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 17 Nov 2005 18:35 On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:05:22 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:ohkon19ktv0vh98nvn6cddkcgorghpor1p(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:27:37 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. >>>It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to >>>change from f1 to f2 for there to be a shift in phase. >>>In this diagram (the best I have available right now) >>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png >>>imagine the frequency through one slit is f.(c+v)/c and through >>>the other slit is f.(c-v)/c. >>>The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over. >>>There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration. >> >> Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac. > > >Do you have a hard time understanding f.(c+v)/c and f.(c-v)/c ? >Roll the turntable along a road and let it make footprints, but >imagine it's slipping so that the "wavelength" is slightly short. >Then roll it back again, still slipping, so that the "wavelength" >is slightly long. The difference in print lengths is called the >beat. Yes. we all know how beating takes place. >Or try it without slipping and two different sized paint rollers. >Sheesh... so simple. >Androcles. It's anything BUT simple A when applied to a four mirror sagnac.. The point is, in the sagnac, no 'beating' takes place during constant rotation. Your explantion doesn't achieve that. 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 21:10 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:681qn1tcseb92bl7ru77e04oiphbr73957(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:13:24 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > This latest effort of his really epitomizes that stupidity. > > I seriously believe that the Norwegian water supplies lack the level of > iodine > required for normal brain development. > >> >>Androcles. >> > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe I'm just having a dig at his willful ignorance in snipping my explanation of Sagnac and his stupid insistence that my statement was false. He has "deletethis" in his email address to guard against spammers automatically gathering lists, little realizing spyware has replaced the technique. That why the increase in firewalls and popup stoppers. So I did as he asked and deleted. Raindrops fall vertically. ............../|/..../ /..../ /.. ............./ /..../ /..../ /... ............/ /..../ /..../ /.... .........../ /..../ /..../ /..... ........../ /..../ /..../ /...... ........./ /..../ /..../ /....... ......../ /..../ /..../ /........ ......./ /..../|/..../ /......... ....../ /..../ /..../ /.......... ...../ /..../ /..../ /........... ..../ /..../ /..../ /............ .../ /..../ /..../ /............. ../ /..../ /..../ /.............. / /..../ /..../ /............... /..../ /..../|/................ /..../ /..../ /................. A moving drainpipe has to lean over to catch vertical raindrops. I can't see why you would argue that point with him, but I'm staying out of it. Androcles.
From: Black Knight on 18 Nov 2005 00:04 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:rl4qn1lp8beprcbhcaas2fvksb1k5o5qe1(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:05:22 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:ohkon19ktv0vh98nvn6cddkcgorghpor1p(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:27:37 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> >>> wrote: > >>> >>>> >>>>If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. >>>>It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to >>>>change from f1 to f2 for there to be a shift in phase. >>>>In this diagram (the best I have available right now) >>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png >>>>imagine the frequency through one slit is f.(c+v)/c and through >>>>the other slit is f.(c-v)/c. >>>>The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over. >>>>There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration. >>> >>> Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac. >> >> >>Do you have a hard time understanding f.(c+v)/c and f.(c-v)/c ? >>Roll the turntable along a road and let it make footprints, but >>imagine it's slipping so that the "wavelength" is slightly short. >>Then roll it back again, still slipping, so that the "wavelength" >>is slightly long. The difference in print lengths is called the >>beat. > > Yes. we all know how beating takes place. > >>Or try it without slipping and two different sized paint rollers. >>Sheesh... so simple. >>Androcles. > > It's anything BUT simple A when applied to a four mirror sagnac.. > > The point is, in the sagnac, no 'beating' takes place during constant > rotation. > Your explantion doesn't achieve that. It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. Side of square 300 meters. Delta t = 1 microsecond. Observer stands at A. t = 0 A----B | C----D Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c. t = 1 Light has arrived at B and at C. 300 metres, 1 usec. During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees. C----A | D----B t = 2. Light has arrived at D from B, meets light at D fron C. During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees. D----C | B----A Observer is now standing at D, he didn't move, still at top left. One ray went all the way around, the other stayed by the observer while its source went backwards at c. f1 = f(c-v)/c = 0 f2 = f(c+v)/c = 2. Beat frequency 2+0 = 2-0 = 2f. No relativist should look at a high speed 4 mirror Sagnac, his heart will stop as time stops. You and I only need worry about holding the equipment together in the centrifuge, we can stand above or below for our own safety. I have not yet developed a suitable alloy to take the strain or we would have the ideal relativist murder machine, slaughtered by their own theory. An autopsy will not convict either of us, it was suicide anyway. (NOT Suitable for 5yo Kids) Sagnac is off limits to 5yo Kids, tusselader, moortels and idiots in general. Androcles.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Nov 2005 08:08 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:27:07 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >>>>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. >> >>Don't be ridiculous, Henri. :-) >>What in a gas laSER do you think is Stimulated to Emit Radiation, >>if not the gas atoms? >> >> >>>Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about. >> >>Really, Henri? >>The light from a laser can go to the Moon and back, >>and still be coherent light. >>Do you think that could happen if the speeds of the photons >>were as different as the speeds of the atoms in the gas? >> >>The mere existence of gas lasers falsifies the BaT. > > > Wouldn't you like that to be true eh? > > At what tempertatures do they run? Depend on the cooling. Say 50 - 150C. > What determines the direction of emission of a photon from an atom Paul? > Come on, you are the expert..... I am a little reluctant to use much time to explain to you what you will ignore anyway. But in a laSEr, we are talking about Stimulated Emission. That means that a photon passing close by an atom may stimulate it to emit a new photon with the same direction and with the same phase. > Why should gas lasers work at all? Why indeed. :-) I am not going to give a thorough description, you can look it up yourself if you really want to know. But you never really want to know, you will rather invent it yourself. But I will mention a few points of special interest to this discussion. Let us consider a HeNe laser. Let us assume the gas temp. is 350k. Let us assume the length of the tube is ca. 0.75 m. The rms speed of the He atoms will be: v^2 = 3kT/m where m is 4 proton masses. v = 1.47 km/s. (rms) v/c = 5*10^-6. This means that the frequency emitted by the atoms will be Doppler shifted, so the frequency will be distributed like a Gauss function with relative width ca. 5*10^-6. The central frequency fo = ca. 0.5*10^15 Hz However, the laser tube is a resonator, and only the frequencies given by f = m*c/2L can exist in the resonator. The distance between the possible frequencies is: delta_f = c/2L = 2*10^8 Hz. delta_f/fo = 4*10^-7 Note that a laser do not emit strictly monochromatic light, but a number of close spectral lines. We can see that in the order of 10 spectral lines can exist within the frequency distribution above. We KNOW this is happening in a laser. Each spectral line is emitted by atoms with a specific longitudinal velocity component. According to the BaT, the light from these spectral lines should travel at different speeds. They don't. BaT falsified. Paul
From: George Dishman on 18 Nov 2005 10:19
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:g4ann1lip1klougd93bdl7o3v1gid856ec(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:10:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:1g0ln19apsuph4suno5q8b1dodhcc4knut(a)4ax.com... > >>>>>>> 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. > > These bright ideas come to me in my sleep George. That might explain it. >>>>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. > > The former is an automatic phyical integration. (number of wavelengths > in the path) The latter is electronic. > >> >>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? > > Yes, the latter... each path length changes only during acceleration. >>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg In that case you are wrong if I understand your diagram. When the rotation is at constant speed, the path length is also constant at the length of line AD or roughly: L' = L + v * t / sqrt(2) When the rotation is at constant acceleration, the path length is also constant at the length of line AE or roughly: L' = L + (v * t + a * t^2 / 2) / sqrt(2) _________ / / ^ __________/ | speed | ______________________ ------> time Your diagram predicts there would be an output like this: __ | | ^ | | | output | | | | | __________|__|________ ------> time Guess what, I agree with that conclusion. There is no method to provide physical integration because the number of wavelengths in the path does not affect the time difference between wavefront arrivals in the two beams which is what produces the output. Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. > You should be able to work that out yourself. Last time I did that you said: "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:s0ann1t3dehvf72e9gk5ov2j54u6m4i373(a)4ax.com... > > Your 'translation' is completely wrong. and since what you said above conflicts with your statement that you think you can explain Sagnac, it was essential to check. > Naturally I have shown 'vt' to be a lot longer than it would be in > practice. > For small time intervals and minute velocities, you can ignore the > curvature. Sure, no problem. My ASCII sketches show exaggerated slopes on wavefronts as well but they all serve their purpose. George |