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: Eric Gisse on 16 Nov 2005 00:07 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip blather] 'round and 'round we go, when we stop nobody knows.... Fox, J.G., Am J Phys, "Evidence Against Emission Theories," 33, 1-17, (1965)
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Nov 2005 00:21 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:48:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >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. Are you sure of that? > >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. It is easy to compensate for those. > >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. That isn't very clear. I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an entirely different principle to the four mirror type. FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which reflect at infinitesimal angle. We aren't going to get anywhere multiplying zero by infinity. So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh? I think by now you will have realised that it fully supports the BaTh and probably refutes SR. Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. > >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 16 Nov 2005 01:13 On 15 Nov 2005 18:31:17 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. silly girl. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg > >Jerry 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 16 Nov 2005 02:00 In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:37:19 GMT <g7okn19vabrf5vujm4g5angs7p12o37a26(a)4ax.com>: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com >><donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote >>on 15 Nov 2005 04:49:09 -0800 >><1132058949.576411.92810(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: >>>> Not a ghost of a chance of understanding sticks in water are not really >>>> bent just because they look bent, I suppose? >>>> Didn't think so. >>> >>> ****************** >>> >>> They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water. >>> >> >>He is referring to the common illusion that when a whole >>straight stick stuck into a tank of water, when viewed >>from above the surface of the water, the stick appears >>bent, if not broken, into two parts. >> >>This is similar to, apparently, his view that we are >>looking at an illusion of the Universe, which only appears >>to work as though GTR is true. In this view, c'=c+v, which >>is after all consistent with all Earthly observations >>at low v, holds sway. Stars such as Aql1493 appear to >>confirm this view. (Other stars confirm GR.) >> >>Why he and H. Wilson disagree is not clear to me; both hold >>this general view, though Black Knight suggests he wants to >>be neutral and hold no preferred theory, while suggesting >>(if I'm reading him correctly) that we are all holding a >>massively corrupt variant of physics theory by using SR/GTR >>in such things as particle acceleration, GPS calibration, >>and astronomical observation. The first two of course >>require large sums of money; the last isn't quite as >>expensive and the average Joe can easily procure a >>telescope -- and wouldn't have too much trouble procuring >>a water jug, some electronics, and a photodetector as well, >>for measurement of incoming muons, superluminal or otherwise. >>Another possibility is energizing the plates of an old >>airgap capacitor until it sparks on occasion -- a primitive >>Geiger counter. >> >>This view is also consistent with MMX, which was only >>really designed to show the absolute velocity in a rigid >>luminiferous aether, where light therein travels at c >>relative to the aether. MMX cannot tell the difference >>between >> >> - lightspeed is c relative to everyone regardless of motion >> (SR/GTR) >> - lightspeed is c relative to everyone if motion is confined >> to non-accelerated motion only >> - lightspeed is c relative to the source only (Galilean relativity) >> - lightspeed is always vertical relative to its propagation >> and therefore does something rather peculiar (Seto) >> >>though in the last case one might ask whether MMX will show >>anything at all, in light of the motion of gas molecules in >>the light source. >> >>In any event, he appears to follow in the footsteps of >>Sekerin, and will also suggest superluminal muons, which is >>perfectly logical in this view though as yet unconfirmed >>by Earthly experiments. However, H. Wilson has a simple >>method around this: particles in such experiments are >>pushed around by EM radiation and therefore can't travel >>faster than light when pushed thereby. >> >>The main question here would be whether one can tell >>the diff between two Earth-accelerated 500 MeV protons >>colliding and two Earth-accelerated 7 TeV protons >>colliding. Regrettably, I have no data on either one. >>If one *can* tell the difference the EM "particle energy >>speed limit" is effectively ruined. One can also work >>around this using various target experiments -- e.g., throw >>subluminal protons at a wax target and measure the speed of >>electrons knocked out thereby, somewhat a la Rutherford. >>The curvature of the path in a cloud chamber should be >>more than sufficient, and one might not even need the wax; >>a proton could collide with a water molecule instead. >> >>A quick Google coughed up this reference of an experiment >>apparently done in 1935, and published in 1935-03-18: >> >>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i7/p573_1 >>DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.573 >>URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/p573 >>Collisions of High Energy Protons in Hydrogen >>by Milton G. White, Department of Physics, University of California >> >>Not horribly surprising, really; it's an obvious experiment. >>However, I can't get at the results -- they require subscription >>to the American Physical Society journal. >> >>It is not clear whether the Black Knight shares this workaround, >>or not. >> >>Particles such as Oh My God, which had 51 J of energy >>(for a proton, muon, or pi meson that's a whallop!) suggest >>that the Universe isn't limited by the "EM particle energy >>speed limit". Such particles are rare but are easily >>measured in detectors such as SuperKamiokande, which is >>basically a very large tank of ultrapure water surrounded >>by light detectors. >> >>SR has no "EM energy limit", of course; all particles simply >>cannot travel faster than light, no matter how much energy >>is thrown at the problem. > > I actually read all that Ghost. > I don't know why! > > Here's a thought. > Take a thick block of very clear glass (or prefereably crystal) > cool it to 100K degrees Are you referring to -173 degrees Celsius or 100,000 degrees Kelvin? I'm assuming the former (the Sun is at 5800K or so and is gaseous; obviously glass won't be much of a block at that temperature). > or less and shine a beam of light through it . > According to your friends, light speed remains c between atoms > but takes time to be absorbed and re-emitted by each one. Oh, how I wish it *were* that simple! The trouble is that an atom has a very fuzzy boundary. > This gives the impression that light > is being slowed... and hence 'refractive index'. Light *is* being slowed, and differentially so, it turns out; otherwise we wouldn't be able to produce rainbows by prisms. > > Now heat the crystal to as fairly high temprerature. One would expects the > thermal atomic speeds to disperse the beam by a considerable amount. On might > expect strange doppler effects too. > > Do you know if this has been tried? Presumably gas chromatographs show an effect at high temperatures. I'd have to look, though. > . > > > > 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". -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Jeff Root on 16 Nov 2005 12:39
Henri Wilson wrote: > Thanks to George ... I have solved the sagnac riddle. The solution you posted 12 Nov 2005 21:40 GMT ? | 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. | | We should only be considering what happens during angular | ACCELERATION !!!!!! -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |