Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: George Dishman on 9 Oct 2005 03:34 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:f4mgk1ls96rgfjoplja5l2munbhkctkaii(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:44:13 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ph6fk1hmlf1hfm5ddp8ai3a1totfk0a1rt(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>news:lgpdk1p5mbj1dipuqa52n434e94li2hhtn(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>>>>> George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that >>>>>>> matters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is ZERO. >>>>>> >>>>>>No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of >>>>>>the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters. >>>>>>You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next! >>>>> >>>>> Your basic physics is sadly lacking George. >>>> >>>>If you think one mirror hits the next, it >>>>is your understanding of the apparatus that >>>>is sadly lacking Henri. >>> >>> George, let me explain. >> >>Good idea, it helps to flush out any misunderstandings. >> >>> You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the >>> movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the >>> speed of the observer relative to the source. >> >>No. What I call the "lab frame" is an inertial frame >>(not rotating) defined such that the central point of >>the turntable is at rest. The easy way is to take that >>point as the origin. >> >>I have always said that the speed of the light in the >>lab frame is the vector sum of the velocity of the >>source and a vector describing the emission. The vector >>sum points in the direction of the point where the light >>must reflect off the first mirror so that it eventually >>reaches the detector because only light that hits the >>detector affects the output of the detector (you seem to >>think that light that misses the detector defines the >>output, a view I have never understood). The magnitude >>of the resultant can then be determined by trigonometry. >> >>> In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed >>> is at right angles to the first mirror. >>> Its speed component towards the mirror is zero. >> >>In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period! > > Well OK. > I shouldn't have said 'the rotating frame'. Just the mirror frame. It's easy to make these little slips in the heat of the argument, I do the same myself. > In the '1st mirror frame' the source's component velocity in the mirror > direction is zero. > > You neglected to incorporate the mirror's velocity in your previous > arguments. I have never worked in the first mirror frame, only the lab frame or occassionally the rotating frame. > In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that mirror. > Its > velocity component towards the mirror is zero. > >>The light is emitted at c from the source but will then >>vary along the path as the radius varies between source >>and mirror. > > Since the source is orbiting the first mirror, we have a transverse > doppler > situation. We are not worried about Doppler as it cancels out round the loop. What does matter is the propagation time. The source has a purely transverse speed in the mirror frame but the sum of that transverse speed plus the emission speed of c almost towards the mirror gives a vector sum which is exactly towards the mirror but at slightly less than c. >>For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two >>frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity. > > Source speed doesn't enter directly into the picture. The vector sum brings it in and the detector responds to differences in arrival time. >>For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the >>analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed >>is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output >>cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames >>must give the same result. > > ...and that argument applies to SR as well. So sagnac refutes SR. > > The only one that explains sagnac is LET. Sorry Henri, SR works just fine, denial doesn't work. > However I prefer my 'light axis' theory. I'm not surprised. The fact that the use of polarising fibre eliminates is something you can just ignore. Not that you have a theory anyway, no equations, just hand-waving. > Now I can add that Sagnac is just a 'transverse doppler effect'.... Doppler would produce a fixed rate of shift, not a displacement of the fringes, or in the case of a photodetector an sine wave output instead of a DC output which depends on the rate of rotation. Also, transverse Doppler only ccurs in SR and LET, there is no such thing in Ritz's theory. > ....and you will > find that 'gamma' appears in the maths. Gamma is second order, the Sagnac effect is first order. >>>>>>> Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. >>>>>> >>>>>>Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about >>>>>>a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything. >><snip to clarify> >>>>No "explanations" Henri, show the maths that >>>>gives you the predicted output. >>> >>> Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version. >> >>Perhaps you lost the plot, the question was what >>does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null >>result. > > Ritz has no bearing on Sagnac for the above reasons. Ritz is a theory of light and therefore makes a prediction in the case of Sagnac. That prediction is null but the observation isn't, Ritz is wrong. > In the frame of any component, the previous component moves in a > circle...and > thus contributes no speed component to the beam. Then a Ritzian prediction must take that into account, or better still don't choose such a difficult frame to work in, use the lab frame. >>>>No it isn't. If you insist on using the second >>>>mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather >>>>odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is >>>>as good as any other), then the speed of the light >>>>is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be >>>>determined) and v perpendicular to path. That >>>>isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras. >>> >>> Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE >>> NEXT. >> >>If that is to be your approach, you have to analyse >>the first leg from source to first mirror in the >>frame of the first mirror, then do a transform into >>the frame of the second mirror before analysing the >>second leg, etc.. You haven't accounted for the >>transform effects. At the end of the day, the result >>can be no different from either of the two methods >>we discussed above - a null result. > > there are NO transforms. > > The source orbits the first mirror. For the next leg applying the same view, you work in the frame of the second mirror. You have to transform the results of the first leg which you found in the first mirror frame into the second before you can do the next stage. That shouldn't actually worry you, it is Galilean transforms, not Lorentz transforms we are talking about. > Sagnac is a transverse doppler effect. > I have finally provided you with a plausible answer. It isn't plausible Henri, Doppler changes frequency and putting two different frequencies into an interferometer gives you a moving fringe pattern. Look into a Sagnac experiment and the pattern is static. (The pattern moves during constant rotational acceleration of the table because of Doppler but not when rotating at constant speed.) >>> The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The >>> bit >>> that >>> hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it >>> is >>> still. >> >>And you know from personal experience that moving the >>beam sideways does not alter the fringes. You said you >>had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we >>have been over all this before. > > All right . None of that matters now. I have found the answer. Not yet. >>>>Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for >>>>Maxwell's equations but in anything other than >>>>a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index. >>>>That's basic physics Henri, you must know that. >>> >>> Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the >>> act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum >> >>Irrelevant Henri, the speed is c in the lab frame >>in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge >>all you like, you cannot change that. > > SR just reiterates the aether concept. Nope. You really should try to find out what SR says. You were close a few weeks ago but I am still waiting for your answer to this: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/75f05646b8cd1bec About half way done there is this quoted text: >>> You are not even prepared to consider the possibility that the clocks >>> are not perfect and might have malfunctioned under the different >>> conditions From there on is relevant to SR, the rest is probably 'water under the bridge' by now. >>> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space >>> is >>> zero. >> >>Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed >>of light would be infinite in ANY medium. > > There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'. > > There can be a 'speed of light relative to..' True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite. >>>>>>Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and >>>>>>you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have >>>>>>pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to >>>>>>polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical >>>>>>cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation >>>>>>reducing the accuracy so think again. >>>>> >>>>> Ritz died prematurely. >>>> >>>>His theory is what it is and still predicts >>>>a null result. >>> >>> Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date. >>> I'm trying to do that for him. >> >>Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's >>theory predicts a null result. > > No, George. > I have now provided you with something to seriously ponder. > The Sagnac effect is based on transverse doppler.... I do agree you have given this more serious consideration this time, but unfortunately a Doppler-based result gives the wrong kind of output. Ritzian theory still gives a null prediction. The problem Henri is that Ritzian theory was published in 1908. There's nothing you can do to change it and it gives the wrong answer. That doesn't stop you inventing a new theory called BaT but it needs to differ somehow from Ritz to give a different answer and you need to define what that difference is in your equations so everyone can test it. My expectation is that any change you put in to cope with Sagnac will cause some other prediction to fail. George
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 9 Oct 2005 07:00 "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:20051009114807.F31155(a)emu.uq.edu.au... | On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote: | | > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: | > | | > | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought | > the | > | ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a | > real | > | test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been | > | possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. | > | > I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, I'll | > only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship | > games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out. | | Oh, so your "rules of discussion" mean that you consider bad language, | insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from | curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way? The rules of discussion are those set out by Phuckwit Duck aka Paul Draper, relativist, and broken by him in *his* pompous know-it-all and now bitter attitude. Here's how it began: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Draper: I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD Draper: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment. But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion. Androcles: I'll agree to your terms. My terms: Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed. I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the discussion continued until I have convince you or you have convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phuckwit Duck was *plonked* for failing to follow his own rules, the exchange was never fruitful. Phuckwit Duck remains enchanted and bitter that his shot from the duck blind blew out his own tailfeathers. From: "PD" <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Bielawski agrees with Androcles for a change. Date: 7 Oct 2005 15:04:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: 1128722656.705288.224380(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com That fumble was truly spectacular. What was amazing was his sticking to his guns on the arithmetic error. He apparently can't say "oops" without vomiting uncontrollably. PD I did of course address the alleged fumble, but Phuckwit Duck has to vomit uncontrollably. So now you know and need not guess what the rules of discussion are. Please acknowledge them. | You insist that you can | repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the | discussion proceeding? No. | Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or | whether you really mean "the Androclean way". | | The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage: You are a LIAR, the last thing I said in that discussion was "Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the Maxwell equations." (instigitated of course by Timo Nieminen) Timo Nieminen: Oh? Yes, my mistake. Sorry about that." Under the rule of discussion by Phuckwit Duck: "We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion", we have reached a point of conflict. Please acknowledge that you've lied, I did not run out, you did. Androcles.
From: donstockbauer on 9 Oct 2005 07:08 Phuckwit Duck. Isn't that a new childrens' cartoon on the telly?????
From: Jeff Root on 9 Oct 2005 08:11 George replied to Henri: >>>> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in >>>> completely empty space is zero. >>> >>> Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed >>> of light would be infinite in ANY medium. >> >> There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'. >> >> There can be a 'speed of light relative to..' > > True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value > of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite. Henri and Ralph should collaborate. I wonder whether Henri would go along with Ralph's constant of one second, or Ralph would go along with Henri's constant of something less than 10^-20 kg/m^3. Of course, Henri loves graphs, while Ralph hates them. Opposites attract, right? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 9 Oct 2005 08:31
"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1128859880.389440.18570(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | George replied to Henri: | | >>>> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in | >>>> completely empty space is zero. | >>> | >>> Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed | >>> of light would be infinite in ANY medium. | >> | >> There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'. | >> | >> There can be a 'speed of light relative to..' | > | > True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value | > of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite. | It's amazing how many stooopid phuckwits think 1/0 = infinity, when any mathematician knows it is undefined. Androcles. | Henri and Ralph should collaborate. | | I wonder whether Henri would go along with Ralph's | constant of one second, or Ralph would go along with | Henri's constant of something less than 10^-20 kg/m^3. | | Of course, Henri loves graphs, while Ralph hates them. | Opposites attract, right? | | -- Jeff, in Minneapolis | |