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: Henri Wilson on 14 Nov 2005 19:55 On 14 Nov 2005 15:41:12 -0800, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >> ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. > >Henri, this was precious! Your ability to see only what >you want to see and totally ignore reality is breathtaking. >Re-read the short sentence quoted above and try to figure >out how it contradicts itself. It is really comical! > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis You failed to appreciate that the word 'shift' can be both a noun and a verb. The fringe shift (noun) is proportional to speed but the fringe shift (verb) OCCURS ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. Maybe the purists would suggest that I should have phrased it as "the shifting of fringes"......... However I don't think you have the intelligence to understand the finer points of this anyway. 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: Black Knight on 14 Nov 2005 21:08 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:710in11itkr30i1fau1cv58rh91hi25cmo(a)4ax.com... > On 14 Nov 2005 05:37:52 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>Black Knight wrote: >>> >>> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches >>> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the >>> opposite side and meet back at grandpa if the carousel isn't turning, >>> ... >> >>Good analogy but the source and detector are on >>the turntable so Grandpa is on the carousel. You >>have shown why Ritz says there will be no output, >>the kids return to Grandpa at the same time >>regardless of the rate the carousel is turning. > > Forget it George. > I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. > . Forget it, H. The phuckwit writes to me and I'm not answering the idiot, he's already on my kill-file as a worthless turd. This Grandpa isn't getting in any kiddy carousel. You may have explained why it doesn't refute your bath water, I've explained why it DOES refute Einstein's phuckwittery, whatever the dish that ran away with the spoonfed says. BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on. Androcles.
From: Black Knight on 14 Nov 2005 21:09 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:dlavqn$c0i$2(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Henri Wilson wrote: >> I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. > > Nonsense. > Sagnac falsifies the BaT. > No question about it. > > Paul Nonsense. You've never seen a wavelength of light, doppler shifted or otherwise. Androcles.
From: Black Knight on 14 Nov 2005 21:11 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:45:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >>Eric Gisse wrote: >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> >>>>I think E = mc^2 follows from Maxwell's equations, >>>>EM-radiation has momentum. >>> >>> >>> That seemed highly reasonable to me. >>> >>> Though I was hoping for Henri to do it instead of you. >> >>No point in hoping for the impossible. >>It is thoroughly documented that Henri couldn't do it. > > I am more interested in the other question I asked. > > Has anyone ever shown that ALL the mass of an atom can be converted to > mc^2 > energy? > > It has probably been proved only for e+/e- pairs and for nuclear binding > energy. > > So far, no one has been able to convert a whole atom to energy. > > > >> >>Paul > > > HW. Why are you asking the tusselad? He doesn't know what a wavelength is, let alone any physics. Androcles.
From: Black Knight on 14 Nov 2005 21:25
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:dlb2uv$h0o$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 14 Nov 2005 05:19:05 -0800, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:52:57 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>>news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l(a)4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>>>George, George, George. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of >>>>>>the >>>>>>problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will move >>>>>>during >>>>>>constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. >>>>> >>>>>Actually they do, that's exactly how fibre gyros work. >>>>>The output is proportional to the angular velocity. >>>>>That is why these devices are such important evidence >>>>>and precisely why I have taken the trouble of bringing >>>>>them to your attention. >>>> >>>>George, a few months ago, you (or maybe it was Paul) went to great >>>>trouble >>>>to explain to me that fringes shift only during angular acceleration. >>>>Gyros >>>>indicate total rotation by continuously integrating the rate of fringe >>>>shift >>>>with time. >>>> >>>>Are you now saying this is wrong? >>> >>>I am sticking to what we both agreed. There had >>>been some talk earlier but we revised this around >>>the 11th October. See your message, ID: >>> >>>a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com >>> >>>[Henri wrote:] >>> >>>>[George wrote:] >>>> >>>>>[Henri wrote:] >>>>> >>>>>>George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the >>>>>>fringes move continuously or remain steady but offset? >>>> >>>>>The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >>>>>to the speed of rotation. >>>> >>>>(Yes I thought that's what came up before. Just checking). >>> >>>The formula for the Sagnac effect is: >>> >>>delta_t = 4Aw/(c^2-(wR)^2) >>> >>>where where w is the angular speed. For wR << c >>>that simplifies to: >>> >>>delta_t = 4Aw / c^2 >>> >>>so the output is proportional to the angular speed, >>>not the acceleration. >> >> >> That's correct. >> But the fringes only move during acceleration. >> >> >>>>>Acceleration is a more complex subject, involving Doppler >>>>>at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary >>>>>lack of cancellation due to the flight time delay between. >>>> >>>>When acceleration occurs, path lengths vary. >>>>The number of wavelengths in each path changes. >>>>Fringes MOVE. >>>> >>>>It matters not whether the beam moves at c or c+v. >>>> >>>>During constant rotation, including zero, there is no fringe movement. >>> >>>>From page 6 of the comprehensive reference Jerry >>>posted: >>> >>>"Sagnac's polygonal interferometer was mounted >>> on a turntable. It had an area of 0.0860 m^2, a >>> rotation rate of order 2 Hz, and the resulting >>> fractional fringe shift 0.07 +/- 0.01." >>> >>> >>>>>>Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. >>>>>>It expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. >>> >>>Exactly. >>> >>> >>>>>>BUT!!!! >>>>>>The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous >>>>>>fringe >>>>>>shift during steady rotation. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! >>>>> >>>>>If the output was proportional to acceleration then you >>>>>would be right. In fact the output is exactly what SR >>>>>predicts, it is proportional to the angular velocity in >>>>>actual devices and experiments. >>>> >>>>The output is given in degrees rotation from zero angle. That is >>>>calculated via >>>>a time integral during acceleration. >>> >>>Angle turned is the integral of angular speed. There is >>>a single integration to get the heading from the raw >>>signal which is proportional to speed, not acceleration. >> >> >> Yes George. The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS ONLY >> DURING >> ACCELERATION. > > Of course they MOVE only during angular acceleration. > But that's not how Sagnac is used. > The fringes are at different positions when the ring > is rotating compared to when it is not. > > That means that the number of wavelengths are not > the same in both directions when the ring is rotating. > > The BaT predicts that the fringes should be in the same > position. The BaT is falsified. > >>>>I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. >>> >>>Facts: >>> >>>1) Ritz predicts no fringe shift for constant angular >>> speed. >>> >>>2) Sagnac measured a fringe shift of 0.07 at constant >>> rate of 2Hz (120rpm) compared to non-rotating. >>> >>>3) The experiment measures the speed of light from the >>> moving source and it turns out to be unchanged from >>> that in the non-rotating situation. >>> >>>George >> >> >> Sorry George, you have it all wrong. >> >> The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a >> constant amount. >> You said this yourself on for instance,12th October. > > Exactly. > But the BaT predicts no displacement. > You don't have to consider what happens during the acceleration. > > BTW, it is pretty obvious what the BaT predicts should happen > during constant acceleration, though. > It is that the fringes should be displaced by an amount > proportional to the acceleration. But as soon as the acceleration > stops and the rotation is constant, the fringes should move back > to their original position. > > That's not what happens. > The BaT is falsified. > >> """"" >> >>>>George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the >>>>fringes move >>>>continuously or remain steady but offset? >>> >>>The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >>>to the speed of rotation." >> >> """"" >> >> The displacement arises from the path length change that occurs DURING >> ACCELERATION. The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY >> during >> acceleration. > > This is mumbo jumbo. > The displacement arises because the number of wavelengths > in opposite directions around the ring are different > when the ring rotates, and the difference is proportional > to the angular velocity. > The difference is caused by the rotation, not by the acceleration. > Of COURSE the fringes have to move to get in a different position > when the angular velocity changes, but the acceleration is not > the cause of the displacement. > > The BaT predicts no displacement. > The BaT is falsified. > >> The amount of shift signifies a rotation rate. Integrate that over very >> short >> time intervals and you have a fairly accurate measurement of the total >> angle of >> rotation from zero. >> >> You should be able to see now, (from the duck shoot experiment) that >> virtually >> the same path length difference occurs whether you use c or c + v.....it >> differs by only c/(c+v) >> >> With a FoG, the path length is greatly increased for higher accuracy. >> >> So Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. > > It blatantly obvious does. > > Paul Sagnac blatantly obviously disproves SR. You snipping the explanation blatantly obviously proves you are a useless phuckwitted tusselad. Androcles. |