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: Paul B. Andersen on 15 Nov 2005 17:48 Jerry wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > >>On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>wrote: >> >> >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>>news:9r5an1pjg0a2vce62k32juf9345b93kp9b(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. > > > Huh? > > http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf > Hm. Be aware that a ring laser is quite different from a Sagnac ring. In a Sagnac ring, the source (laser) and the detector is fixed to the ring. The phase difference between the two waves depend on the angular velocity, but the phase difference is constant at a constant rotation. That is, the fringe does not move, it is the position of the fringe that give the information about the rotation. A fibre-optic gyro is a Sagnac ring. But a ring laser is just that - a laser arranged as a ring. (Actually a square or a triangle). In a normal laser, a wave is bouncing back and forth between two parallel mirrors. So there are two waves going in opposite directions within the laser. We get a standing wave pattern, like a pearl necklace, within the laser. In a ring laser, there are also two waves going in opposite directions within the laser, and we get the same standing wave pattern. But this time, the "necklace" have no ends, it is a ring. Note that there is no localized source; the whole ring is lasing. The important point is that if the apparatus is rotated, the "necklace" will NOT rotate along. So the detector, which is fixed to the apparatus and rotating along with it, can actually "see" the "pearls" in the "necklace" passing by. So in a ring laser, the phase difference between the opposing waves are continuously changing. Or the fringes are moving with a speed proportional to the rotation, if you like. The problem with the fibre-optic gyro is that to measure the rotation, you have to compare the position of the fringes to their position when the gyro was not rotating. So the gyro must be calibrated when the gyro is known not to rotate. (Not very easy on a rotating Earth). And the calibration will drift with temperature, etc. The ring laser do not have this problem. (Of course it has to be collimated to lase at all. But any laser must.) Because of its very principle, it is inherently more precise that the fibre-optic gyro. That's why ring lasers are used in the inertial navigation system in planes. These gyros are so sensitive that when the INS is started, it takes only ten minutes before it has have figured out how the plane is oriented. It does that by comparing the rotation around the three axes due to the rotation of the Earth. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 15 Nov 2005 18:44 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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. > >It probably takes a very special kind of intelligence to understand >the fine point that "IT OCCURS" refers to an occurring verb. :-) > >Henri, isn't this a bit too stupid even for you? > >Why not simply admit that you wrote something else than you meant, >in stead of trying to save your obviously self contradicting statement >in such a stupid way? What I wrote was quite OK. You are confusing 'occurs' with 'exists'. My statement correctly states, "fringe DISPLACEMENT is proportional to rotational speed but FRINGE MOVEMENT occurs only during rotational acceleration". The sagnac continuously integrates 'instantaneous fringe movements' during periods of acceleration, to obtain a meaningful fringe displacement or shift, (noun) which indicates current rotation angle from a calibrated zero. .. > >Paul 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 15 Nov 2005 18:45 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:09:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:33:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. >>> >>>Nonsense. >>>Sagnac falsifies the BaT. >>>No question about it. >> >> >> I hope the realization that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy >> your confidence. > >I know the fact that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy >your conficence. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg > >Paul 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 15 Nov 2005 18:56 On 15 Nov 2005 07:11:02 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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 killfiled Andy some time ago since he wasn't reading >my replies but there's no killfile on Google. If he's going >to try to join in, he had better find out how the experiment >is conducted, but he's got a long way to go to catch up >with you. > >> I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. > >No, you slipped up a bit at the end. I'll reply tonight, >lunchtime is over. see the duck shooting analogy: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg > >George 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 15 Nov 2005 19:01
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:45:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:mr7jn1hbcrbnkuibm8r91bncqirfueqqgg(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:00:06 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ >>>4ax.com: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Not too hard to do. Build one atom of anti hydrogen with a positron and >>>an antiproton; collide it with one atom of normal hydrogen and you have >>>just converted TWO whole atoms into energy. >> >> Has anyone done that? > >[quote http://ppd.fnal.gov/experiments/hbar/] >E862: Observation of Antihydrogen Atoms >Antihydrogen production has been observed at Fermilab. Experiment 862 >collected data in 1996 and 1997. A total of 99 antihydrogen atoms were >observed, with essentially no background. The results were published in >Physical Review Letters in the spring of 1998.[unquote] > >[quote >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/anti_hydrogen_020918.h >tml] European scientists say they have created enough antihydrogen -- a >type of the mirror-image, antimatter stuff that fictionally powers >spaceships on Star Trek -- to test a widely held basic model of the >universe. > >While antihydrogen has been made before, the more than 50,000 atoms >created at the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva are ``by far, the most >produced," said Jeffrey Hangst, a leader of the ATHENA collaboration, one >of two groups of physicists working on antihydrogen at CERN. .... >In the latest experiments, ATHENA researchers used the CERN accelerator to >create antiprotons and electromagnetically trapped them in a vacuum >chamber. A radioactive source, meanwhile, was used to create positrons, >which were held in a separate trap. The antiprotons were then fed into the >pool of positrons, where the two combined to form antihydrogen. > >The antimatter was short-lived; Hangst said it was annihilated when it >bumped into normal matter. Detectors picked up the unique signatures of >antimatter as it was destroyed, he said. [unquote] > >close enough? Hmmmm! That's interesting..but I don't know if 'unique signatures' implies that E=mc^2 was fully supported. 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". |