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: Paul B. Andersen on 19 Sep 2005 09:50 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message > news:dgkgdc$dac$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > > | Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. > > LOL! > The tusselad will believe anything. > > t0, light leaves A, goes to B and C, Sagnac turns. > AC > BD > > t1, light arrives B and C, Sagnac turns. > CD > AB > > t2, light arrives D both ways, meets itself. > DB > CA > In the frame of the turntable, the light went from A to D, two sides > of the square. > > In the frame of the observer, one ray went around four sides > of the square, the other stayed in the top left corner. > Sagnac proves Andersen is a tusselad. > Androcles. One can but be impressed by this clear and coherent explanation of why Sagnac does not falsify the emission theory. Well done, Androcles. Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 19 Sep 2005 14:30 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dgmfnl$17$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... | Androcles wrote: | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message | > news:dgkgdc$dac$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... | > | > | Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. | > | > LOL! | > The tusselad will believe anything. | > | > t0, light leaves A, goes to B and C, Sagnac turns. | > AC | > BD | > | > t1, light arrives B and C, Sagnac turns. | > CD | > AB | > | > t2, light arrives D both ways, meets itself. | > DB | > CA | > In the frame of the turntable, the light went from A to D, two sides | > of the square. | > | > In the frame of the observer, one ray went around four sides | > of the square, the other stayed in the top left corner. | > Sagnac proves Andersen is a tusselad. | > Androcles. | | One can but be impressed by this clear and coherent | explanation of why Sagnac does not falsify the emission theory. | | Well done, Androcles. Thank you, tusselad. You didn't know that to rotate a turntable A x x x it would look like this: x x A x and then this: x x x A, did you? Androcles.
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Sep 2005 18:30 On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:50:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:06:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:34:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > >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. >>> >>>What's rubish? >>>The calculation you did a long time ago showing >>>that the ballistic theory predicts that the time >>>has no first order dependency on the speed? > >No comment, Henri? > >I have shown that the ballistic theory predicts >that the time for the light beam to go around >the Sagnac ring has no first order dependency >on the speed. > >You claim to have done the same calculation >a long time ago. > >Was the calculation you made a long time ago rubbish? > >>>>You know that the sagnac supports LET if anything. >>> >>>Quite. >>>Sagnac confirms LET, Michelson's ether theory and SR. >>>It falsifies the ballistic theory. >> >> >> It has nothing to do with the BaT. > >What has nothing to do with the BaT? > >The ballistic theory predicts that the time for >the light beam to go around the Sagnac ring has >no first order dependency on the rotation speed. > >That means that the ballistic theory predicts that >there should be no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring >is rotated. The fringe shifts are caused by he different angles of approach by both beams at the eyepiece. Light has its own built-in gyro in the form of an 'axis'. > >Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. To the unwary it might. > >>>>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. >>> >>>Well said. >>>That's why Sagnac falsifies BaT. >> >> >> It has nothing to do with the BaT. >> Each member is moving at right angles to the next member in the frame of that >> next member. > >What has nothing to do with the ballistic theory? >Because - as you correctly state - the light according >to the ballistic theory is NOT moving at c+v wrt that mirror >at all, but is moving with the speed c in the mirror frame, >will the light according to the ballistic theory use the same >time in either direction regardless of the rotation of the mirror >frame. So the ballistic theory predicts no Sagnac effect. The ballistic theory does not encompass the sagnac effect. >Have the wrong predictions of the ballistic theory >nothing with the ballistic theory to do? :-) > >But I think I got your point. >It is that the motion of mirrors will affect the light >path drawn in the mirror frame regardless of which >theory you use to explain it, and that it is this that >is responsible for the Sagnac effect. >It is true that such an effect exists, but this effect >is NOT the Sagnac effect. > >So what is this effect? >Let's draw the light path between the mirrors >when the ring is not rotating. The light path is >then the same for both beams. > > / \ > /-----------\ >/| |\ > | | > | | > | | >\| |/ > \-----------/ > \ / > >So what happens when the ring is rotating? >(Remember that we are talking about the shape of the >light paths as viewed in the mirror frame.) >The light paths will not be the same in both directions. >The light path of the beam going in the same direction >as the rotation will be slightly curved inwards >(concave) while the light path of the light beam going >in the opposite direction will be slightly curved outwards >(convex). So the lengths of the light paths will be very slightly >longer than when it is not rotating, and the difference of >the lengths of the two light paths will be extremely little different. >But this effect is extremely small, it is no first order effect, >like the Sagnac effect is. The angle between the two beams when they reunite is considerable. It is that angle which causes the fringe shift. > >You have to be pretty desperate to claim that >this is the cause of the Sagnac effect. > >Which you obviously are. Frankly , I'm more interested in starlight. > >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 19 Sep 2005 18:35 On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:04:33 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:bnori1972nes8ps891m3p12hm4s2mdmt5d(a)4ax.com: > >>> >>>Better, but I see significant phase shift from cycle to cycle. >>>Such could not occur with orbiting bodies. >> >> If you read the comments about these brightness curves, you will learn >> that they are somewhat vague. They are usually based a collection of >> independent observations from different observers and are often affected >> by weather conditions. > >Nonetheless, such 'vagueness' is unlikely to produce the PHASE shifts that >are clearly visible. They can produce amplitude variation (which is NOT the >problem) but not phase shifts. What you see as phase shifts are just slight anomalies caused by poor viewing conditions. >>>However, such phase shifts ARE common to relaxation oscillators. > >>>Those plots are excellent evidence against WHC and for huff and puff. > > >> ....and that statement is evidence that you are a hopelessly brainwashed >> fool. > >Momma told me not to call people names because such behavior reflected back >upon me and made people think she did a poor job raising me. sorry Buzz. 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: donstockbauer on 19 Sep 2005 19:01
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. ********* Prove Einstein wrong? How? Lotsa stuff packed into his life. Like, did you prove he bought a losing lottery ticket?????????? |