A Lesson In Sagnac and Rotating frames, For Paul, Tom and Jerry.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Atoms are round hard things that don't go flat
Next: Lunar Laser-Ranging Detection of Light-Speed Anisotropy
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Feb 2010 18:13 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:28:56 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:o1oon595e9kfg9m9hnvdtvflb4b8naa6p1(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:10:56 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> >>>Good to see that you still are able to invent new stupidities >>>and not only are recycling old ones. >>>This was definitely one of your better. >>> >>>Keep it up, the sky is the limit! > >ok .. so now you have: > >> ==//=================p---------q|====================//====optical tube >> ________________________earth____<-v__________________(actually curved) > >So is tube attached to the earth, or is the tube stationary (in the NonR >inertial frame) and the earth moving at <-v wrt as your diagram seems to >indicate? The tube is attached to the Earth. >I'll assume that you just drew the diagram poorly, and that the tube is >moving with the earth. And that points p and q are moving relative to the >tube (and the earth) and so are fixed in the NonR inertial frame. The points p and q are 'plotted' on the nonR frame. They represent the positions of the source/detecter when ONE PARTICULAR pulse is emitted and detected. The whole configuration rotates with the Earth so that when the next pulse is emitted, p1,q1 would be slightly displaced from p and q...(again, drawn in the nonR frame). p62,q62 would be 1 metre from p,q. Paul, Tom and Jerry have always wrongly claimed that the points p and q are together in the rotating frame...and that BaTh is therefore refuted. These point are still those that a rotating observer would 'see' drawn on the non R frame, if that were possible. Thus p and q are always separated even though they would 'move' in the R frame. This is true even in the rotating frame of the pulses themselves, except that p and q would be much closer together. >Yes? > >> A pulse of light is emitted every 3.333 nanosecs by a source. > >I'll assume that the source is moving with the earth (and tube) as well. > >Yes? > >> The pulses, which are separated by 1 metre, are sent down an >> optical fibre that is wrapped around the earth.. There are >> 4000000 pulses around the equator. > >OK > >I'll assume they are only going in one direction in this example. > >Yes? > >> A pulse emitted at point q will travel leftward around the Earth through >> the >> fibre before reaching a detector at point p. During its travel time the >> Earth >> revolves by 62 metres. > >OK > >> We will consider what happens when pulse N is emitted at point q. > >I'll assume the source was moving along with the earth, and when it arrives >at point q it emits a pulse. It is always at a point we label 'q' even though points q(n) move around the nonR frame in a circle. >Yes? > >> It will pass >> through point p then travel around the Earth before being finally absorbed >> again at point p. > >I'm assuming that point p is where the source is at the time the pulses >arrives back at a detector. > >Yes? > >> When it is emitted, there are 62 pulses between q and p. > >OK .. ones that were emitted before the source was at q, yes. > >> When pulse N reaches p >> the first time, there are say 61 pulses >> between p and q and 62 pulses have >> already passed through point p. > >OK. > >> There are 4000000-61 pulses around the earth >> at that instant between p and q. > >I'll assume you mean the there are 61 in small gap from q to p, and >4000000-61 in the larger gap from p back to q. > >> So another 61 + 4000000 - 61 pulses will reach > >41? Don't you mean 61? I did. >> p by the time N gets there. That makes 4000062 altogether. > >Yes. > >> In the other direction, only 3999938 arrive in the same time. > >Yes. > >For a detector that is at a fixed point q in the NonR inertial frame and >does *not* move with the source and tube. > >This is a very different scenario from what you described previously (and >different to Sagnac) where the detector moves with the source and tube. But it isn't. The rotating observer still sees the two points p and q as being separated. He marks them on the nonR frame, which appears to move backwards. >Clearly if the source is moving with the earth, and the detector is not, but >is fixed in a non-rotating inertial frame, you can work out the rotation >rate just be seeing how the source moves away from the detector .. you don't >need to go counting pulses. You cannot actually mark the bloody points on the nonR frame. You would need a bloody big sheet of paper. >So what does this have to do with your ridiculous claims about your ORIGINAL >setup, where you had a tube attached to the earth, and a source+detector at >same location on the tube ?? Read this and you might understand > Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 18 Feb 2010 18:46 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ftfrn5t9ac6usbt1spklokjeqgl613e6gt(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:28:56 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:o1oon595e9kfg9m9hnvdtvflb4b8naa6p1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:10:56 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >>>> >>>>Good to see that you still are able to invent new stupidities >>>>and not only are recycling old ones. >>>>This was definitely one of your better. >>>> >>>>Keep it up, the sky is the limit! >> >>ok .. so now you have: >> >>> ==//=================p---------q|====================//====optical tube >>> ________________________earth____<-v__________________(actually curved) >> >>So is tube attached to the earth, or is the tube stationary (in the NonR >>inertial frame) and the earth moving at <-v wrt as your diagram seems to >>indicate? > > The tube is attached to the Earth. > >>I'll assume that you just drew the diagram poorly, and that the tube is >>moving with the earth. And that points p and q are moving relative to the >>tube (and the earth) and so are fixed in the NonR inertial frame. > > The points p and q are 'plotted' on the nonR frame. They represent the > positions of the source/detecter when ONE PARTICULAR pulse is emitted and > detected. p when emitted, q when detected at different times > The whole configuration rotates with the Earth so that when the next > pulse is emitted, p1,q1 would be slightly displaced from p and q...(again, > drawn in the nonR frame). p62,q62 would be 1 metre from p,q. yes > Paul, Tom and Jerry have always wrongly claimed that the points p and q > are > together in the rotating frame... The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the rotating frame are together in the rotating frame The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the non-rotating frame are not together in the non-rotating frame > and that BaTh is therefore refuted. It is. Your lies and stupidity don't make it true > These point are still those that a rotating observer would 'see' drawn on > the > non R frame, if that were possible. Thus p and q are always separated even > though they would 'move' in the R frame. This is true even in the rotating > frame of the pulses themselves, except that p and q would be much closer > together. > >>Yes? >> >>> A pulse of light is emitted every 3.333 nanosecs by a source. >> >>I'll assume that the source is moving with the earth (and tube) as well. >> >>Yes? >> >>> The pulses, which are separated by 1 metre, are sent down an >>> optical fibre that is wrapped around the earth.. There are >>> 4000000 pulses around the equator. >> >>OK >> >>I'll assume they are only going in one direction in this example. >> >>Yes? >> >>> A pulse emitted at point q will travel leftward around the Earth through >>> the >>> fibre before reaching a detector at point p. During its travel time the >>> Earth >>> revolves by 62 metres. >> >>OK >> >>> We will consider what happens when pulse N is emitted at point q. >> >>I'll assume the source was moving along with the earth, and when it >>arrives >>at point q it emits a pulse. > > It is always at a point we label 'q' No .. it is not at q is a fixed point in the non-rotating frame. A fixed point on the tube in the *rotating* frame cannot always be at a fixed point in the non-rotating frame > even though points q(n) move around the > nonR frame in a circle. There are multiple q_n points. the source moves from one to the next. It is not always at the ONE point you labeled q. To claim it is is just another of your lies. >>Yes? >> >>> It will pass >>> through point p then travel around the Earth before being finally >>> absorbed >>> again at point p. >> >>I'm assuming that point p is where the source is at the time the pulses >>arrives back at a detector. >> >>Yes? >> >>> When it is emitted, there are 62 pulses between q and p. >> >>OK .. ones that were emitted before the source was at q, yes. >> >>> When pulse N reaches p >>> the first time, there are say 61 pulses >>> between p and q and 62 pulses have >>> already passed through point p. >> >>OK. >> >>> There are 4000000-61 pulses around the earth >>> at that instant between p and q. >> >>I'll assume you mean the there are 61 in small gap from q to p, and >>4000000-61 in the larger gap from p back to q. >> >>> So another 61 + 4000000 - 61 pulses will reach >> >>41? Don't you mean 61? > > I did. > >>> p by the time N gets there. That makes 4000062 altogether. >> >>Yes. >> >>> In the other direction, only 3999938 arrive in the same time. >> >>Yes. >> >>For a detector that is at a fixed point q in the NonR inertial frame and >>does *not* move with the source and tube. >> >>This is a very different scenario from what you described previously (and >>different to Sagnac) where the detector moves with the source and tube. > > But it isn't. It is TOTALLY difference as you have the detector point always at 'p' so it is FIXED in the non-rotating frame > The rotating observer still sees the two points p and q as being > separated. He marks them on the nonR frame, which appears to move > backwards. Which has NOTHING TO DO with what happens in Sagnac .. because there is no detector that is always at fixed point p and no source that is always at fixed point p. Describing what happens over time at those fixed points in the non-rotating frame has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the Sagnac effect or anything you have been claiming. >>Clearly if the source is moving with the earth, and the detector is not, >>but >>is fixed in a non-rotating inertial frame, you can work out the rotation >>rate just be seeing how the source moves away from the detector .. you >>don't >>need to go counting pulses. > > You cannot actually mark the bloody points on the nonR frame. Of course you could. > You would need a > bloody big sheet of paper. Then use one. This is a gedanken. >>So what does this have to do with your ridiculous claims about your >>ORIGINAL >>setup, where you had a tube attached to the earth, and a source+detector >>at >>same location on the tube ?? > > Read this and you might understand I have read .. I understand .. you're a liar who purports to understand physics and has no idea about it.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Feb 2010 20:11 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:46:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:ftfrn5t9ac6usbt1spklokjeqgl613e6gt(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:28:56 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>news:o1oon595e9kfg9m9hnvdtvflb4b8naa6p1(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:10:56 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >>>>> >>>>>Good to see that you still are able to invent new stupidities >>>>>and not only are recycling old ones. >>>>>This was definitely one of your better. >>>>> >>>>>Keep it up, the sky is the limit! >>> >>>ok .. so now you have: >>> >>>> ==//=================p---------q|====================//====optical tube >>>> ________________________earth____<-v__________________(actually curved) >>> >>>So is tube attached to the earth, or is the tube stationary (in the NonR >>>inertial frame) and the earth moving at <-v wrt as your diagram seems to >>>indicate? >> >> The tube is attached to the Earth. >> >>>I'll assume that you just drew the diagram poorly, and that the tube is >>>moving with the earth. And that points p and q are moving relative to the >>>tube (and the earth) and so are fixed in the NonR inertial frame. >> >> The points p and q are 'plotted' on the nonR frame. They represent the >> positions of the source/detecter when ONE PARTICULAR pulse is emitted and >> detected. > >p when emitted, q when detected at different times actually it is the other way round. q is emission point. >> The whole configuration rotates with the Earth so that when the next >> pulse is emitted, p1,q1 would be slightly displaced from p and q...(again, >> drawn in the nonR frame). p62,q62 would be 1 metre from p,q. > >yes > >> Paul, Tom and Jerry have always wrongly claimed that the points p and q >> are >> together in the rotating frame... > >The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the rotating frame >are together in the rotating frame seemingly so but wrong...which is why people make mistakes when they use rotating frames. Points p and q are 'drawn' on the nonR frame, which spins backwards in the R frame. So they remain apart to a viewer in the rotating frame. >The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the non-rotating >frame are not together in the non-rotating frame correct. >> and that BaTh is therefore refuted. > >It is. Your lies and stupidity don't make it true Sorry, you are no smarter than paul, tom or jerry. >> These point are still those that a rotating observer would 'see' drawn on >> the >> non R frame, if that were possible. Thus p and q are always separated even >> though they would 'move' in the R frame. This is true even in the rotating >> frame of the pulses themselves, except that p and q would be much closer >> together. >> >>>Yes? >>> >>>> A pulse of light is emitted every 3.333 nanosecs by a source. >>> >>>I'll assume that the source is moving with the earth (and tube) as well. >>> >>>Yes? >>> >>>> The pulses, which are separated by 1 metre, are sent down an >>>> optical fibre that is wrapped around the earth.. There are >>>> 4000000 pulses around the equator. >>> >>>OK >>> >>>I'll assume they are only going in one direction in this example. >>> >>>Yes? >>> >>>> A pulse emitted at point q will travel leftward around the Earth through >>>> the >>>> fibre before reaching a detector at point p. During its travel time the >>>> Earth >>>> revolves by 62 metres. >>> >>>OK >>> >>>> We will consider what happens when pulse N is emitted at point q. >>> >>>I'll assume the source was moving along with the earth, and when it >>>arrives >>>at point q it emits a pulse. >> >> It is always at a point we label 'q' > >No .. it is not at q is a fixed point in the non-rotating frame. A fixed >point on the tube in the *rotating* frame cannot always be at a fixed point >in the non-rotating frame > >> even though points q(n) move around the >> nonR frame in a circle. > >There are multiple q_n points. the source moves from one to the next. It >is not always at the ONE point you labeled q. To claim it is is just >another of your lies. q(n) is where the emitter was when pulse(n) was emitted. It is marked on the nonR frame, where it is static. When viewed in the R frame, both q(n) and p(n) remain separated but appear to spin backwards. >>>Yes? >>> >>>> It will pass >>>> through point p then travel around the Earth before being finally >>>> absorbed >>>> again at point p. >>> >>>I'm assuming that point p is where the source is at the time the pulses >>>arrives back at a detector. >>> >>>Yes? >>> >>>> When it is emitted, there are 62 pulses between q and p. >>> >>>OK .. ones that were emitted before the source was at q, yes. >>> >>>> When pulse N reaches p >>>> the first time, there are say 61 pulses >>>> between p and q and 62 pulses have >>>> already passed through point p. >>> >>>OK. >>> >>>> There are 4000000-61 pulses around the earth >>>> at that instant between p and q. >>> >>>I'll assume you mean the there are 61 in small gap from q to p, and >>>4000000-61 in the larger gap from p back to q. >>> >>>> So another 61 + 4000000 - 61 pulses will reach >>> >>>41? Don't you mean 61? >> >> I did. >> >>>> p by the time N gets there. That makes 4000062 altogether. >>> >>>Yes. >>> >>>> In the other direction, only 3999938 arrive in the same time. >>> >>>Yes. >>> >>>For a detector that is at a fixed point q in the NonR inertial frame and >>>does *not* move with the source and tube. >>> >>>This is a very different scenario from what you described previously (and >>>different to Sagnac) where the detector moves with the source and tube. >> >> But it isn't. > >It is TOTALLY difference as you have the detector point always at 'p' so it >is FIXED in the non-rotating frame points p(n) and q(n) move around the nonR frame by an amount proportional to n. > >> The rotating observer still sees the two points p and q as being >> separated. He marks them on the nonR frame, which appears to move >> backwards. > >Which has NOTHING TO DO with what happens in Sagnac .. because there is no >detector that is always at fixed point p and no source that is always at >fixed point p. Describing what happens over time at those fixed points in >the non-rotating frame has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the Sagnac effect or >anything you have been claiming. Every rotating frame has an associated inertial one. this is not the sole property of Einstein. >>>Clearly if the source is moving with the earth, and the detector is not, >>>but >>>is fixed in a non-rotating inertial frame, you can work out the rotation >>>rate just be seeing how the source moves away from the detector .. you >>>don't >>>need to go counting pulses. >> >> You cannot actually mark the bloody points on the nonR frame. > >Of course you could. > >> You would need a >> bloody big sheet of paper. > >Then use one. This is a gedanken. > >>>So what does this have to do with your ridiculous claims about your >>>ORIGINAL >>>setup, where you had a tube attached to the earth, and a source+detector >>>at >>>same location on the tube ?? >> >> Read this and you might understand > >I have read .. I understand .. you're a liar who purports to understand >physics and has no idea about it. Read it again. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 18 Feb 2010 20:32 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:gjorn5lsr572kq4mgs69cu0cf2c07vbtsv(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:46:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:ftfrn5t9ac6usbt1spklokjeqgl613e6gt(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:28:56 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:o1oon595e9kfg9m9hnvdtvflb4b8naa6p1(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:10:56 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Good to see that you still are able to invent new stupidities >>>>>>and not only are recycling old ones. >>>>>>This was definitely one of your better. >>>>>> >>>>>>Keep it up, the sky is the limit! >>>> >>>>ok .. so now you have: >>>> >>>>> ==//=================p---------q|====================//====optical >>>>> tube >>>>> ________________________earth____<-v__________________(actually >>>>> curved) >>>> >>>>So is tube attached to the earth, or is the tube stationary (in the NonR >>>>inertial frame) and the earth moving at <-v wrt as your diagram seems to >>>>indicate? >>> >>> The tube is attached to the Earth. >>> >>>>I'll assume that you just drew the diagram poorly, and that the tube is >>>>moving with the earth. And that points p and q are moving relative to >>>>the >>>>tube (and the earth) and so are fixed in the NonR inertial frame. >>> >>> The points p and q are 'plotted' on the nonR frame. They represent the >>> positions of the source/detecter when ONE PARTICULAR pulse is emitted >>> and >>> detected. >> >>p when emitted, q when detected at different times > > actually it is the other way round. q is emission point. Whatever .. swa pthe letters and you have the same point >>> The whole configuration rotates with the Earth so that when the next >>> pulse is emitted, p1,q1 would be slightly displaced from p and >>> q...(again, >>> drawn in the nonR frame). p62,q62 would be 1 metre from p,q. >> >>yes >> >>> Paul, Tom and Jerry have always wrongly claimed that the points p and q >>> are >>> together in the rotating frame... >> >>The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the rotating frame >>are together in the rotating frame > > seemingly so NO .. it is 'so' .. not 'seemingly so'. They are physcially at the one location in that frame at all times. They are physically both at the same location at all times in the NonR frame .. but that combined location changes over time. There is never a time in either frame when the source and detector are separated as you claim. > but wrong... Yes .. you are wrong .. we know that > which is why people make mistakes when they use > rotating frames. You should stop trying to do anlaysis of Sagnac as you clearly cannot handle what happens when things rotate. > Points p and q are 'drawn' on the nonR frame, which spins backwards in the > R > frame. So they remain apart to a viewer in the rotating frame. They make no difference to what happens in a Sagnac device (not in your tube-around-the-earth device. >>The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the non-rotating >>frame are not together in the non-rotating frame > > correct. > >>> and that BaTh is therefore refuted. >> >>It is. Your lies and stupidity don't make it true > > Sorry, you are no smarter than paul, tom or jerry. I don't claim to be .. we are simply ALL smarter than you. And honest. Something you'll never be. >>> These point are still those that a rotating observer would 'see' drawn >>> on >>> the >>> non R frame, if that were possible. Thus p and q are always separated >>> even >>> though they would 'move' in the R frame. This is true even in the >>> rotating >>> frame of the pulses themselves, except that p and q would be much closer >>> together. >>> >>>>Yes? >>>> >>>>> A pulse of light is emitted every 3.333 nanosecs by a source. >>>> >>>>I'll assume that the source is moving with the earth (and tube) as well. >>>> >>>>Yes? >>>> >>>>> The pulses, which are separated by 1 metre, are sent down an >>>>> optical fibre that is wrapped around the earth.. There are >>>>> 4000000 pulses around the equator. >>>> >>>>OK >>>> >>>>I'll assume they are only going in one direction in this example. >>>> >>>>Yes? >>>> >>>>> A pulse emitted at point q will travel leftward around the Earth >>>>> through >>>>> the >>>>> fibre before reaching a detector at point p. During its travel time >>>>> the >>>>> Earth >>>>> revolves by 62 metres. >>>> >>>>OK >>>> >>>>> We will consider what happens when pulse N is emitted at point q. >>>> >>>>I'll assume the source was moving along with the earth, and when it >>>>arrives >>>>at point q it emits a pulse. >>> >>> It is always at a point we label 'q' >> >>No .. it is not at q is a fixed point in the non-rotating frame. A fixed >>point on the tube in the *rotating* frame cannot always be at a fixed >>point >>in the non-rotating frame >> >>> even though points q(n) move around the >>> nonR frame in a circle. >> >>There are multiple q_n points. the source moves from one to the next. It >>is not always at the ONE point you labeled q. To claim it is is just >>another of your lies. > > q(n) is where the emitter was when pulse(n) was emitted. It is marked on > the > nonR frame, where it is static. > When viewed in the R frame, both q(n) and p(n) remain separated but appear > to > spin backwards. And that make no difference to what happens with the pulses. The emission rate of the pulses in each direction is the same, their arrival rate a the detector from each direction is the same. The time they take to travel around the tube is the same. The number of pulses in the tube in each direction at any time is the same. Pulses that are emitted together are detected together. None of your claims to the contrary on any of those points have any basis in fact or in logic >>>>Yes? >>>> >>>>> It will pass >>>>> through point p then travel around the Earth before being finally >>>>> absorbed >>>>> again at point p. >>>> >>>>I'm assuming that point p is where the source is at the time the pulses >>>>arrives back at a detector. >>>> >>>>Yes? >>>> >>>>> When it is emitted, there are 62 pulses between q and p. >>>> >>>>OK .. ones that were emitted before the source was at q, yes. >>>> >>>>> When pulse N reaches p >>>>> the first time, there are say 61 pulses >>>>> between p and q and 62 pulses have >>>>> already passed through point p. >>>> >>>>OK. >>>> >>>>> There are 4000000-61 pulses around the earth >>>>> at that instant between p and q. >>>> >>>>I'll assume you mean the there are 61 in small gap from q to p, and >>>>4000000-61 in the larger gap from p back to q. >>>> >>>>> So another 61 + 4000000 - 61 pulses will reach >>>> >>>>41? Don't you mean 61? >>> >>> I did. >>> >>>>> p by the time N gets there. That makes 4000062 altogether. >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>>> In the other direction, only 3999938 arrive in the same time. >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>>For a detector that is at a fixed point q in the NonR inertial frame and >>>>does *not* move with the source and tube. >>>> >>>>This is a very different scenario from what you described previously >>>>(and >>>>different to Sagnac) where the detector moves with the source and tube. >>> >>> But it isn't. >> >>It is TOTALLY difference as you have the detector point always at 'p' so >>it >>is FIXED in the non-rotating frame > > points p(n) and q(n) move around the nonR frame by an amount proportional > to n. And your point p (and q) is one point fixed in the NonR frame. Your explanation is exposed as invalid (yet again) >> >>> The rotating observer still sees the two points p and q as being >>> separated. He marks them on the nonR frame, which appears to move >>> backwards. >> >>Which has NOTHING TO DO with what happens in Sagnac .. because there is no >>detector that is always at fixed point p and no source that is always at >>fixed point p. Describing what happens over time at those fixed points in >>the non-rotating frame has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the Sagnac effect or >>anything you have been claiming. > > Every rotating frame has an associated inertial one. > this is not the sole property of Einstein. > >>>>Clearly if the source is moving with the earth, and the detector is not, >>>>but >>>>is fixed in a non-rotating inertial frame, you can work out the rotation >>>>rate just be seeing how the source moves away from the detector .. you >>>>don't >>>>need to go counting pulses. >>> >>> You cannot actually mark the bloody points on the nonR frame. >> >>Of course you could. >> >>> You would need a >>> bloody big sheet of paper. >> >>Then use one. This is a gedanken. >> >>>>So what does this have to do with your ridiculous claims about your >>>>ORIGINAL >>>>setup, where you had a tube attached to the earth, and a source+detector >>>>at >>>>same location on the tube ?? >>> >>> Read this and you might understand >> >>I have read .. I understand .. you're a liar who purports to understand >>physics and has no idea about it. > > Read it again. No point .. you're a lying scum. Reading your lies again doesn't make them true.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 19 Feb 2010 04:38
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:32:33 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:gjorn5lsr572kq4mgs69cu0cf2c07vbtsv(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:46:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>>> The whole configuration rotates with the Earth so that when the next >>>> pulse is emitted, p1,q1 would be slightly displaced from p and >>>> q...(again, >>>> drawn in the nonR frame). p62,q62 would be 1 metre from p,q. >>> >>>yes >>> >>>> Paul, Tom and Jerry have always wrongly claimed that the points p and q >>>> are >>>> together in the rotating frame... >>> >>>The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the rotating frame >>>are together in the rotating frame >> >> seemingly so > >NO .. it is 'so' .. not 'seemingly so'. They are physcially at the one >location in that frame at all times. They are physically both at the same >location at all times in the NonR frame .. but that combined location >changes over time. There is never a time in either frame when the source >and detector are separated as you claim. Now you have joined Paul, Tom and Jerry in their ignorance. You cannot seem to understand that the points p and q are drawn on the nonR frame and represent the position in that frame of the source/detector at TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. So an observer rotating with the source sees each 'p and q' separated but moving. >> but wrong... > >Yes .. you are wrong .. we know that You are as ignorant as paul, tom and jerry. >> which is why people make mistakes when they use >> rotating frames. > >You should stop trying to do anlaysis of Sagnac as you clearly cannot handle >what happens when things rotate. You should give up physics altogether because you don't have the aptitude for it. >> Points p and q are 'drawn' on the nonR frame, which spins backwards in the >> R >> frame. So they remain apart to a viewer in the rotating frame. > >They make no difference to what happens in a Sagnac device (not in your >tube-around-the-earth device. I've explained that. They do. >>>The points where the photon are emitted and detected in the non-rotating >>>frame are not together in the non-rotating frame >> >> correct. >> >>>> and that BaTh is therefore refuted. >>> >>>It is. Your lies and stupidity don't make it true >> >> Sorry, you are no smarter than paul, tom or jerry. > >I don't claim to be .. we are simply ALL smarter than you. And honest. >Something you'll never be. Sorry, you are probably more ignorant than paul, tom or jerry. >> q(n) is where the emitter was when pulse(n) was emitted. It is marked on >> the >> nonR frame, where it is static. >> When viewed in the R frame, both q(n) and p(n) remain separated but appear >> to >> spin backwards. > >And that make no difference to what happens with the pulses. The emission >rate of the pulses in each direction is the same, their arrival rate a the >detector from each direction is the same. The time they take to travel >around the tube is the same. The number of pulses in the tube in each >direction at any time is the same. Pulses that are emitted together are >detected together. In the nonR frame, the travel times are the same but the arrival rate is different from the two directions. In the rotating frame, the same applies because the emission point(s) appeear to be moving away backwardds and there is a similar doppler shift. >None of your claims to the contrary on any of those points have any basis in >fact or in logic None of my claims can be understood by anyone who doesn't have exceptional physics ability. >>>>>This is a very different scenario from what you described previously >>>>>(and >>>>>different to Sagnac) where the detector moves with the source and tube. >>>> >>>> But it isn't. >>> >>>It is TOTALLY difference as you have the detector point always at 'p' so >>>it >>>is FIXED in the non-rotating frame >> >> points p(n) and q(n) move around the nonR frame by an amount proportional >> to n. > >And your point p (and q) is one point fixed in the NonR frame. Your >explanation is exposed as invalid (yet again) Each pulse has its own 'p and q'. In the R frame, they move away to the right but remain separated by 62 pulses. >>>>>So what does this have to do with your ridiculous claims about your >>>>>ORIGINAL >>>>>setup, where you had a tube attached to the earth, and a source+detector >>>>>at >>>>>same location on the tube ?? >>>> >>>> Read this and you might understand >>> >>>I have read .. I understand .. you're a liar who purports to understand >>>physics and has no idea about it. >> >> Read it again. > >No point .. you're a lying scum. Reading your lies again doesn't make them >true. You are ignorant...like paul, tom and jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |