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 13 Sep 2005 15:54 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1126637919.160739.210880(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: <big snips, just trying to clarify some background> >> If he "knew" f*a, how could he make ANY comment on time >> dilation? > > I don't know what you mean by "f*a". I thought it might > be a disguised vulgarity, but couldn't find it in a search > of multiple dictionaries of acronyms and abbreviations. I first thought it was "force times acceleration" which made no sense but on a second look "f*** a**" would fit. >> Google on "slot clock"! > > This, however, I seem to fail at. The most promising hits > on "slot clock" were about high-speed communications, and > most of those were Intel research papers. A slot, in that > context, is a window of fixed-length time in which one > machine is allowed to transmit messages to another. No > dictionary had a definition of the term. George seemed to > know what you meant, though. Whatever it is wasn't among > the first thirty Google hits. I think Jim wants to move a pencil along a slot cut in a piece of paper to represent a clock or something along those lines. We discussed it briefly a year ago but if I had finished the animation it would have shown the approach wasn't really useful. It's not something I could easily explain though, the problem is similar to Henri's attempted use of an orbit as a clock. Jim, can you explain the details to Jeff please. George
From: George Dishman on 13 Sep 2005 15:58 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:s399i155dn5qe261f8ft8q5vibf7vrnak1(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:47:58 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>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. > > only when the wrong equation is used..... The only equation is that frame is speed = distance / time >>> 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. > > My attitude is that the fringes are not casued by path length difference > at > all. They are a consequence of the fact that the two beams are not > parallel > when they meet. No, your attitude is that it is because the first mirror moves at right angles to the first. No, sorry I forgot, it's because photons have built in gyros. Oh heck, which explanation is your firm conviction today Henri, it's hard to keep up? George
From: Henri Wilson on 13 Sep 2005 17:41 On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:53:40 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:p589i1lsa6hn9vb4t77eb9dof9lkath82u(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:03:20 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message >>>news:1126290183.817714.111790(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>> Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >... >>>>> 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) >> >> Consider a single photon. >> When it is emitted, it has the above component velocity in the direction >> of the >> next mirror AT THAT INSTANT. > >Thank you, that was the point. The motion of the >_mirror_ is not relevant, what matters is that the >speed of the _light_ should be modified by the >speed of the source according to Ritz. > >> However the next mirror will move before the photon reaches it. >> The component in the direction of the mirror WHEN THE PHOTON ARRIVES is >> not >> described by the above equation. > >"For v<<c ..." the equation is correct. The deviation >from that due to mirror movement depends on (v/c)^2 >which is negligible compared to the 71% of v that >should be added to the emission speed. The bit that you claim is negligible has opposite direction in the two beams. Over the 360 deegres, it is not negligible. >... >>>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. >> >> It is not related to light speed at all. The sagnac effect is caused by >> the >> fact photons have an 'axis' and that axis wants to remain in the same >> direction. .... > >Whatever bizarre mechanism you might postulate, it >doesn't matter. The way interference behaves has >been fully _characterised_ since the beggining of >classical optics. The relative intensity depends >on the relative phase. In real world closed loop >devices, the output is held constant by introducing >an additional well defined phase delay which >compensates for that produced by the Sagnac effect. So now you are reverting to classical physics.....after assuring us for years that it is wrong.... I say light has its own built in 'gyroscope' in the form of an 'axis'. It is sensitive to rotation and can produce fringe shifts in an interferometer. > >George > 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: Henri Wilson on 13 Sep 2005 17:44 On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:34:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> Use a four mirror system. > >Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005: >| Done. >| In less than one hour. >| To a first order approximation, (that is, ignoring >| terms containing higher than first order of >| the tangential mirror speed v) the light will use >| the same time in both directions. >| The math isn't very hard, but it isn't trivial either. >| I won't bother to go through all the math in this awkward >| medium, but I will write the first order terms: >| The length of one chord of the light path will be: >| d = srt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2) >| where r is the radius of the circle tangenting the mirrors, >| and t is the time the light uses to traverse the chord. >| The speed of the light will be: >| c' = c + v/sqrt(2) >| Note that these equations are valid for both direction, >| v being negative for the beam going in the opposite direction. >| So we have: >| c'*t = d >| c*t + v*t/sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2) >| t = sqrt(2)*r/c >| The ballistic theory predicts that the time >| has no first order dependency on the speed! >| >| The sagnac effect IS a first order effect! >| >| You are proven wrong. > >Henri Wilson responded: >| I did that calculation a long time ago. > > >So why keep discussing what is settled a long time ago? >The ballistic theory predicts no Sagnac effect. >The ballistic theory is falsified. Rubbish. You know that the sagnac supports LET if anything. It does not rfute the BaT because the light emitted by the source is moving normal to hte next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME. It is NOT moving at c+v wrt that mirror at all. > >Paul 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: Henri Wilson on 13 Sep 2005 17:48
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:58:38 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:s399i155dn5qe261f8ft8q5vibf7vrnak1(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:47:58 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> only when the wrong equation is used..... > >The only equation is that frame is > > speed = distance / time > >>>> 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. >> >> My attitude is that the fringes are not casued by path length difference >> at >> all. They are a consequence of the fact that the two beams are not >> parallel >> when they meet. > >No, your attitude is that it is because the first >mirror moves at right angles to the first. > >No, sorry I forgot, it's because photons have built >in gyros. > >Oh heck, which explanation is your firm conviction >today Henri, it's hard to keep up? > >George > George, the sagnac question is not one of my priorities at present. I am quite content to accept that it has litle to do with light speed. Right now, I am having considerable success investigating starlight that leaves its source at c and travels to Earth at c+v. 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. |