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 9 Sep 2005 17:29 On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:16:12 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:jcd1i11abmioioqoc2ccunab9n2pubil28(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:54:55 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> >wrote: >> >> > >> >at all. Thus ballistic light should move with constant speed wrt the >fibre - >> >if not, why not? >> >> Forget the fibre version. ...It's like integrating 0/0. > >It's the most simple and straightforward according to me, and your argument >sounds blurry... It's too hard for you. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 10 Sep 2005 05:39 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1126089997.917424.100460(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Jeff Root wrote: >>> >> Only from a superficial knowledge of Maxwell's equations. >> I'm not a physicist, and have never pretended to be one. >> I have never made the required measurements myself, and >> would have to look up how it is done. But I know that >> Maxwell's equations have been shown to work very well >> over the entire range of conditions that have ever been >> seen, so I trust them. > > I (we?) don't question these things which seem to work (sagnac > included); That is sensible Jim, it would be hard to argue that aircraft autopilots based on iFOG technology don't actually work. > it is the interpretation of the "why" which is wrongly > attributed to c=c+v > > Example: > SR claims that c=frequency x wavelength when one or the other changes > because of magic- the other defaults to that value which ALWAYS gives > c! There is no magic about that, the same happens with ripples on water. Put your finger in the bath, move it up and down and watch the ripples that spread out. The faster you vibrate your finger, the closer the ripples. > I say that c is ALWAYS assumed in the data, and that actual measurement > of the photon velocity (as per through a toothed wheel experiment) has > NEVER been done (with a moving emr source) > > Example: > George is correct- sagnac DOES indicate motion (rotation), but as he > admitted privately to me, the interference 'face' is due to an > alteration in time taken for the photons to travel to their points of > interaction. That is correct. The output depends on the relative phase of the two beams and for a given frequency (source light colour), that is the same as a time difference. > I say that that change in time is due to a change in c, brought about > by c'=c+v. Think about it :-( We did, that's the whole point! Jim, the length of the path covered by the light from source to detector is changed by a c+v factor because the detector moves while the light is in flight and a longer path means it takes more time for a given speed. If the speed also changed to c+v then the faster speed would cancel the effect of the longer distance and you get no output, the device wouldn't work. > If sagnac works because the > interference point depends on the time taken for the rays to arrive at > that position, BECAUSE velocity is a factor of time (and distance, > which we didn't argue changed for the dimensions of the machine), a > change in the velocity of the plane changes the interference position > and the sagnac works! You are mixing up the lab view and the "rotating frame" view. The path length _does_ change in the lab frame due to the motion of the table, and simply calculating the speed from the known rotation of the table and the measured signal output tells you the speed of the light. The measured value is compatible with SR but not Ritzian theory. > So given the info that c is invariant from source, (and therefore > c'=c+v) > a physicist/techno can build a sagnac which works perfectly well Nope, if that was the case it wouldn't work. This is simple arithmetic and a bit if trigonometry Jim, schoolboy stuff only. Try sitting down with a pencil and paper and work through it properly. George
From: George Dishman on 10 Sep 2005 05:47 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ekv3i1t1db9sqkpui1oj6082v1norhgdu4(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:16:12 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:jcd1i11abmioioqoc2ccunab9n2pubil28(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:54:55 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> >>wrote: >>> >>> > > >>> >at all. Thus ballistic light should move with constant speed wrt the >>> >fibre - >>> >if not, why not? >>> >>> Forget the fibre version. ...It's like integrating 0/0. >> >>It's the most simple and straightforward according to me, and your >>argument >>sounds blurry... When we started talking about Sagnac, Henri said using fibre was simply a case of total internal reflection like a standard table but with an infinite number of mirrors and he was right of course. The only reason he is backtracking is because the analysis in the rotating frame is trivial as you say and unarguably shows Ritzian theory to be untenable. > It's too hard for you. What Henri means is that he wants everybody to "forget the fibre version" because he has no argument against it. George
From: George Dishman on 10 Sep 2005 09:03 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1126290183.817714.111790(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>>>>>> The Sagnac experiment shows that the BaT is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dishman told you that. >>>>> >>>>> No, George *showed* *you* that. I followed the entire >>>>> discussion between the two of you. I followed George's >>>>> explanations and arguments. I understood them, and what >>>>> they imply. >>>> >>>> George is wrong. In a four mirror sagnac, the source and >>>> mirrors are moving at 90deg wrt the frame of next mirror. >>> >>> The source and mirrors are not moving at all relative to the >>> frame of the next mirror. >> >> No wonder you are not a physicist..... > > I responded to what you said. What you said was not what > you meant. > > What you *meant* was: In a four mirror Sagnac, the source > and mirrors are moving at 90deg wrt the next mirror, in the > frame of the lab. > > In the frame of the next mirror, the source and other > mirrors are not moving at all. Galilean relativity, pure > and simple. In a frame whose origin is the next mirror and which is rotating with the table, Jeff is correct. In a frame whose origin is the next mirror but which is not rotating, i.e. the origin is merely translating with the mirror, then the source is moving in a circle about the mirror. Why anyone would want to use either of those frames is not apparent to me but as we know, all frames must give the same predicted measurables so Henri can try those if he wishes. The analyses will be more complex because a lot of symmetry is lost. >>>> It certainly does NOT disprove the BaT. >>> >>> George showed exactly how and why it disproves the BaT. >>> You didn't like the result; You rejected the result; You >>> speculated about some problems you think it must have. >>> But those speculations have no basis in fact. Their only >>> basis is in your dislike of the experimental results. >> >> George was wrong. >> He thought that during rotation, the source moves towards the >> next mirror. It doesn't. It moves at right angles to it. > > I'll let George respond to that, if he wants to. I thought no such thing, I have no idea how Henri came to that conclusion. There are only two frames I have ever used in serious analysis, an inertial "lab" frame with origin at the centre of the table and the non-inertial "co-rotating" frame which also has the origin at the centre of the turntable but is rotating at the same speed as the table. It is obviously the speed of the light that affects the time taken, not the speed of the mirror. In the former frame, for v<<c and a square setup (three mirrors and the source/detector), the speed of the light according to Ritz would be: v' = c +/- v/sqrt(2) where v is the tangential speed of the source and mirrors, v' is the speed of the light and c is the usual constant. The "+/-" factor accounts for the two beam directions. The factor of 1/sqrt(2) is because the light is launched at 45 degrees to the motion of the source. In general for an N point path (N-1 mirrors), the formula is: v' = c +/- v * cos(pi / N) You can't give a single value for the speed in the frames Henri is discussing because it varies as the light progresses around the path. Again, it is perhaps more informative to turn it around. Comparing the output signal with the known speed of the turntable allows the speed of the light beams to be measured (assuming only that the speed increment is symmetrical) and the result is v' = c, not as shown above. I think the reason Henri keeps tossing in these vague hand-waving arguments is that he has come to realise that every quantitative analysis gives the same null result under the Ritzian model. Turning a blind eye is all he can do now. George
From: jgreen on 10 Sep 2005 22:23
Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > > >> > With train stationary, ray from ceiling would strike earth > >> > center; > >> > >> OK-- You're talking about a light ray going from the ceiling > >> of a railcar straight down to the floor, and beyond. > >> > >> > when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction > >> > is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. > >> > >> Relative to the world outside the railcar, the ray's > >> direction is altered. Of course, to a person on the > >> railcar, not knowing whether the car is moving, or in > >> which direction or at what speed, the ray's direction > >> is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling > >> straight down to the floor. > > > > Hooray!!!!!!This is what I have been saying on this group > > forever; that the observers MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!! Because the > > train rider is denied the information about the REAL situation > > (being able to know that he is moving), he is MISTAKEN/TRICKED > > as to the true situation. > > What gives you the idea that the person on the train has > been tricked or is mistaken about the true situation? > He sees the light go from the ceiling straight down to the > floor, and that is exactly what happens. Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually finds out that he was mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam MISS the eaths centre (flat earth) > > If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving > relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light > beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be > mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving > relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't > the scenario you're interested in. It certainly is! The passenger thinks he is ststionary ref the line at all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL at all times. Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts the truth. NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; the ray NEVER strikes the eye of any observer in this dendanken- the whole idea is based on the assumption that c=c+v BEFORE the clocks are started (they are not ticking in sync) > > > He can easily get it right by drilling a hole in the floor, > > and coming back later to see where the ray ACTUALLY was headed > > when the train was in motion. > > Or by looking out the window and seeing how the train is > moving relative to the Earth. He's smart enough to realize > that if he doesn't know how the train is moving relative > to the Earth, he can't determine where the light will go > relative to the Earth. Duh. > > > Must we be condemned to believe a falsehood about light > > propagation forever, because the passenger has the WRONG > > information, and reaches the WRONG conclusion???????/ > > Not yours t! > > You need to think about the scenario more carefully. > > >> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > >> > which is integral to velocity, > >> > >> Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. > >> The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged. Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is travelling a LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t?? > > > > Yep! That amazing bulb again, which gives each and every > > emitted photon instruction on which 'speed' to leave at, > > according to whether it is headed forward, down, or > > otherwise. haha > >> > >> > but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the > >> > changed photon propagation. > >> > >> I'll let you explain what you had in mind when you wrote > >> that, rather than trying to guess. > > > > A photon emitted directly forward will have velocity c+v > > Others will be subject to vector calculations. Get it now? > > No. Show the geometry and the numbers. Say what you have > in mind instead of just making vague allusions to what you > have in mind. > > >> > NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's > >> > inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion > >> > speed from the globe? (Which must be different from those > >> > directed in each different direction lol ) > >> > >> Again, I'll let you explain what you are talking about. > > > > Done and dusted to those who escaped the AE brainwash > > My hope was that you would explain why you think the light > must be moving at different speeds in different directions. > It seems obvious that it must move at different speeds-- > until you try to explain it. You haven't done that. The hypotenuse ceiling to floor is LONGER than the vertical. Therfore, unless the photon is moving at different d/t along those paths, they wouldn't hit floor simultaneously. This is too repetitive- you either get it or not. When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather than assuming that one WILL do more ticks (no offence George) jim G c'=c+v |