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 Dishman on 16 Nov 2005 14:41 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1g0ln19apsuph4suno5q8b1dodhcc4knut(a)4ax.com... > > Maybe we settle on using 'displacement' instead of 'shift' the noun... and > 'fringe movement' instead of 'shift' the verb. Better but I think something like "change of displacement" than 'fringe movement' would keep it consistent. Henri, I think much of the last few days discussion has been a result of the confusion over these terms. I'll repost your message of the 12th and then retype it as I understood your meaning using "displacement". See what you think. I'll address your specific points separately. -- you typed ... -- "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l(a)4ax.com... > 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. > > We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION > !!!!!! > > That is when the two path lengths change. > That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. > That is when fringes move. > > Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light from > the > previous one is in flight. Small second order effect, you say. No way! It > is > the whole basis of operation. > > Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects > NO > fringe shifts under constant rotation. > > BUT!!!! > The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous fringe > shift > during steady rotation. > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! -- I took that to mean (edited lines marked with asterisks) ... -- "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l(a)4ax.com... > 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 BE DISPLACED > during constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. > > We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION > !!!!!! > > That is when the two path lengths change. > That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. * That is when fringes ARE DISPLACED. > > Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light from > the > previous one is in flight. Small second order effect, you say. No way! It > is > the whole basis of operation. > > Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects > NO * fringe DISPLACEMENT under constant rotation. > > BUT!!!! * The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a CONSTANT fringe * DISPLACEMENT during steady rotation. > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! George
From: George Dishman on 16 Nov 2005 15:10 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1g0ln19apsuph4suno5q8b1dodhcc4knut(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:13:25 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>>>> 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. Well we seem to be back to where we were last week before you said "I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of the problem." I have been showing you for months that Ritz predicts no fringe displacement at constant angular speed while you have been trying to explain how it did. I fail to see what you think your sudden insight was. >><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. There is no physical mechanism to perform such an integration. There is an integrator in devices to change the angular speed returned as the output into a change of heading but that requires a speed related output to start with. To avoid further confusion, suppose the table is turning at one speed, then for a while it accelerates and finally it runs at a constant but higher speed. Draw a graph of the angular speed and we get this: _________ / / ^ __________/ | speed | ______________________ ------> time > Path length vary ONLY during acceleration. So does the number of > wavelengths in > each beam. Careful with the wording. Do you mean the path lengths differ from each other or from the non-rotating value? Do you mean path lengths only CHANGE during acceleration? >>> 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 It is a bit too simplistic because you have drawn straight lines so it must be in the inertial frame. In that frame you have c'=c+kv so the time is a combination of factors that you cannot see from that diagram alone. > PS: I don't advocate the shooting of ducks. Christmas is coming, how about geese? I like your analogy for the four mirror case so let's look in a bit more detail. First add a goose following the car and another hunter shooting back at it: <- Car * / \guns | / \ ^ v * + * | Duck Goose The "+" in the middle indicates the centre of the roundabout and all are at equal distance R form that and moving at the same speed, V, in the directions indicated by the arrows. Now add a large sheet of paper stretched between the duck, the car and the goose. The guns are fired simultaneously and the lead bullets just skim the surface of the paper leaving a drawn line. Obviously if V = 0, both lines are straight and of length R * sqrt(2). The bullets leave the guns at the same speed relative to the guns so they take equal times to reach their targets, hitting simultaneously. When V > 0 and constant, tell me what the lines on the paper will look like, are they straight or curved? If curved are they farther from the centre or closer to it at the midway point (I think one of each)? The bullets still leave the guns at the same speed they did before but do they still hit the birds simultaneously? I told you my answers to this some months ago but I'm interested to see how you now relate this to your comments on acceleration. George
From: George Dishman on 16 Nov 2005 15:14 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:dufln1ptkv48kelkvv45pukcaeo868gkjc(a)4ax.com... > > 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. No, George has been patiently explaining to you why Ritz predicts that the fringes will not be displaced from the non-rotating pattern by rotation at constant speed. You knew that a week ago but this whole acceleration sidetrack seems to have confused you. Anyway, have a look at the car, duck and goose and see what you make of it. George
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Nov 2005 16:24 On 16 Nov 2005 06:10:53 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 15 Nov 2005 06:55:28 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: snip >> >The ants move diagonally in the moving frame and they are >> >still ants. >> >> The ants bodies remain vertical. The vertical axis of their bodies moves >> sideways. > >The ants move along diagonal paths which must be longer >than the corresponding vertical path in the laser frame. The >axis of the ants is of no interest, it doesn't influence the >path length. > >> Did you try moving a vertically held pen sideways George, like I suggested? >> Even if you move it upwards at the same time, the axis of the pen remains >> vertical at any instant. >> >> That should be obvious by now. > >It always was, but it is of no relevance to the length >of the line it draws. > >> >> >> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. >> >> > >> >> >In your religion it does. I Einstein's gedanken, the >> >> >aim is to derive the time from the speed. >> >> >> >> That's his unproven postulate. >> > >> >That reply makes no sense in the context Henri. >> >Deriving time wehen speed and distance are >> >known is not a postulate. >> >> Diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2) > >That's your unproven postulate. > >> >> >>>As you said of Maxwell's >> >> >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" >> >> >>>and the magnetic fields still exist and are still >> >> >>>governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame. >> >> >> >> >> >> Maxwell's equation applies to a wave that is symmetrical around an axis. >> >> > >> >> >No, Maxwell's Equations apply to the interactions of >> >> >electric and magnetic fields regardless of symmetry. >> >> >You can define a set of boundary conditions and they >> >> >will tell you how the fields evolve thereafter. For >> >> >example the waves produced by applying a sine wave >> >> >voltage to a metal sphere will differ from those >> >> >produced by a flat plate or a long wire. Maxwell's >> >> >Equations apply to the fields regardless of the shape >> >> >or motion of the source. >> >> >> >> That's rubbish George. >> > >> >I suggest you open a textbook and find out ho Maxwell's >> >equations are used. >> >> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > >The wavefront above for the laser was 1.1mm in diameter. >Open a basic textbook and see if you can find out how >Maxwell's Equations would predict that would evolve. >Breaking it into infinitesimal parts was your choice. george, I'l try to make this even more simple. You are still have trouble understanding it. Below is a laser beam with a infinitesimally wide diagonal element drawn through it. | | | | | | / / | | | | Tell me George, does that element show any tendency to shoot off in the diagonal direction? Of course not! Why? Because it is not a light beam. It is not governed by Maxwell's equations. It is infinitesimal. It is nothing. >> >> and its axis remains vertical. >> There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally.. > >Their path length is that of the diagonal, that's all that matters. There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally.. >> >Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so >> >how are you going to resolve that ;-) >> >> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > >Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part >of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal >elements, find another way to do your math. See above. According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source frame. I think you are being deliberately difficult. You know I am right. >> >> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > >Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part >of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal >elements, find another way to do your math. The wavefront is horizontal. According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source frame. >> >> George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways. >> > >> >It draws a straight line. >> > >> >> Does the pen lean over? >> > >> >I don't care, now repeat the sideways motion but this >> >time also move it away from you at the same time. It >> >moves diagonally and for the same amount of sideways >> >motion the line is longer than the first time, that fact >> >is all that Einstein uses. The line isn't a pen, but then >> >it wasn't the pen the first time either so your stuff >> >about "the light isn't light anymore" is just >> >meaningless nonsense. >> >> George, hold the pen vertical then move it sideways and upwards. >> That's what Einstein tried to do.... > >No Henri, you have utterly failed to understand what he did. >What he siad is that the length of the line drawn by the pen >along the diagonal is longer than that drawn vertically. He >is of course entirely correct as you have illustrated. What's this 'the diagonal'? There is an infinite number of diagonals involved. ....and of course each one is longer than the vertical. Plain Pythagoras. > >> but he stuffed up because he used >> spherical raindrops instead of something with an identifiable 'axis'. > >He wasn't interested in the polarisation of the light, >it doesn't affect his argument in any way. He didn't have an argument. He had a stupid postulate, still unproven.. >> >> The vertical dashed COULD signify individual photons....which have some kind of >> longitudinal axis about which the maxwellian wave is symmetrical. ..Isn't that >> called the Poynting Vector? > >The Poynting Vector indicates the direction of energy flow. Since >the energy emitted at the bottom left of your diagram will be >absorbed somewhere at the top right, that vector is diagonal. In the moving frame, an infinte number of infinitesimal amounts of energy move along the infinite number of diagonal lines. >> >Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri, >> >what are you raving about. >> >> The speed of the diagonally moving indinfitesimal points has never been >> measured George. > >I said the speed of light, not of "indinfitesimal points" (sic). You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been measured and found to be c. That is not true and you know it. >> >> There is NO wave moving along any diagonal. >> > >> >The ant is still an ant. >> >> a vertical ant....in all horiziontally moving frames, at any instant. >> >> That's the point you are missing.,,the 'instant' bit. > >I'm not missing it at all, I agreed it the first time you said it. >I am waiting for you to explain why you think the direction >of the axis affects the length of the path. > >> If you take a movie shot of ants crawling up a pole while you flash past in >> your car, do their bodies appear vertical or diagonal on each frame? > >I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path. It affects what is supposed to be moving along each diagonal. >> >> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > >The beam (wavefront) is 1.1mm wide for the laser example >above. All beams have a finite width Henri. I don't care what you laser is. Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical lines. Work out what happens to each one of those. According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source frame. > >> >> Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move >> >> sideways without leaning over. >> > >> >Einstein didn't say it wouldn't affect the polarisation of the >> >light Henri, that's what your lean represents. >> >> Nobody has tested the polarization of a sideways moving, vertical light beam. >> There is no actual diagonal beam to test it on. > >I'll see if I can find the WMAP map. The details of the >interaction of moving matter and light are complex, and >your ants don't explain it well, but it remains a powerful tool. You are trying to change the subject. >> >Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving >> >frames, but the light whose location is represented >> >by those points is still light, the ants are still ants. >> >> and they are still vertical at any instant in all frames. > >How does that affect the path length of the 1.1mm disc >shaped wavefronts? George, I think you are trying to tell me that the wavefronts are lined up like this in the moving frame: _ _ _ _ _ or this: \ \ \ \ \ They do neither, They remain like this: _ _ _ -> _ _ In all frames. > >> >> >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) >> >> >> >> You know there has never been such a measurement, George. and precise. >> > >> >Exactly what I have been saying throughout. If you are >> >now admitting I was right, I fail to see why you keep >> >claiming it has never been measured. >> >> George, what you are refering to is not light and its speed has certainly never >> been measured, either OW or TW.. > >What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if >you move your hand while holding it. It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames. >> > >> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? >> >> None. >> The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants >> escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed. > >The fact that they find the same values means the speed must be >the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to >the postulate. But we know they are not thsame. The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds. >> >Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? >> >> Energy and momentum are properties of energy and momentum, not of photons. > >I'm not even going to waste my time on that one. Why not? You have wasted a lot more time worshipping the hoaxer Einstein. > ><snip nonsense> Snip what you don't want to hear. > >> >> >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical >> >> >while the wavefronts should be horizontal. >> Consider the laser beam to be infinitesimal in width....or at least much >> smaller than a wavelength of the light used. > >Then it would produce spherical wavefronts and wouldn't >be a laser at all. The width must be many wavelengths for >the beam to have a small dispersion so let's consider the >beam to be 1.1mm in diameter. It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does. > >> >> >> >> I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not >> >> constitute 'wavefronts'. >> > >> >The points on the graph aren't infinitesimal, they are purely >> >mathematical points of zero size. They represent the "very >> >very small pieces" of the actual wavefront, or isn't that what >> >you mean, it is what you have been saying. >> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. > >Same thing Henri. Not the same George. >> Even if the laser beam is wide, only an infinitesimally thin section will move >> up any diagonal line....far too thin to be a light wave. > >Each circular disc wavefront sweeps out a tube with >elliptical cross section with a major axis of 1.1mm. >Maxwell's Equations must describe the evolution of >that wavefront or they are invalid. The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph. It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties. >> >Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin. >> >That was what was worrying them. >> >> Maxwell's equations apply to waves moving in one direction. > >Nope, they apply to the evolution of the fields whether there are >waves involved or not and they apply in all frames. Think of a >mexican wave in a stadium. You can describe the overall effect >using a wave equation but you can also define the behaviour of >one person solely in terms of the movement of those around him. >You can then produce a wave by defining the starting condition >for everyone at some instant and then using the individual >behaviour to evolve the next state and so on. That's how they >work. A plane wave is just one solution. According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all diagonal directions, in the source frame. > >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 16 Nov 2005 16:40
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:08:36 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message >news:0o1r43-5sk.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >> <HW@> >>>>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. > >That was me as the Google record will show. Wilson picked up on it. >I used the analogy of a baseball. It cannot be thrown faster than >the pitcher's arm can move. A line of pitchers across the continent >will never move the baseball faster than the speed of the fastest >arm. Also tell him that a golf ball can travel a lot faster than the club head because energy is momentarily stored and released in the elastic face during the impact...similarly in tennis. Atmospheric muons are produced in similar elastic collisions. Consequently, they can travel much faster than the cosmic rays that produce them. The cosmic rays themselves can also be traveling at >c wrt Earth. >>> 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). > >Sheesh... >"They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water." >"Are you referring to -173 degrees Celsius or 100,000 degrees Kelvin?" >I think your assumption may be justified in this case. Ghost DOES say some funny things occasionally.. > >>> 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'. > >Actually... refraction MAY just be diffraction by the molecular lattice. In a crystal yes ..but what about liquids? > >Androcles. > 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". |