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: Jeff Root on 13 Sep 2005 20:04 George replied to Jeff: > 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. A chart recorder. I wanted one of those for years, so I could easily time events in musical passages. I was told the things were too expensive for me to borrow one. Now, of course, my computer can do the job. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Harry on 14 Sep 2005 04:05 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:2uhei1pf3mcscnnfp682ghj1j1trekfre1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:34:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: SNIP > >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. Fine. So according to you it's moving all the time at a speed of c wrt each concessive mirror? Both ways, of course. Using that assumption, I don't get the Sagnac equation, but (again) zero effect: T1= 4*c*L T2= 4*c*L ------------ - deltaT= 0 Please reproduce your calculation here and we can discuss it. Harald
From: Eric Gisse on 14 Sep 2005 11:22 Harry wrote: > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > news:2uhei1pf3mcscnnfp682ghj1j1trekfre1(a)4ax.com... > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:34:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > SNIP > > > >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. > > Fine. So according to you it's moving all the time at a speed of c wrt each > concessive mirror? Both ways, of course. Using that assumption, I don't get > the Sagnac equation, but (again) zero effect: > T1= 4*c*L > T2= 4*c*L > ------------ - > deltaT= 0 > > Please reproduce your calculation here and we can discuss it. Prepare to wait for a very long time. I'm still waiting to see him reproduce the calculation that properly accounts for the perhelion of Mercury's orbit using Newtonian mechanics. > > Harald
From: George Dishman on 14 Sep 2005 16:17 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:74iei1pdg1b0dthk37sr1h3v2pi06qhms2(a)4ax.com... > 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. Nor mine, I'll just point out it is incompatible with Ritz any time tyou forget. In the meantime David Smith has given something far more interesting to think about. > I am quite content to accept that it has litle to do with light speed. Not accroding to Ritz. If you want to start developing some new version of BaT with equations that incorporate little gyros, that's up to you. Remember though that iFOGs use elliptical fibre to control the effects of polarisation/spin so your idea wouldn't apply to them. > Right now, I am having considerable success investigating starlight that > leaves > its source at c and travels to Earth at c+v. Since Sagnac proves it doesn't, it seems pointless to me, but then that applies to most of the arguments on this group. Actually I suspect that's one of the few things we can agree on ;-) best regards George
From: George Dishman on 14 Sep 2005 16:38
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:hfhei11eecp1n3uevjqhpiq1pvgk2clt3b(a)4ax.com... > 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. It reduces the factor of sqrt(2)/2 by a few parts per billion. Explaining the Sagnac result requires that the coefficient be zero for all speeds. That second order factor is totally 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 have never said it was wrong and I told you from day one that Sagnac could be analysed classically. > 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. And I have pointed out Ritzian theory does not include terms for gyros in photons and that the polarisation maintaining fibre used in iFOGs means that is an irrelevant fantasy. I don't intend to spend any more time on this either but I will continue to correct your error if you say Ritz can explain "all experiments", it cannot. George |