4 ms·

I had good teacher of physics. He always told to us that we must fully understand what happens at physical level, and only then start to calculate. „Shut up and

by lisivka 10y ago

I had good teacher of physics. He always told to us that we must fully understand what happens at physical level, and only then start to calculate. „Shut up and calculate“ is not an answer for me. I also don't feel frightened not knowing things, but now we know more than before. It's hard to imagine that particle must go through all slits and then God must play dice when you saw above video at least once. General Relativity is based on assumption that speed of light is constant regardless of direction, and tests, done with 1E-17 accuracy, are proving that. But tests done with 1E-21 accuracy shows that speed of light is not constant, so whole theory was built on wrong assumption, but it still accurate to 1E-17, which is huge accuracy, much more than we need in practice.

acqq 10y ago
I don't know what you talk about, if you give some links, maybe it would help. You are free to believe whatever you will, and these "god playing dice" arguments I don't even want to discuss, I'm curious just about the seriousness of this light "tests" you claim, given that the speed of light in vacuum is by definition now fixed -- it is the basis "meter" for the other things to measure. Thanks.
- lisivka 10y ago
  It's hard to discuss with someone, which don't want to discuss. :-) About "light" claims: I'm talking about "non-null effect": http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf .
  - acqq 10y ago
    The paper of the guy who can't even publish it on arxiv because he's banned there (it seems that's why it's on vixra instead)? And not because of what he writes but because it is below the necessary scientific literacy level. Arxiv's standards aren't particularly high. Is there any physicist in the world taking his papers seriously? The comment of his previous work: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid19597777 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid1... "I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe"." Regarding the paper you quote: it is... weird... and had he really found anything that would disprove the Michelson-Morley results (what he tries to claim between the lines) he'd already be famous and with his Nobel prize or just wait to get it. You know "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? It appears he doesn't even know (or doesn't want to know) what the necessary evidence for his claims would be. Is your name by any chance Stoyan Sargoytchev (or B.M. Quine)? If not, where have you even heard/read about that paper? Edit: (the answer to the response) thanks for answering with "I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry." Regarding your question: "Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?" the answer is: no, it seems you don't understand the basics of physics -- that is, the issues that were known before Einstein and the way he solved them, making the testable predictions. As the Michelson–Morley experiment was performed around 130 years ago, and confirmed many times since, it's really a lot that you miss, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      I tried to Google article I want to show, but I'm not able to find it, so I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry. Article, I looking for, is about experiment conducted using Sagnac interferometer for more than year to detect deviations of predicted Sagnac effect, from Earth rotation, during year, from actual measurement. They tried to account everything they know and still had small anisotropic variations across year. I'm not able to find that article, so I will try to use LIGO observation of gravitational wave as argument. Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary? PS. It's looks like we cannot continue discussion because of larger delays between posts, so just thanks you for your replies — they were helpful. I will try to prepare better for next time.
      - acqq 10y ago
        Thank you too for answering my questions. And to answer your last: You can imagine that what is measured with LIGO is the change of the space itself as the wave hits the detector. The speed of light remains constant. But please let's not discuss it more in this thread, I also prefer continuing somewhere else on some other occasion.
        lisivka 10y ago
        I found papers: they are calibration results of LIGO detectors. I read them years ago, so I forget anything except that they found systematic temporal variations across day and year, and they are using long 2km arms. Their latest paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05134v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05134v1.pdf . Systematic error is still there. Speed of light will remain constant, no doubt, so observer need to be far away to feel difference, otherwise it will be affected by wave, with his instruments and clock. It's why 2-4km arms are able to pickup temporal signal, while smaller setups are able to pickup thermal noise only. PS. Not sure that I will survive for so long, because of war with Russia — next week will be hard for me. :-)

by lisivka 10y ago

acqq 10y ago

I don't know what you talk about, if you give some links, maybe it would help. You are free to believe whatever you will, and these "god playing dice" arguments I don't even want to discuss, I'm curious just about the seriousness of this light "tests" you claim, given that the speed of light in vacuum is by definition now fixed -- it is the basis "meter" for the other things to measure. Thanks.

lisivka 10y ago
It's hard to discuss with someone, which don't want to discuss. :-) About "light" claims: I'm talking about "non-null effect": http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf .
- acqq 10y ago
  The paper of the guy who can't even publish it on arxiv because he's banned there (it seems that's why it's on vixra instead)? And not because of what he writes but because it is below the necessary scientific literacy level. Arxiv's standards aren't particularly high. Is there any physicist in the world taking his papers seriously? The comment of his previous work: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid19597777 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid1... "I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe"." Regarding the paper you quote: it is... weird... and had he really found anything that would disprove the Michelson-Morley results (what he tries to claim between the lines) he'd already be famous and with his Nobel prize or just wait to get it. You know "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? It appears he doesn't even know (or doesn't want to know) what the necessary evidence for his claims would be. Is your name by any chance Stoyan Sargoytchev (or B.M. Quine)? If not, where have you even heard/read about that paper? Edit: (the answer to the response) thanks for answering with "I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry." Regarding your question: "Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?" the answer is: no, it seems you don't understand the basics of physics -- that is, the issues that were known before Einstein and the way he solved them, making the testable predictions. As the Michelson–Morley experiment was performed around 130 years ago, and confirmed many times since, it's really a lot that you miss, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    I tried to Google article I want to show, but I'm not able to find it, so I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry. Article, I looking for, is about experiment conducted using Sagnac interferometer for more than year to detect deviations of predicted Sagnac effect, from Earth rotation, during year, from actual measurement. They tried to account everything they know and still had small anisotropic variations across year. I'm not able to find that article, so I will try to use LIGO observation of gravitational wave as argument. Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary? PS. It's looks like we cannot continue discussion because of larger delays between posts, so just thanks you for your replies — they were helpful. I will try to prepare better for next time.
    - acqq 10y ago
      Thank you too for answering my questions. And to answer your last: You can imagine that what is measured with LIGO is the change of the space itself as the wave hits the detector. The speed of light remains constant. But please let's not discuss it more in this thread, I also prefer continuing somewhere else on some other occasion.
      - lisivka 10y ago
        I found papers: they are calibration results of LIGO detectors. I read them years ago, so I forget anything except that they found systematic temporal variations across day and year, and they are using long 2km arms. Their latest paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05134v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05134v1.pdf . Systematic error is still there. Speed of light will remain constant, no doubt, so observer need to be far away to feel difference, otherwise it will be affected by wave, with his instruments and clock. It's why 2-4km arms are able to pickup temporal signal, while smaller setups are able to pickup thermal noise only. PS. Not sure that I will survive for so long, because of war with Russia — next week will be hard for me. :-)