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 18 Nov 2005 10:31 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:u2bnn159rk2qq2emp92mapnq4l0jfdk3b9(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:14:17 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > No you haven't. You have shown that the fringes shold not MOVE during > constant > rotation, according to the BaTh. Go back and read all those weeks of messages again, they all prove there is NO DISPLACEMENT at constant angular velocity in Ritz. As you can see in my other reply, your own diagram confirms that though I think you need to consider this more carefully, it isn't really that simple. > That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh > to be consistent with sagnac. > >>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. > > It's a diversion. > > You know that the fringes only change their displacement during > acceleration. Correct, by a constant amount while the acceleration is present, and since it is proportional to the acceleration, it goes back to zero if the speed subsequently becomes constant again. > My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, not > during constant rotation. Careful with your wording Herni, your diagram shows the path length ARE CHANGED during constant acceleration from their values during constant velocity. > The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all > previous ACCELERATIONS. There is no physical mechanism involved that could integrate the difference in arrival times of wavecrests. The actual path times don't directly produce an output. George
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Nov 2005 16:08 On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:10:19 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"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. In the case of starlight, a vertical tube catches a slighty diagonal beam along its central axis.. > >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".
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Nov 2005 16:21 On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:19:11 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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 No it doesn't. Assume that fringe movement is +ve for +ve acceleration and -ve for -ve acceleration. There is no -ve acceleration in the above diagram showing a +ve speed change.. Therefore fringe displaement moves in only one direction during the acceleration period. It doesn't suddenly revert ot zero when acceleration ceases. SO: _________ | ^ | | output | | | __________|__________ ------> time Is the correct result. > >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. The 'change in fringe displacement' is effectively an integration of the path length increase during the acceleration period. > >Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. It shows what happens during a constant acceleration. In practice, acceleration would vary with time. > >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 18 Nov 2005 16:47 On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:31:03 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:u2bnn159rk2qq2emp92mapnq4l0jfdk3b9(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:14:17 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> No you haven't. You have shown that the fringes shold not MOVE during >> constant >> rotation, according to the BaTh. > >Go back and read all those weeks of messages again, they >all prove there is NO DISPLACEMENT at constant angular >velocity in Ritz. As you can see in my other reply, your >own diagram confirms that though I think you need to >consider this more carefully, it isn't really that simple. I have thought about it a great deal. I should imagine that in a four mirror sagnac, fringe movement would be quite small. In a FoG with many turns, a much longer path length is provided and hence much greater fringe movement. This is detected by focussing the fringe pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light fluctuations. I'm not sure how fringe direction is monitored but it would be. Now, during an acceleration period, 50 such pulses might be counted. When the acceleration ceases, the visible fringe might not be exactly in the centre of the slit...and I assume there is a way of determining that offset...because it is essential for accuracy..... since the offset is integrated electronically with time to obtain total rotation angle. I think you and Andersen are omiting a factor of (2-Root2) when you claim that the displacement should return to zero during constant rotation, according to the BaTh...In fact, the travel time around each path is not the same. >> That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh >> to be consistent with sagnac. >> >>>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. >> >> It's a diversion. >> >> You know that the fringes only change their displacement during >> acceleration. > >Correct, by a constant amount while the acceleration is >present, and since it is proportional to the acceleration, >it goes back to zero if the speed subsequently becomes >constant again. Haha. So you apply an acceleration that slowly approaches zero. During that time, the fringes move in one direction only. Do you really think they suddenly flip right back to the starting point when the acceleration ceases? That's nonsense George. >> My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, not >> during constant rotation. > >Careful with your wording Herni, your diagram shows the >path length ARE CHANGED during constant acceleration from >their values during constant velocity. The path lengths remain constant during constant rotation. During a period of acceleration, I think the path length is CONTINUALLY increasing. I too have been working on that point. It's not all that simple. > >> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all >> previous ACCELERATIONS. > >There is no physical mechanism involved that could integrate >the difference in arrival times of wavecrests. The actual >path times don't directly produce an output. During an acceleration, the two beams continuosly 'beat'. Even Androcles get's it right occasionally. The beats are counted. The count IS really an integration of the path length change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to give total rotation angle. > >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: Androcles on 18 Nov 2005 17:10
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:9jgsn1hikch3bvkqbshs0c7mp5qv3mvous(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:10:19 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > In the case of starlight, a vertical tube catches a slighty diagonal beam > along > its central axis.. > I can't see what the difference is or why anyone would argue the point. |\|....|.|....|.|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. |.|\...|.|....|.|.. |.|.\..|.|....|.|.. |.|..\.|.|....|.|.. |.|...\|.|....|.|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. |.|....|\|....|.|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. |.|....|.|\...|.|.. |.|....|.|.\..|.|.. |.|....|.|..\.|.|.. |.|....|.|...\|.|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. |.|....|.|....|\|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. Androcles. |