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@briar.demon.co.uk on 7 Nov 2005 08:36 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > >news:h3rfm11mk9sladl6qt8le2093f8l7ik3qe(a)4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > > >>>> No. 'c' is the closing speed of the beam and the next mirror, > >>>> the direction of which is 45 degrees. > >>> > >>>So far we agree. > >>> > >>>> The beam is not the horizontal one. It is angled slightly > >>>> downwards to meet the mirror in its new position. > >>> > >>>No, the "new position" is the 600m figure in the car > >>>example. You have to use the distance to the mirror > >>>at the instant when the light is emitted, not when > >>>the light will be reflected, if you choose to use > >>>closing speed. > >> > >> George, now give your leading car a sideways speed component as well as > >> the 30 > >> m/s instantaneous speed component in the direction of the second car. The > >> second car has to point diagonally to reach the first. It takes longer > >> than 20 > >> seconds to catch it and moves more than 800 metres. > > > >This is perhaps getting away from the point a bit but it > >might help to clear this up. Closing speed is meaningful > >when one object is following the same path as another but > >is some distance behind, for example cars on a race track. > >You can measure the distance not along the straight line > >between cars but along the path. Think of two cars each > >holding constant speed but on a winding mountain road. > >Closing speed is then the rate at which that length is > >decreasing. If you take the initial separation and divide > >by the closing speed, you get the time for the second car > >to catch the first. > > Don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject. You introduced the idea of using "closing speed" Henri, not me. > Your initial example only considered the speed component along the > line joining the two cars. If youconsider how closing speed is defined as I explained above, you should understand why. > If you introduce a sideways components as > well, as in the sagnac, you get an entirely difffernet result. No you don't because ... > >Henri, the mirror is moving in a circle relative to the > >source so the length is no greater even though there is > >a transverse component. > > Let's go back to the non-rotating table frame. OK, I'll reply separately then. George
From: george@briar.demon.co.uk on 7 Nov 2005 08:59 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > >news:h3rfm11mk9sladl6qt8le2093f8l7ik3qe(a)4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> .... > Let's go back to the non-rotating table frame. > > Here, the beam moves at very nearly c+v/root2v towards the mirror''s new > position when the beam arrives. After each reflection, it continues at > c+v/root2 wrt the table. The second beam moves at c-v/root2 towards the third > mirror's new position. You have an extra "v" in the first formula, just a typo I assume. Barring that, you have this part correct. > This approach gives a similar answer to your classical analysis except that the > fringe shift should be about 35% of the 'aether prediction', (I think). No, you are forgetting that, in the non-rotating table frame, the detector moves during the time the light is moving. The distance in c+v/sqrt(2) direction will be increased while that in the c-v/sqrt(2) direction is decreased. The fractional change in distance is the same as the change of speed hence times are unaffected. > Since the gyros are calibrated empirically, I don't think the difference would > be noticed. Electronic components are generally to 1% of non-critical functions. Any error greater than than would be noticed. For scientific measurements, calibration must be independent of the measurement and errors would need to be several orders of magnitude lower to go unnoticed. Ring lasers can measure to 10^-11 rad/s I believe. The rotation of the Earth is about 10^-5 so an error of one part per million would easily show up. > >>>I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps > >>>I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. > >>>In Ritzian theory, the light is emitted at some speed greater > >>>than c from the source. The speed can be found by taking the > >>>magnitude of the vector sum of the mirror velocity and a > >>>vector of magnitude c whose direction is such that the light > >>>eventually reaches the detector. > > > >I agree what you say next, do you agree what I say above? Henri, can you confirm the above please, I didn't think it was contentious but you seem to be avoiding it. Your use of 1/sqrt(2) above seems to follow this. > >> I would say that in the mirror frame, the light arrives at c and is therefore > >> reflected at c....which makes it the same situation as light from the source > >> towards the first mirror. > > > >I agree but your previous question was "(in the table frame)". .... > >> You car analogy was plainly wrong. > >> You have to move the leading car sideways as well as forward. > > > >You missed that the motion of the target mirror is circular > >hence there is no increase of distance in the source frame. > >There is an increase in the table frame of course. > > Yes. I am reverting to the table frame now. In that case, please answer above so we can have an agreed starting point. > We should be looking at travel times around the loop rather than distance > traveled. Definitely, the difference between the two path times is what is measured. > >> I should imagine ring gyros are calibrated empirically anyway. > > > >The maximum range of calibration would be orders of > >magnitude smaller though, there is no way you can get > >away with such a large error. > > the 'error' is about 65%, quite easy to live with. It isn't really an error. Anything over about 10^-6 is going to put you outside the experimental verification, possibly even tighter. > >>>The distance is to the point of reflection at the instant > >>>the light is emitted, the consequence of the motion of the > >>>mirror is included in using closing speed so if you adjust > >>>the distance too, you double count its effect. > >> > >> No your car example was wrong. Try again. > > > >The motion of the mirror in the source frame is at a fixed > >radius so the distance doesn't change. > > your car example was still wrong. No, my car analogy explained what "closing speed" means. If you think the conclusion was wrong, it was your attempt to use closing speed which was an inappropriate method. I can agree with that in the multiple mirror setup since the light, source/detector and mirrors don't follow the same path but it is perfectly correct for the fibre gyro setup where the light follows a circumferential path. George
From: bz on 7 Nov 2005 11:13 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:us1tm1l0lnqd0s24fvbvbit6gc696nk8rj(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 22:52:15 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:9j7qm11q757607098e6q9gro77t73pt4vn(a)4ax.com: >> > >>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. >> >>I understand your evasive answers. >> >>It doesn't matter to me if you answer the questions or not. >> >>I have been trying to help you Henri. It is important to YOU to answer >>the questions. > > I don't need help. That should be obvious. Splorf. As I said, it is important to YOU that you be able to answer. >>Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA. >> >>No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was >>alive. The store window dummy doesn't need CPR, either. Looks like I have been beating a plastic horse. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Nov 2005 16:25 On 7 Nov 2005 01:06:02 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >[snip contentless response] > >How about responding to my post here? > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b2c67482fbea6402?dmode=source&hl=en > >Or are you incapable of complying with my simple request? I don't have time Geese. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Nov 2005 16:27
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:13:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:us1tm1l0lnqd0s24fvbvbit6gc696nk8rj(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 22:52:15 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:9j7qm11q757607098e6q9gro77t73pt4vn(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >>>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. >>> >>>I understand your evasive answers. >>> >>>It doesn't matter to me if you answer the questions or not. >>> >>>I have been trying to help you Henri. It is important to YOU to answer >>>the questions. >> >> I don't need help. That should be obvious. > >Splorf. As I said, it is important to YOU that you be able to answer. > >>>Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA. >>> >>>No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was >>>alive. > >The store window dummy doesn't need CPR, either. > >Looks like I have been beating a plastic horse. You refuse to answer MY questions so why should I bother with yours. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". |