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 16 Nov 2005 17:51 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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? Say, Henri. Have you emptied the bottle you owe Androcles? Read what you wrote above when you sober up, and have a good laugh. Look Henri. Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre. Measure the absolute angle of your telescope. Repeat 6 month later. The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs different from the first time. The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same, nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth. So why are the angle of the light path different? It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth at the two occations. We are observing the star from two different frames of reference. Both frames are moving relative to the star. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Nov 2005 18:04 On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:51:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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? > >Say, Henri. >Have you emptied the bottle you owe Androcles? >Read what you wrote above when you sober up, >and have a good laugh. > >Look Henri. >Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. >Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre. >Measure the absolute angle of your telescope. >Repeat 6 month later. >The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs >different from the first time. > >The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same, >nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth. >So why are the angle of the light path different? >It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth >at the two occations. We are observing the star from >two different frames of reference. >Both frames are moving relative to the star. So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically. This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense. > >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 18:23 On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:48:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>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? > >Yes. They are not based on the sagnac effect then. >>>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. > >Maybe not. >What I tried to say is that the INS is aligned when >the plane is stationary on the ground. >A "strap down" system have three laser gyros, one >for each of the three axes fixed to the plane. >Imagine it is standing on equator, heading north. >The gyros will then detect rotation around the roll axis only, >and none around the other axes. If it is heading east, >the rotation will be around the pitch axis only. >So no rotation around the yaw axis means latitude zero. >The ratio of rotation around the pitch and roll axes will >give the heading. >If the plane is on the north pole, the rotation will be around >the yaw axis only. >So in short, the rotation around the yaw axis give the latitude. >The rotation around the pitch and roll axes give the heading. >And this takes only ten minutes. The earth rotates only 2.5 degrees >during that time. >Impressive, eh? :-) Like much of modern technology, yes. > >> >> I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an >> entirely different principle to the four mirror type. > >I don't think you will discuss ring lasers because they so >obviously falsifies the BaT. We are discussing sagnac. Your statement above shows these aren't basd on sagnac. >I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before >because you were unable to refute my arguments. > >In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all >the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms >which are the sources of the light, are moving fast relative to >each other. BaT falsified. It is YOUR theory that each atom is a source. Other don't believe you. Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about. >> 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. > >Not unless you know some math, of course. >Hint: limits. >What is sin(x)/x for x = 0? Irelevant. > >And light in a mono-mode fibre is never reflected. >It's a wave guide. >BaT falsified. There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles. >> 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. > >Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. >No question about it. My diagram clearly show the opposite. Path lengths change during acceleration. Wavelength is absolutely constant according to the BaTh. Therefore fringes will MOVE during angular acceleration and will NOT move during constant rotation. Sagnac disproves 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. > >Of course it is. >But I have in a much shorter time proved that according >to the BaT, the phase relationship between the two waves >will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation. >That is NOT what happens. >The BaT falsified. You haven't proved that at all. You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this. You haven't a clue. Study my diagram again. >And you never refuted my proof. >You fled it by claiming that interferometers works >in an entirely different manner than physicists think. >You are unable to explain _how_ you think it works, thought. >All you know is that it works in some mysterious way which >make the fringes appear at different positions even when >the phase relationship between the two waves are the same. > >A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature >for every new phenomenon that must be explained away. The sagnac effect occurs when the apparatus is experiencing angular acceleration. The reason is that, during light transit time, successive components are displaced by a little more than they would be under constant rotation. The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used. Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small variations in light speed do not make any significant difference to the result. > >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 17 Nov 2005 00:30 "Paul B. Andersen" wrote <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis Ok. Anything to oblige. 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.
From: Black Knight on 17 Nov 2005 00:31
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis Ok. Anything to oblige. 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. |