It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

1) Therefore, if we had a Train on which there are two fiber optics
cables, each extending from end to end of the train, light passing from
end to end of the train through one on the two cables, will do so in a
given time period that is the same as the time period would be for
light to travel from end to end of the train through the other cable
but in the opposite direction.

2) Meanwhile, it is known that if this train was to be on a circular
path, then the time period for the light to complete the path from end
to end of the train in one direction, would not be the same as the time
period would be for the light to travel in the opposite direction
through the other fiber optics cable. This has been proven to be true
by using the SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER.

Now for the question.

If the train track is as follows .......O... , meaning it a straight
track for some time, and then it becomes a loop, and then it returns to
being a straight track once again, then how is it that light can one
minute go from end to end of the train in either direction in the same
time period, then suddenly it can no longer do this when on the loop,
then somehow the light magically is able to travel from end to end of
the train in either direction in the same time period once again ?

SEE http://www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm for pic of train
experiment.

THE_ONE

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
ps.com...
| It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
| within any inertial frame.

It is said that Einstein was a moron. I said it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Animate your train, I did mine.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm

THE_REAL_ONE.

THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.

With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.

Paul

1) Therefore, if we had a Train on which there are two fiber optics
cables, each extending from end to end of the train, light passing from
end to end of the train through one on the two cables, will do so in a
given time period that is the same as the time period would be for
light to travel from end to end of the train through the other cable
but in the opposite direction.

2) Meanwhile, it is known that if this train was to be on a circular
path, then the time period for the light to complete the path from end
to end of the train in one direction, would not be the same as the time
period would be for the light to travel in the opposite direction
through the other fiber optics cable. This has been proven to be true
by using the SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER.

Now for the question.

If the train track is as follows .......O... , meaning it a straight
track for some time, and then it becomes a loop, and then it returns to
being a straight track once again, then how is it that light can one
minute go from end to end of the train in either direction in the same
time period, then suddenly it can no longer do this when on the loop,
then somehow the light magically is able to travel from end to end of
the train in either direction in the same time period once again ?

SEE http://www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm for pic of train
experiment.

THE_ONE

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| THE_ONE wrote:
| It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
| within any inertial frame.
|
| Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.

Inertial frames do not exist.

| A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
| is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.

So what?

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the
clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A
will be
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img64.gif
second slow. "- Albert Tusselad Einstein.

Androcles

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.

With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.

Paul

xxein: I beg your pardon. "A frame of reference fixed to train going
in circle is not an _inertial_ frame of reference."

Why not? Be careful of how you WISH to define an inertial frame of
reference. Would you like to offer a list the qualifications for this?

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.

With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.

Paul

So far we have responses that state obvious forms of reaction, in
combination with absence of thorough thought.

It usually comes down to explanations that state that this happens
because of that, and that happens because of the other. But always,
always, and always, the " THAT " and the " OTHER " are never fully
explained, but have simply been accepted by the majority as correct,
and once this is done, that which is " Accepted " is then regarded as "
FACT ". Therefore, to these minds, there is ABOSOLUTELY no difference
between a FACT, and an ACCEPTANCE.

For instance, going in circles is regarded as not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, because of it being a case of constant
acceleration, a magical form of constant acceleration that requires no
force.

If an object in space is given a spin, it will continue to spin and
spin and spin, indefinitely. According to it not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, it is also continuously accelerating despite the
fact that no force is being continuously applied to it.

If an understanding is FLAWED or INCOMPLETE, it will not allow complete
understanding to be revealed. But to this day there are many people
who insist that understanding is never to be achieved, but instead we
must simply regard certain functions of reality as mysterious and
inexplicable, as the result of their " ACCEPTED FACTS " saying so.
This then provides protection of the FLAWED theories, which then will
continue to produce ground for the practice useless circular arguments
which lead us nowhere. And so, NOWHERE is NOW HERE. Will it
ever leave us !

In the eye of many, in this case we have a case of inertial frame, then
NON-inertial frame, then inertial frame once again. It is three blocks
of understanding set side by side, and never assembled to the point of
one complete undertsanding. So far all we have to explain the train
thought experiment is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1

Can any of you out there, see the complete picture ?

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.


With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.


Paul



So far we have responses that state obvious forms of reaction, in
combination with absence of thorough thought.

It usually comes down to explanations that state that this happens
because of that, and that happens because of the other. But always,
always, and always, the " THAT " and the " OTHER " are never fully
explained, but have simply been accepteD by the majority as correct,
and once this is done, that which is " Accepted " is then regarded as "
FACT ". Therefore, to these minds, there is ABOSOLUTELY no difference
between a FACT, and an ACCEPTANCE.


For instance, going in circles is regarded as not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, because of it being a case of constant
acceleration, a magical form of constant acceleration that requires no
force.


If an object in space is given a spin, it will continue to spin and
spin and spin, indefinitely. According to it not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, it is also continuously accelerating despite the
fact that no force is being continuously applied to it.


If an understanding is FLAWED or INCOMPLETE, it will not allow complete
Understanding to be revealed. But to this day there are many people
who insist that understanding is never to be achieved, but instead we
must simply regard certain functions of reality as mysterious and
inexplicable, as the result of their " ACCEPTED FACTS " saying so. This
then provides protection of the FLAWED theories, which then will
continue to produce ground for the practice useless circular arguments
which lead us nowhere. And so, NOWHERE is NOW HERE. Will it
ever leave us !


In the eye of many, in this case we have a case of inertial frame, then
NON-inertial frame, then inertial frame once again. It is three blocks
of understanding set side by side, and never assembled to the point of
one complete undertsanding. So far all we have to explain the train
thought experiment is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 .

Also, if the train is constantly accelerating, the so are the Photons,
therefore the two cancel out.


Can any of you out there, see the complete picture ?

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.
Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.
With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.
Paul


So far we have responses that state obvious forms of reaction, in
combination with absence of thorough thought.

It usually comes down to explanations that state that this happens
because of that, and that happens because of the other. But always,
always, and always, the " THAT " and the " OTHER " are never fully
explained, but have simply been accepteD by the majority as correct,
and once this is done, that which is " Accepted " is then regarded as "
FACT ". Therefore, to these minds, there is ABOSOLUTELY no difference
between a FACT, and an ACCEPTANCE.


For instance, going in circles is regarded as not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, because of it being a case of constant
acceleration, a magical form of constant acceleration that requires no
force.


If an object in space is given a spin, it will continue to spin and
spin and spin, indefinitely. According to it not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, it is also continuously accelerating despite the
fact that no force is being continuously applied to it.


If an understanding is FLAWED or INCOMPLETE, it will not allow complete
understanding to be revealed. But to this day there are many people
who insist that understanding is never to be achieved, but instead we
must simply regard certain functions of reality as mysterious and
inexplicable, as the result of their " ACCEPTED FACTS " saying so. This
then provides protection of the FLAWED theories, which then will
continue to produce ground for the practice useless circular arguments
which lead us nowhere. And so, NOWHERE is NOW HERE. Will it
ever leave us !


In the eye of many, in this case we have a case of inertial frame, then
NON-inertial frame, then inertial frame once again. It is three blocks
of understanding set side by side, and never assembled to the point of
one complete undertsanding. So far all we have to explain the train
thought experiment is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 .


Also, if the train is constantly accelerating, then so are the Photons,
therefore the two cancel out.


Can any of you out there, see the complete picture ?

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
ups.com...

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.


With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.


Paul



So far we have responses that state obvious forms of reaction, in
combination with absence of thorough thought.

It usually comes down to explanations that state that this happens
because of that, and that happens because of the other. But always,
always, and always, the " THAT " and the " OTHER " are never fully
explained, but have simply been accepteD by the majority as correct,
and once this is done, that which is " Accepted " is then regarded as "
FACT ". Therefore, to these minds, there is ABOSOLUTELY no difference
between a FACT, and an ACCEPTANCE.


For instance, going in circles is regarded as not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, because of it being a case of constant
acceleration, a magical form of constant acceleration that requires no
force.


If an object in space is given a spin, it will continue to spin and
spin and spin, indefinitely. According to it not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, it is also continuously accelerating despite the
fact that no force is being continuously applied to it.


If an understanding is FLAWED or INCOMPLETE, it will not allow complete
Understanding to be revealed. But to this day there are many people
who insist that understanding is never to be achieved, but instead we
must simply regard certain functions of reality as mysterious and
inexplicable, as the result of their " ACCEPTED FACTS " saying so. This
then provides protection of the FLAWED theories, which then will
continue to produce ground for the practice useless circular arguments
which lead us nowhere. And so, NOWHERE is NOW HERE. Will it
ever leave us !


In the eye of many, in this case we have a case of inertial frame, then
NON-inertial frame, then inertial frame once again. It is three blocks
of understanding set side by side, and never assembled to the point of
one complete undertsanding. So far all we have to explain the train
thought experiment is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 .

Also, if the train is constantly accelerating, the so are the Photons,
therefore the two cancel out.


Can any of you out there, see the complete picture ?

Just Google for keywords such as Newton "absolute space", Lorentz
"stationary ether", Ives Sagnac.

Harald

wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.
Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.

With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.

Paul

xxein: I beg your pardon. "A frame of reference fixed to train going
in circle is not an _inertial_ frame of reference."

Why not? Be careful of how you WISH to define an inertial frame of
reference. Would you like to offer a list the qualifications for this?


If you don't know what an inertial frame of reference is, look it up.

Paul