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 15 Nov 2005 19:47 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:07:00 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:48:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>> >>>Quite. >>>When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear >>>as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard >>>are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points. >>> >>>Paul >> >> >> A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul. > >The light from a laser and a water surface wave have >that in common that they both have wave fronts which >are physical entities that exist independent of frames >of reference. > >It is incredible stupid to claim that a physical entity >- any physical entity - exists in one frame of reference >but not in another. > >And what is even more remarkable is that I have to point >out to you that the statement: >"Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." >is mindless babble. >It should be self evident to any sane person. > >> However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to see if >> star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships. > >If you from the cosmic ship Tellus ever look through >a telescope, be sure to notice the stellar aberration. >Having done so, you can kick and shout: >WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING >DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS. > >That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are. Geez, Paul, you are becoming more amusing every day. Stars emit light in all directions. A vertical telescope moving sideways will always pick up part of the starlight that moves directly down its centre. You just don't understand any of this, do you? > >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: Black Knight on 15 Nov 2005 19:53 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:dldm64$obm$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:48:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>> >>>Quite. >>>When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear >>>as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard >>>are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points. >>> >>>Paul >> >> >> A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul. > > The light from a laser and a water surface wave have > that in common that they both have wave fronts which > are physical entities that exist independent of frames > of reference. > > It is incredible stupid to claim that a physical entity > - any physical entity - exists in one frame of reference > but not in another. > > And what is even more remarkable is that I have to point > out to you that the statement: > "Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." > is mindless babble. > It should be self evident to any sane person. > >> However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to >> see if >> star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships. > > If you from the cosmic ship Tellus ever look through > a telescope, be sure to notice the stellar aberration. > Having done so, you can kick and shout: > WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING > DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS. > > That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are. > OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. It will happen again. Androcles.
From: Henri Wilson on 15 Nov 2005 20:01 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:13:25 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:djuhn1l5gcdaijqlsiahpqfhp8f5tcd6fu(a)4ax.com... >>>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. > >That's wrong but from other messages I think it was more >a question of wording, there is a shift (displacement) >at all speeds but the displacement only changes during >acceleration. Barring that confusion between shift as a >noun and a verb, I believe we are in agreement so far. > >>>> 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. > >Well so far you have not said anything that differs >from my view. Maybe we settle on using 'displacement' instead of 'shift' the noun... and 'fringe movement' instead of 'shift' the verb. >> The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a >> constant amount. > >That is correct. Item 2 above says the same, the amount >the fringes have moved, or shifted or been displaced, >however you want to put it, was constant at 7% of the >fringe spacing in Sagnac's experiment at 120rpm. > >> You said this yourself on for instance,12th October. >> >> """"" >>>> 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." >> """"" > >Yep, and you seem to agree with that above. As I say, >no difference in views so far. except what you said in 1) above. Ritz predicts a constant fringe displacement but no fringe movement when there is constant rotational speed. > ><I'll swap the next two sentences of your reply.> > >> 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. > >Yep, again that is entirely correct and exactly what I >said earlier, still no difference in views. However ... > >> The displacement arises from the path length change that occurs DURING >> ACCELERATION. > >You need to explain that Henri. If the displacement occurs >only during acceleration then there should be no displacement >whenrunning at constant speed, but you just agreed there was >a constant (non-zero) displacement at constant speed. The 'current displacement' is a reflection of the integrated instantaneous path length changes during period of acceleration, no matter how small. Path length vary ONLY during acceleration. So does the number of wavelengths in each beam. > >> The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during >> acceleration. > >I'm less concerned about your ideas on the mechanism at >this stage, we might get to that later. Read what I said to Paul A and study my duck shooting diagram: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg PS: I don't advocate the shooting of ducks. 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: Jerry on 15 Nov 2005 21:31 Henri Wilson wrote: > Ritz predicts a constant fringe displacement but no fringe movement when there > is constant rotational speed. constant = 0. Ritz theory is falsified. Jerry
From: Black Knight on 15 Nov 2005 22:57
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:dldoki$tb$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > 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 OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again. Androcles. |