you."

Well, if you want to remain in denial, I cannot do anything else to convince you otherwise. Whenever you get interested in a more coherent understanding of the physical world, you can study the paper I pasted before, which concludes thus: "the optical evidence to date, as has been shown herein, continues to support the alternative hypothesis that the ether of Lorentz does exist, and this is particularly desirable for those who seek a more rational and consistent description of the physical world."

Re: "So it's basically philosophy, since you just admit it's not measurable."

This is what happens when the natural philosophy aspect of science is removed from the academic curriculum. People just don't realize that they are philosophizing.

ALL physical understanding is rooted in philosophy. Your statement above is a tell that you are an instrumentalist. As Karl Popper — the most celebrated philosopher of science of the 20th century — once explained:

"Modern instrumentalists are, of course, unaware that they are philosophizing. Accordingly, they are unaware of even the possibility that their fashionable philosophy may in fact be uncritical, irrational, and objectionable — as I am convinced it is."

Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 103.

Equating measurement with physical reality is a philosophy that has lead to the current conceptual crisis within physics.

Re: "Meanwhile all our experiments confirm that the speed of light is constant, and has always been constant since the beginning of time (at least since the earliest light/time we can detect)."

Here you are philosophically assuming a "beginning of time", an idea which was unscientific until the appearance of the catholic priest Georges Lemaître, who first proposed that the creation of the universe ex nihilo should be considered not only a religious belief but also, somehow, a scientific belief.

All the experiments that you are mentioning confirm that the speed of light is variable and time is absolute, exactly as demanded by the original Theory of Relativity, i.e. Lorentz's.

Re: "Obviously the correct interpretation is the one we can measure. That's by definition the "realistic" one."

We can and do measure the same thing under both interpretations, so there is nothing "obvious" if you have nothing but measurements. You need to try to UNDERSTAND what is really, physically happening, and decide wisely.

The Lorenzian interpretation infers that matter is deformed by the physical interaction between a moving body and the all-pervading aether. In other words, the measured effect absolutely happens. You cannot say the same under the Einsteinian interpretation, because "what happens" depends on your choice of frame of reference. One option is more realistic than the other.

Re: "In all real frames of reference we can measure in (which excludes your imaginary ones), the speed of light is constant."

According to original derivation of Relativity, that is because the experimentally demonstrated change in the rate of clocks with velocity and the contraction of matter with velocity.

Re: "History doesn't change the actual laws of nature, so it's irrelevant."

It is EXTRAORDINARILY relevant, because scientists considered the Lorentzian interpretation until Eddington convinced the world otherwise using invalid data.

Re: "You're also ignoring the many, much more accurate experiments that were done in the 100 years that followed and that verified GR with very high precision. Stop living in the past."

I live in the present, one in which there is an exceedingly ENORMOUS amount of conceptual incoherence between physics. What is remarkable is that there is clear historical correlation between the abolishment of aetheric substance and the proliferation of conceptual incoherence within physics.

From the denial of an objective reality existing independently of a given observation to reifications like 0D extensionless particles, 4D warped spacetime and probability clouds; from the wave-particle paradox to random acausality and quantum spookiness; from non-contact actions to matterless motion and actor-less energy; from the paradoxical absolutized relativity of time to the creation of the entire universe out of nothing — the appearance, reproduction and mainstream acceptance of all such a kind of conceptual nonsense happened during a period of time that correlates very strongly with the aetherless period of physics. The abolishment of aether became mainstream and increasing amounts of incoherence became mainstream. The abolishment of aether persists to this day, and the incoherence persists to this day. The aetherless period also coincides with the monument of incomprehension that is the Standard Model of Particle Physics — with its meaningless labels like “charm” and “strangeness” — and with equally anti-realistic concepts like zero-thickness “superstrings” existing in 26 dimensions.

Think carefully and ask yourself: is all this just a spurious correlation?

Have a nice day / evening / night! =)

Re: "The rotation measured by the Sagnac Effect is an absolute rotation, that is, the platform's rotation with respect to an inertial reference frame."

An "absolute rotation" "with respect to an inertial reference frame" is an oxymoron (unless such frame of reference is an absolute one, which is surely not what you intended). Absolute is the conceptual opposite of relative, so it is contradictory to use absolute to mean relative. For all physicists, starting from Newton (and his water bucket) to pretty much all phycisists until the late 1910s, absolute motion (whether linear or circular) meant motion with respect to a preferred frame of reference, i.e. an absolute frame of reference, one that Newton called "absolute space" and Lorentz and most others from his time associated to the all-pervading aether. Such an absolute frame of reference can be associated to "the fixed stars" to an exceedingly good approximation. [Note: We need to do this because the nature of human measurement (which one should not conflate with the physical reality existing independently of our measurement) requires a frame of reference in order for the measurement to be carried out. All measurement is necessarily relative to an arbitrary standard, so "the fixed stars" seems to be the closest arbitrary standard that we may propose now as the preferred frame of reference, one validated by all optical experiments to date (as explained below)].

Re: "Being on the surface of the Earth, you are in an accelerating reference frame."

Of course. The point that you seem to be missing here is that, as shown by a sufficiently sensitive Sagnac interferometer, the only way that we can define an observer for which all circumstances the speed of light c is exactly constant in a circular path, is to place the observer stationary with respect to "the fixed stars". If the observer is associated to ANY OTHER frame of reference, the observer will be able to measure a speed different than c (with a sufficiently good experimental setup). This experimentally confirms that it is possible to detect — using a light-based experiment — a preferred frame of reference ("the fixed stars") relative to which the light-waves circular path is moving. The Sagnac interferometer thus experimentally falsifies the concept that "it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light”. We can and do everyday using FOGs. All this has been covered several times in the literature, but I think that the clearest argumentation is found in this paper by physicist Doug Marett:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.c...

Re: "The effect can be perfectly explained with Special Relativity but not with Newtonian physics, and therefore is a nice demonstrator for the validity of the former."

The Sagnac Effect has NEVER been derived from the postulates of Special Relativity, which is exactly what is expected if one understands the experimental results summarized above.

Wikipedia incorrectly states that Laue derived the Sagnac Effect from the postulates of Special Relativity. In fact, Laue did a purely geometrical analysis which is identical to the one that is performed in an aether framework like Lorentz's one, as Laue states himself. The only difference is a tiny proposed time dilation due to the translating frame, which is so small and unmeasurable that it is always taken to be equal to one. So Laue's derivation contains no effective relativistic elements. It is in practice absolutely identical to the Galilean treatment, so it cannot be claimed in any way to follow from Special Relativity.

It has also been claimed that the Sagnac effect can be accounted for by assuming a constant light speed on the rotating disk and by factoring in the so-called "time dilation" of the rotating observer. This uses a backwards mathematical transformation from the stationary observer. This mathematical treatment, attributable to Langevin and repeated for example by E.J. Post, was decisively disproved by the Dufour and Prunier experiments.

All these and other misconceptions are carefully explained and referenced in the above paper.

Re: "There is no Aether, unless you update its definition to mean spacetime itself."

Spacetime? Do you mean a "4D Pseudo Riemannian manifold" claimed to have something to do with physical reality? If so, such an abstraction is just a mathematical idea that exists only in the mathematician's mind. I am a realist, and thus interested in real matter in real motion. The physical, material existence of aether is "confirmed everyday by experiment", not only by the Sagnac Interferometer but also in the high-energy laboratories. Perhaps you may be interested in what whistleblower and Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin has admitted about this:

"Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

Laughlin, Robert B. (2005). A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. NY, NY: Basic Books. pp. 120–121.

Re: "But that's not an absolute reference system like the original Aether was. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all frames of reference, period. No experimental data has ever been found to prove this false."

All the experimental data that you are referring to is an extraordinary confirmation of the original version of Relativity, which is based on the physical existence of aether, which in turn provides an absolute frame of reference for all optical experiments. As I wrote elsewhere:

The entire quantitative map underlying Relativity Theory was collectively developed by Woldemar Voigt, George Francis FitzGerald, Sir Joseph Larmor, Henri Poincaré, Olinto De Pretto, and — perhaps most importantly — the great Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. All these scientists derived their equations from the conceptual framework of a physically existent waving medium that provides a preferred frame. All this happened before Einstein had published his 1905 paper on Relativity.

The original interpretation of Relativity, i.e. what we may call "Lorentzian Relativity", is based on a qualitative interpretation where the speed of light is variable, time is absolute, and there is a preferred frame for light that is typically undetectable due to confounding properties of nature, such as the change in the rate of clocks with velocity and the contraction of matter with velocity. Every related experiment ever conducted confirms such a qualitative interpretation, which differs with the qualitative interpretation by 1905 Einstein where the speed of light is constant in all moving frames, the rate of time is variable, and the undetectable aether is irrelevant.

The quantitative maps of Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity are — in effect — quantitatively indistinguishable. Generally speaking, experiment cannot decide between the two. In other words, the quantitative maps (the equations) are identical, while the qualitative maps (the conceptual interpretations of what is physically going on) are totally different. This is thoroughly explained in the following paper:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.c...

Which of the two conceptual interpretations is the wisest choice? I prefer the purely realistic, non-paradoxical, humanly intuitive one. Just in case that you are interested in history, my choice is the same choice that most physicists accepted until 1919, when Eddington claimed on totally inadequate evidence that an eclipse verified General Relativity. It did not. See:

https://www.controversiesofsci...

Cheers!

Anonynous Coward said: "That "time is absolute" is demonstrably false. And we can easily do experiments that show that time is not absolute. Take two of our most accurate clocks and sync them up. Move one of them to the top floor for a while. Then return it. They will no longer be in sync, with the difference exactly predicted by Einstein."

Well, the very real clock rate retardation effect that you are referring to was originally derived by Sir Joseph Larmor in 1897, full eight years before Einstein. Larmor wrote in 1897 that "... individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio (1 – v^2/c^2)^(1/2)". See:

Larmor, J. (1897). "A Dynamical Theory of the Electric and Luminiferous Medium. Part III. Relations with Material Media". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 190: 205.

Larmor derived such relationship by working under the qualitative interpretation that there is a preferred frame, i.e. an aether. In fact, the entire quantitative map underlying Relativity Theory was collectively developed by Woldemar Voigt, George Francis FitzGerald, Sir Joseph Larmor, Henri Poincaré, Olinto De Pretto, and — perhaps most importantly — the great Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. All these scientists derived their equations from the conceptual framework of a physically existent waving medium that provides a preferred frame. All this happened before Einstein had published his 1905 paper on Relativity.

As mentioned before, such a Lorentzian Relativity is based on a qualitative interpretation where the speed of light is variable, time is indeed absolute, and there is a preferred frame for light that is typically undetectable due to confounding properties of nature, such as the change in the rate of clocks with velocity and the contraction of matter with velocity. Every related experiment ever conducted confirms such a qualitative interpretation, which differs with the qualitative interpretation by 1905 Einstein where the speed of light is constant in all moving frames, the rate of time is variable, and the undetectable aether is irrelevant.

As an aside, please note that Einstein denied aether for only 11 years: between 1905 and 1916. He died in 1955. [See Ludwig Kostro's "Einstein and The Ether", in Toto.]

As I commented before, the quantitative maps of Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity are — in effect — quantitatively indistinguishable. Generally speaking, experiment cannot decide between the two. In other words, the quantitative maps (the equations) are identical, while the qualitative maps are totally different. This is thoroughly explained in the following paper by experimental physicist Doug Marett:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.c...

Anonymous coward said: "A more direct proof that time is not absolute is muons. Cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere, creating muons. These are extremely short lived, and should decay long before they reach the surface, and yet we can detect them on the ground. The only explanation for this is that because of their speed, their time is slowed down relative to the observers. Unlike the clocks, there are no moving parts or things to stretch."

There is ample evidence that we do detect these things, whatever they are, on the ground. On the other hand, there is zero evidence that "there are no moving parts or things to stretch." That is your metaphysical assumptions about the nature of matter talking, not the actual evidence. In fact, the actual evidence shows that a muon — as everything at the sub-atomic scales — actually waves. Any waving material structure that we know of possesses deeper "moving parts" and "things to stretch".

Also, please note that the original derivation of this effect by Larmor in 1897 was based on moving electrons. Muons are conventionally understood as something very similar to an electron, with the exception that they have a much higher mass.

Re: "There was no paradox."

The crucial point here is that Relativity can be qualitatively interpreted in two very different ways: the original one and the latter, 1905 Einsteinian one. The quantitative framework underlying both interpretations are identical, i.e. the equations are identical, so the experiments support both interpretations identically. Considering that, which one of the two options should we choose?

In the original one, all the changes in measured time rates are due physical changes in clock rates due to the structural modification of sub-atomic structures absolutely moving with respect to a universal preferred frame. All the experiments that support Relativity can thus be understood as matter-in-motion being affected by matter-in-motion in terms of a preferred frame of reference that provides absolute standards of measurement. This interpretation provides a dynamical explanation of the experimental facts. In other words, in this interpretation matter REALLY contracts with motion due to the motional effect on sub-atomic structures.

In the latter, 1905 Einsteinian one, the qualitative interpretation is not dynamical, but purely kinematic. In other words, matter does not REALLY contract but it APPEARS to contract with motion to a stationary observer. In this interpretation, we cannot say that something "really, absolutely happens", because what happens is a direct function of our relative frame of reference. This "absolutization of relativity" is a conceptual interpretation that lies at the core of all the conceptual paradoxes related to Einsteinian relativity, e.g. the Bell’s Spaceship paradox, the Ladder Paradox, Dingle’s clock paradox, The Paradox of the Clocks in the Canaries, The Paradox of the Human Body Smeared Across Time, etc. As Asimov admitted in his New Guide to Science:

"The most fundamental aspect of Einstein’s theory was its denial of the existence of absolute space and absolute time. This may sound like nonsense: How can the human mind learn anything at all about the universe if it has no point of departure?"

A critical thinker should consider that, if something "sounds like nonsense", perhaps it is because it IS nonsense. What people needs to see is that the original interpretation of Relativity — which is confirmed by every related experiment ever conducted — precludes all the conventional interpretation that, indeed, "sounds like nonsense".

Have a nice day / evening / night! =)

Dear Zorpheus,

The overlooked history of the development of Lorentzian Relativity and the subsequent development of Einsteinian Relativity is indeed very interesting. I have the strong feeling that someday it will be taught in all universities, not just as a lesson about the history of science but primarily as a lesson about human nature.

Historian of science Herbert Dingle stated that although from 1904 until 1919 relativity theory was generally ascribed to Lorentz, "with the apparent success in 1919 of Einstein’s general theory, with its then quite new and terrifying mathematical machinery of tensor calculus, came the fatal climax. Almost overnight ‘the relativity theory of Lorentz’ became ‘Einstein’s special relativity theory’, and it was immediately hailed as such by the mathematical experts. The established physicists ... gave up trying to understand the whole business, surrendered the use of their intelligence, and accepted passively whatever apparent absurdities the mathematicians put before them. They had the seeming excuse that the mathematical equations worked." [Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, p. 95.]

This historical turn of events could not happen without the "apparent success of the general theory", based on the famous 1919 eclipse expedition. Yet science historians John Earman and Clark Glymour have shown that the evidence presented was unquestionably inadequate. It was principally the triple-pronged public relations of the Astronomer Royal, the President of the Royal Society and Arthur Eddington that lent General Relativity its 1919 victory. See "Fabulous Science Fact and Fiction in the History of Scientific Discovery" by John Waller.

Anyway, please note that special relativity can indeed handle accelerating objects or accelerating frames of reference. This is explained in the following link at the website of John Baez (famous for being the author of the "crackpot index"):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/...

In any case, on the relativistic notion that "it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light", as tentatively concluded by the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Sagnac experiment shows that this can in fact be done. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that depending on the placement of the observer, it is possible to see this variable speed of light and to confound apparent "time dilation".

Best regards,

Juan

Dear Meglon,

We should always be extremely careful to distinguish between the quantitative vs. qualitative aspects of scientific theory. The former is constructed from abstract equations, the latter is constructed from abstract concepts. Both are maps (or aspects of a map) trying to describe the real territory, i.e. the universe.

You are right in that the quantitative aspect of Relativity has an enormous amount of experimental confirmation. What you seem to be missing is that such a mathematical framework was not originally developed by Einstein. This seems to explain why, when you get into the mathematics of Relativity, you have to study Lorentz Transformation Equations, the Lorentz Factor, Lorentz boosts, the Lorentz group, Lorentz Symmetry and Lorentz Invariance.

E. T. Whittaker, notable mathematician and science historian, wrote a classical textbook about the history of electricity and electromagnetism. If you check out the book, you will not find a chapter titled "The Relativity of Einstein", but you will find one titled "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz", in which Whittaker wrote:

"It is clear, from the history set forth in the present chapter, that the theory of relativity had its origin in the theory of aether and electrons. When relativity had become recognised as a doctrine covering the whole operation of physical nature, efforts were made to present it in a form free from any special association with electromagnetic theory, and deducible logically from a definite set of axioms". [A History of The Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol 2, pages 42-43].

The original version of the quantitative map of Relativity — that we may call Lorentzian Relativity — is based on a qualitative interpretation where the speed of light is variable, time is absolute, and there is a preferred frame for light that is typically undetectable due to confounding properties of nature, such as the change in the rate of clocks with velocity and the contraction of matter with velocity. On the other hand, Einstein later found a way to obtain the exact same quantitative map through a completely different qualitative interpretation, i.e., the speed of light is constant in all moving frames, the rate of time is variable, and the undetectable aether is irrelevant. The new qualitative interpretation by Einstein was in line with the philosophy of instrumentalism, i.e. the philosophical belief that we should make no distinction between unobservable entities and non-existent ones, even if observations only make sense in terms of levels of physical reality that are not easily measurable, or beyond measurement.

Most importantly, people seem to be largely unaware that the quantitative maps of Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity are — in effect — quantitatively indistinguishable. Generally speaking, experiment cannot decide between the two. In other words, the quantitative maps (the equations) are identical, while the qualitative maps are totally different. This is thoroughly explained in the following paper by experimental physicist Doug Marett:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.c...

(See also the references included in the paper).

In other words, every experiment confirming Relativity is evidence confirming Lorenzian Aether-Based Relativity, which is the original Theory of Relativity. Considering that we generally cannot distinguish between the two "versions" of Relativity by quantitative measures, we should focus more than ever on carefully studying the qualitative differences between them, and making our choice wisely.

Interestingly, you mention technologies as demonstrating the validity of Einsteinian Relativity. In fact, technologies provide perhaps the easiest way to distinguish between Einsteinian and Lorentzian Relativity. Everyday technology shows that there is indeed a preferred frame. We just need spin to observe it.

Perhaps the easiest demonstration of this is a fiber optic gyroscope (FOG), an instrument that works with the Sagnac Effect. FOGs are widely used in navigation systems and surveying. If there is no preferred frame, a FOG should not be able to detect the orbital rotation of the earth with an interferometer. However, they do detect the rotation of Earth. In other words, we do an experiment with a light interferometer in a closed lab, and we can still detect the rotation of the whole earth just by measuring the intereference patterns of the FOG. The conclusion that the speed of light in a FOG is only constant with respect to the "fixed stars" is very hard to deny. In other words, the Sagnac Effect is at odds with Einsteinian Relativity, yet it follows naturally from Lorentzian Relativity. This is masterfully explained by Doug Marett here:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.c...

By the way, as it typically happens with controversial subjects, the wikipedia article on the Sagnac Effect is highly misleading, stating that "The first description of the Sagnac effect in the framework of special relativity was done by Max von Laue in 1911, two years before Sagnac conducted his experiment." In fact, Laue did a purely geometrical analysis which is identical to the one that would be performed for any aether theory, as he states himself. The only difference is a tiny proposed time dilation due to the translating frame, which is so small and unmeasurable that it is always taken to be equal to one. So Laue's "relativistic" derivation contains no effective relativistic elements, it is in practice identical to the Galilean treatment, so there is really nothing relativistic about it. In other words, not only the quantitative but also the qualitative aspects of Laue's derivation are identical to the ones proper to Lorentzian Relativity. Which means the Sagnac Effect does not follow from the Einsteinian Theory. This is explained in much more detail in the link above.

Hopefully this helps. Anyway, have a good day! =)

Re: "I don't see the falsifying data"

The text below the image explains quite clearly why the observed image is actually falsifying data. The link provided says:

"In 2002, two astronomers at La Palma took spectra of the galaxies and the connecting filament. They not only confirmed the discrepancy in redshifts of the galaxies but also discovered that the two quasar-like objects embedded in the filament (objects 2 and 3) have even greater discrepancies in redshift. If redshift indicated distance, the small objects would be 7 and 11 times farther away than NGC 7603. To dismiss this alignment as coincidence is to breathe sand."

Again, that's 7 and 11 *times* farther away according to Big Bang assumptions, but instead the image shows the four objects clearly interconnected.

Re: "For this to mean anything data from one of the survey instruments needs to be analyzed to see if overlaps like this happen more often than would be expected randomly (including lensing). Its not a difficult analysis, but someone has to take the time to do it. There is some data in public domain. An interested person an analyze and publish."

If you had read the paper provided above, the first paragraphs explains one of the many ways in which the analysis you are suggesting has actually been done already, obtaining results that falsify the Big Bang Theory:

"The first question that needs to be answered in a review of anomalous redshift data is, “What is the statistical significance of the samples being cited?” Put another way; are anomalous redshift associations not in fact just extremely rare events that can be written off to chance alignments and optical illusion? This was for decades the criticism levelled particularly at the observational work of Halton Arp, so I will let him answer it (from his paper with Chris Fulton, 2008):
“Fulton & Arp have analyzed the positions, redshifts, and magnitudes of ~118,000 galaxies and ~25,000 quasars in the 2dF deep field. The examination of individual samples revealed concentrations of high z galaxies and quasars near galaxies. A natural extension of the analysis was to determine the average densities of objects over the survey area as a whole.”

Those are quite a few galaxies and quasars, I would say.

Now this is the really the last one from my side, good luck!

Physicist George Chapline has advanced the First Theorem of Science: “It is impossible to convince a person of any true thing that will cost him money.”

Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert Laughlin says that "We should probably rename it the First Theorem and drop the Science part." (Laughlin, 2005, p. 114)

This quote related to an astronomy textbook from the 1930s summarizes the situation pretty well:

https://youtu.be/rwDnOLg0Nss?t...

Over and out! =)

The youtube video includes many references to original sources, documents that describe the many attacks from scientists to the mere idea of a rocket.

For example, the book Space Exploration by Ron Miller, says in page 21: "The idea that a rocket flew by pushing against the air behind it was a common one that many scientists of the era believed".

But I'll let you keep ignoring the tragic story of Goddard's ridicule, when pseudoscience was found to be science after all. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

I've finished with this postings, so I'll let you have the last word. Have a nice day!

As long as you continue to refuse to review the falsifying evidence, you will continue to think that cosmology is not in crisis.

"When Big Bang proponents make assertions such as “the evidence taken together hangs together beautifully,” they overlook observational facts that have been piling up for 25 years and that have now become overwhelming. Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an “elegant” or “robust” theory. But it isn’t science." -- Halton Arp

What you should do is to forget about theoretical claims, ask your self if the Big Bang is falsifiable, and if it is, then look at the raw data compiled in those four books. Check out for example the following link with just one example found in the books:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/...

There you will see four objects, with four completely different redshifts, two of the four objects being quasars, physically associated through a plasma filament. That is impossible, according the Big Bang assumptions regarding redshift.

"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." - Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947

"The evidence that many objects previously believed to be at great distances are actually much closer confronts us with the most drastic possible revision of current concepts." - Halton Arp.

The four books and related papers are chock full of similar raw evidence in which it is observationally found that the idea of redshift being an indicator of an "expanding Universe" (whatever you may want to physically interpret by that) has been falsified again and again and again.

Anyway, you seem to reject the possibility that the Big Bang Theory is observationally falsifiable. In such case, it is not a science. One way or the other, I finished with these postings. Enjoy!

The scientists who ridiculed Goddard and thought that rocketry was pseudoscience for full 24 years did know how to do the math very well. The historical mistake had nothing to do with learning how to do math.

By the way, I work in an electrical engineering laboratory and I apply mathematical physics everyday. Also, the weather forecast today for Siberia is -14 C. Both statements are equally relevant to the core of the controversy being discussed.

I'll let you have the last word, hopefully it will make you happy. Have a nice day! (Even if you are in frigid Siberia)

The deep question that you should be asking is the following: is the Big Bang Theory falsifiable?

If it is not, then it is not really science. If it is falsifiable, then the scientific method demands that scientists should be constantly looking for observational evidence that could invalidate it. This is not happening nowadays within academia. It did happened some decades ago, but when this world-renowned observational astronomer discovered the falsifying evidence, instead of being congratulated, he was basically sacked from the observatory (as explained in the video documentary previously mentioned).

If you had spend the time to actually look for such thing, then you may be surprised to find that the observational evidence falsifying the Big Bang creation story is very numerous. If you just want to focus on the controversy over redshift, then there are scores of papers related to it. This is just one for example:

https://www.academia.edu/81152...

If you really want to deeply understand why the Big Bang Theory has been observationally falsified, I recommend the following four books that you may use as a reference for all the papers that are cited within them.

https://www.amazon.com/Quasars...

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-...

https://www.amazon.com/Catalog...

https://www.amazon.com/Galileo...

In any case, the lesson of Halton Arp's story goes far beyond the data which observationally falsifies the Big Bang Theory (assuming that the theory really is falsifiable, something that doesn't seem to be the case). Arp's story is a very sad one and a lesson about everything that is wrong within academic science, and about what we need to radically change if we want to promote scientific progress and innovation.

Re: "Which discoveries are you thinking of?"

For example, the discoveries of ubiquitous associations between high redshift objects and low redshift objects, all of which falsifies Big Bang Theory (because, if it is a scientific theory, it should be falsifiable, right?). If you only have a couple of hours to spend, you can start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

For a more technical coverage of these discoveries, you should get Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and his three books on the subject.

And by the way, all the testable predictions confirmed by experiment associated to Relativity Theory come from its mathematical formalism, all of which was formulated by aetherists like Voigt, Larmor, De Pretto, Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Poincaré, all that happening before Einstein had written his first paper. From historian of science Whittaker's second volume on the History on the Theories of Aether and Electricity, from the chapter called "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz":

"It is clear, from the history set forth in the present chapter, that the theory of relativity had its origin in the theory of aether and electrons. When relativity had become recognised as a doctrine covering the whole operation of physical nature, efforts were made to present it in a form free from any special association with electro-magnetic theory, and deducible logically from a denite set of axioms of greater or less plausibility."

And by the way (bis), Frank Wilczek, a Nobel Prize winner for his contributions in Quantum Field Theory, has recently published a very recommendable book called: "The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces".