Developing non-inertial navigation devices

11/8/2012 1:41 PM EST

these people seem to be claiming that there is an absolute frame of reference, and it's the frame travelling with the light beam...(!)

(Don't invest yet)

11/8/2012 10:08 PM EST

No we don’t
As it stated in our work:
“It has to be taking into account that the devices of Non-Inertial Navigation do not provide grounds for establishing the preferred frame of references and measurements done by such devices are to be calibrated in relative terms only.” To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.

11/8/2012 10:02 PM EST

Dear AlNav
It is great that you found this VERY intriguing, and it is surprising that you just found out about this theoretical concept since it is almost a decade old!!!
Regarding similarity of the theoretical model with Einstein’s “light clock” which in the original work called “Grethen or Gertrude Clock” I would advise you to compare the description of this contraption in its original form to the description in the modern books of Physics. I think you will find serious discrepancies between original Einstein train of thoughts and its modern interpretation and especially our theoretical model.
Regarding a preferred or as you may call it privilege frame of references. As it stated in all our work including the theoretical page in web site “space-navigation” we stipulate that:
“It has to be taking into account that the devices of Non-Inertial Navigation do not provide grounds for establishing the preferred frame of references and measurements done by such devices are to be calibrated in relative terms only.”
In that we don’t have to separate all motions that were mentioned in your remarks. Zero can be set at any position and any motion. The device will read only differences between set numbers and actual motions.
The graphical representation, you have referred to, illustrates Einstein’s theory of moving clocks and objects, but it does not addresses the difference between distances that the two beams travel inside of the contraption in motion. The sited in the video Michelson work on interferometery and especially dual path of the light beams holds the key to this riddle
To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.
Quick conclusions not always define a direct line to the rightness.

11/9/2012 12:57 PM EST

"In that we don’t have to separate all motions that were mentioned in your remarks. Zero can be set at any position and any motion. The device will read only differences between set numbers and actual motions."

And yet you don't see a 24hr variation as the device rotates around the earth?

On the surface of the earth, at a moderate north latitude we all move at a few hundred miles per hour. If the device were rotated by 180 degrees, then it would report a negative velocity.
(Never mind all of the other velocities previously mentioned)

11/9/2012 3:13 PM EST

"If the device were rotated by 180 degrees, then it would report a negative velocity".
Device will read the negative direction not a negative velocity.

11/9/2012 11:14 AM EST

Dear AlNav
It is great that you found this VERY intriguing, and it is surprising that you just found out about this theoretical concept since it is almost a decade old!!!
Regarding similarity of the theoretical model with Einstein’s “light clock” which in the original work called “Grethen or Gertrude Clock” I would advise you to compare the description of this contraption in its original form to the description in the modern books of Physics. I think you will find serious discrepancies between original Einstein train of thoughts and its modern interpretation and especially our theoretical model.
Regarding a preferred or as you may call it privilege frame of references. As it stated in all our work including the theoretical page in web site “space-navigation” we stipulate that:
“It has to be taking into account that the devices of Non-Inertial Navigation do not provide grounds for establishing the preferred frame of references and measurements done by such devices are to be calibrated in relative terms only.”
In that we don’t have to separate all motions that were mentioned in your remarks. Zero can be set at any position and any motion. The device will read only differences between set numbers and actual motions.
The graphical representation, you have referred to, illustrates Einstein’s theory of moving clocks and objects, but it does not addresses the difference between distances that the two beams travel inside of the contraption in motion. The sited in the video Michelson work on interferometery and especially dual path of the light beams holds the key to this riddle
To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.
Quick conclusions not always define a direct line to the rightness.

11/8/2012 10:13 PM EST

Our work violates ‘Special Relativity’ no more than Michelson-Gale or Sagnac
To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.

11/8/2012 10:22 PM EST

Dear ‘physicist’ please, do educate yourself on works of Michelson-Gale, Sagnac, R. Wang.
BTW, about ether- read work of Einstein and Paul Dirac on this matter.

11/9/2012 12:43 PM EST

I read the paper by Wang, et al. [1]. It appears they simply changed the geometry of the ring gyro to elongate the ring and move the Fiber Optic Gyro along with this "linear fiber" (which is actually still a rotating fiber).

If [1] are truly able to measure velocity, why can't they just shift the FOG on the conveyor without the elaborate loop of fiber (fig2)?

This is just a fiber optic gyro with a weird geometry - ALL of the fiber in [1] fig 2 is rotating in the same clockwise rotation.

[1] http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf

11/9/2012 3:07 PM EST

It is disappointing to read your comments about work of R. Wang, et al, since the essence of their finding is resides in the important discovery that the constant velocity linear motion is as discernible as motion of rotation even in the rigid frame of Sagnac.
To call the work on Generalized Sagnac -“a fiber optic gyro with a weird geometry” is almost the same as to call a nuclear reactor – “just a tea kettle with a weird geometry”.

11/9/2012 11:46 AM EST

You are absolutely right suggesting that people should “read some modern experiments”.

11/12/2012 3:23 PM EST

You seem to have skipped a few classes on relativity and basic particle physics.

A photon has no /rest/ mass. But the photon is not at rest. It is moving, and has energy - so E=mc^2 gives us its mass. And so if your gadget is moving at a constant velocity, the photon will move directly from the transmitter to the receiver, regardless of the velocity.

This is the very foundation of relativity. And while all scientists will agree that relativity is only a theory, and may be disproved, I am confident that if the effect you are describing here were real, it would have been noticed a long time ago.

This whole idea is about as realistic as "Blacklight Power" - just enough pseudo-scientific nonsense to baffle non-physicists, combined with wonderful potential benefits to inspire such greed in investors that rational scepticism is forgotten. It's a scam to con money out of naive investors.

11/12/2012 5:14 PM EST

Let me repeat it again – since a photon, as a member of Boson family, has no mass therefore it does not follow the rules of Newtonian physics. Hence the inertial force that imposes any mass bearing objects, regardless of their size, to move alone with the object in motion (at any speed including constant velocity) does not apply to the massless photon!

The following message for you and others homegrown theoreticians of physics!!!
The theoretical foundation of our development was reviewed by famous Professor Hans Bethe and Edward Teller and got their unshakable approval in writing.
So, all these interpretations of laws of physics and nasty remarks just show the luck of knowledge on the subject you are so compelled to express by your ignorance.

FYI- In publishing this article we have no interest to “con money” run “scam” and etc… the goal of the article is to provide real professionals on the field with reliable information on this revolutionary development.

11/13/2012 9:01 AM EST

Photons /are/ bosons - but there are plenty of bosons that /do/ have mass. In fact, all bosons except photons (and perhaps gravitons) have rest mass.

And as I noted earlier, photons have no /rest/ mass - but they do have an effective mass due to their energy, and are affected by intertial systems (look up gravitational lensing for an example).

It is quite impressive that you had your work reviewed by Professors Bethe and Teller, considering they died in 2005 and 2003 respectively, and both were well into their nineties at the time. Did you use a ouija board to get their opinions?

We live in a world with Wikipedia. You can't just make up drivel by combining a few scientific terms and name-dropping, and expect people to believe you. Even readers who don't know this stuff already can easily look it up and see that you are talking nonsense. Have a look at this for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system

11/13/2012 10:21 AM EST

Ignorance is a bliss!
Yes our work on the subject was that old.
My initial contact with the Professor began back in 1987 regarding some point on QED and continues about a year before his death.
My contact with Dr. Teller was done in 1999. And yes it is done in writing!
Please continue to learn from the Wikipedia and find some another subject that may awake your positive attitude.

11/10/2012 7:21 PM EST

Regarding M-M experiment I would suggest that you will search for Michelson-Gale.
As it stated in the Article "Fig.1 shows the dual summa vector oscilloscope type diagram".
Hope you know about summa-vector type diagrams of motion.
We will definitely provide more in detailed information on the development if such information will be cleared for publication.

11/11/2012 1:58 PM EST

Well, I look forward to that information, when it is cleared for publication.

Regarding Michelson-Gale, based on a little research I just did, that was a demonstration of the detection of rotation. Which is an acceleration, since it is not a constant velocity (speed and direction).

Could you point me to any papers showing replication of the R. Wang results in the last 9 years?

Pardon my ignorance, but I am not familiar with "summa-vector" diagrams of motion, and a quick Google search didn't return any results with that exact phrasing. Typically an oscilloscope display will give some sense of the scale being measured, and all of the oscilloscopes I've used only measure voltage. I understand that voltage can be a measure of some other physical parameter, but it is typically up to the observer to determine the "translation" of voltage to physical property.

Best Regards!

11/12/2012 10:08 AM EST

Acceleration is a change of speed; constant angular velocity is precisely that- constant angular velocity is. To measure summa vector you have to have a sophisticated memory scope that not only mark the spot, but produces trigonometrical functions like finding square root of summa square of X and Y. I did spent some time working with your remarks but I am sorry that this would be my final reply on your req.
I wish you all the best in further searches and info gatherings.

11/13/2012 10:22 AM EST

It is a good question.
In some books you may find positive opinion about existence of a non-inertial frame of reference. I don’t think so and here is why.
An inertial frame of reference is “tacitly assumed co-ordinate system in which we would specify the position of the particle from instance to instance… and further, a means of measuring time…” Georg Joos “Theoretical Physics”.
Such frame is impossible to establish for light, since every measure of distance at speed of light is collapsing to zero and time is going into infinity.
Thanks

11/13/2012 1:42 PM EST

The Sagnac effect measures angular rotation - which is acceleration. Acceleration can be measured - that's easy enough. But every experiment on the subject in the last hundred years has conclusively demonstrated that you cannot detect linear velocity like this - it is the whole basis of relativity.

And there are vast numbers of completely pointless patents out there. IBM has a patent on faster-than-light travel, and there are dozens of patents on devices for letting you kick your own backside. The EETimes editors should be making use of them for publishing this article - it greatly lowers the website's standing.

11/13/2012 3:01 PM EST

Every comment that you have made so far demonstrates in-your-face attitude and total lack of knowledge in the area you are trying to explore.
This is my final reply on your comments and I hope that the editor will be aware of your inadequacy and behavior that is inappropriate for a subscriber of such professional magazine.

11/13/2012 5:07 PM EST

I'll happily agree that I've not been particularly polite here. I've called it as I see it, rather directly and to-the-point. And you have been very patient at repeating the same arguments. But what do you want me to say? Should I commend you on how politely you regurgitate nonsense?

I would /love/ your idea to be true. I fully agree that a non-inertial measurement of velocity from within the moving object would be a revolution.

But there are so many obvious flaws that I am surprised anyone thinks this is possible. I have tried to point out some of them, but was met with babble (photons are bosons and therefore have no mass!). If you would like, I can give you an expansive list of the more obvious effects from the inertial effects on photons. But I fully understand if you don't want to communicate any more here.

As for the editor of this article, I suspect he (or she) is cringing in a corner and hoping that this whole article will somehow just go away. To him (or her), I'd say that mistakes do happen - but maybe do a bit more reality checking before publishing next time. Mind you, this has been an entertaining article!

11/14/2012 2:26 AM EST

Of course the M-M experiment was performed on a non-stationary platform - at the equator you are moving at 463 m/s around the earth, at around 30 km/s around the sun, the solar system is moving at around 200 km/s around the centre of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is moving at about 300 km/s within the Local Group, and about 500 km/s compared to the cosmic microwave background.

The M-M experiment is not suitable for something like an aeroplane (though related experiments were done in balloons in the twenties) - any vibration would mess it up. But there have been huge numbers of different kinds of experiments demonstrating and confirming relativity that have been done in different places, moving at different speeds relative to the earth's surface.

11/14/2012 6:34 AM EST

Why would it be interesting? What do you really think it would show?

The M-M experiment was designed to confirm that the speed of light is the same in every direction (well, two perpendicular directions). It was made to disprove the theory of "ether" as a physical medium for light waves. It confirmed that the speed of light is independent of direction (and hence there is no ether), to within the margin of experimental error.

Later experiments have greatly improved on the accuracy of M-M.

All sorts of experiments have further confirmed the theory of relativity in all sorts of circumstances. There are still plenty of open questions in physics, of course - combining relativity and quantum mechanics is the big one, along with questions about the constancy of fundamental constants (such as "c") throughout the history of the universe.

But you can be sure that the speed of light measured by M-M experiments will be independent of direction, regardless of where you do the experiment.

So taking an M-M experiment into space is as useful as taking a multimeter, a battery, and some resistors just to check that Ohm's law works in orbit.

11/14/2012 9:50 AM EST

I hate to intrude into your friendly exchange and turn the subject of the article into the colloquium on physics that I ran with my students long time ago, but there is a couple of thoughts.
Firstly, there are no problems between Relativity (Special and General) and Quantum Mechanics; there are some discrepancies between Classic and Quantum Electrodynamics.
Secondly, before call M-M a failure you have to realize what this experiment did prove. You may be surprised by your findings.
Anyway, if there will be more discussion on this subject it would be more productive to move it away from this article and into some other media like twitter, and etc...

11/14/2012 10:12 AM EST

I did not mean to be specific about the issues surrounding the combination between relativity and quantum mechanics - I know there are some things that work fine, and some things that have big unanswered questions. I think that is enough detail here (unless you want to go into depth).

And I don't consider M-M to be a failure - I can't see how you read that into my posts. It attempted to measure the ether drag - by failing to do so, it succeeded in disproving the ether theory. So it was very much a success.

The comments section here is primarily for discussing the article in question - and is therefore the best place for such discussions. I agree that more detailed discussions of QED or relativity would be best moved elsewhere - but I am not sure if there is a worse possible choice than twitter! After all, it is not a discussion for short and concise posts.

A more suitable forum might be a newsgroup like sci.physics.relativity