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 20 Sep 2005 18:58 On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:24:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:50:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >> 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'. > >Don't obfuscate the matter with nonsense, please. > >>>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. > >What a strange way to state that >the ballistic theory predicts no 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. > >Nonsense. >Even utter nonsense. > >You seem to be completely ignorant of how an >interference pattern is formed, and why fringes shifts. I'm not. > >Please take the time to read the following properly, >I am using time to write it. > >To get an interference pattern with fringes, >the beams must be diverging and overlapping. > >Consider this simple figure: > > 1 2 > * * Two correlated (in phase) point sources > emitting monochromatic, coherent light. > (Laser and a beam splitter) > > > >--|--|--|---- screen > A B C > >The point B is equidistant to source 1 and 2. >We get a bright fringe through B. The fringe >will be a straight line. >The distance from the point A to point 2 is >half a wavelength longer than the distance >to point 1. We get a dark fringe through A. >This fringe will be a bit curved. >Likewise for point C, a dark fringe. Note that the angle to the observer's eyepiece is changing as you go from A->B->C. > >Note that the reason why there are fringes >at all is that the beams are diverging, so >the distance from the source to the screen >is different on different parts of the screen. > >The angle of the beams when they unite >has obviously nothing whatsoever with >the matter to do. The only thing that matters >is the difference in the light path lengths >to the two sources measured in wavelengths. In tyhe sagnac, the two path lengths are different, whether or not each component's sped relative to the next IS considered. > >The only way to make the fringes move, >is to change the distance to one of the sources. >If we move source 1 a bit upwards, the fringes >will move to the left, and vice versa. If the two beams reunite at different angles, it is implied that they have traveled diferent lengths. > >So when fringes move, the difference between >the two path lengths measured in wavelengths >changes. > >Now let this "interferometer" rotate. >Observed in the interferometer frame, >the light paths will be slightly curved, >so the angle with which the light hits >the screen is slightly altered. >But the fringes will not move, because >the slightly curved light paths from >point 1 to B and point 2 to B will still >be equally long. The angle at which the beams >hit the screen is utterly irrelevant. No. > >And please don't say something like >"the beam will no longer hit point B, >because it is deflected." >That is irrelevant. The beams are diverging >and overlapping, and what happens in point B >depend only on the lengths of the paths of >the light that hit point B, obviously. > >The same applies for the four mirror set up. >It is stupid to say something like "the two >contra going beams will no longer combine >at the same point on the mirror." > >Some light will always hit at "the midpoint" >of the combining mirror, and what happens in >that point is only determined by the phase >difference of the two light paths that >actually hit that point. If the fringes shifts, >it means that the phase difference changes, >which only can mean that the length difference >of the light paths have changed. Paul, George and I discused this at length. I have an animation of the way the beams move. I am content to believe that I won the argument. > >The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >of the light paths (measured in wavelengths) >and thus no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring rotates. > >But the fringes do shift when the Sagnac ring rotates. > >Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. > >No other conclusion is possible. Rubbish. > >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: Timo Nieminen on 20 Sep 2005 20:02 On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: > > > (change subject) > > Proposed experiment: > > Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the > > source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle > > through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is > > determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to > > give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the > > clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS > > light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from > > Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. > > I believe this has been done and the speed was > the same but I couldn't cite an experimeter. Most > people would just say it is because the light is > moving through the atmosphere. If the speed didn't > change when starlight hits the atmosphere, you > wouldn't get refraction. Remember c is the speed > in vacuo. Spinning disk measurement would be tricky to do accurately enough. Interferometric measurement has been done (but see below) - Shankland et al, Rev Mod Phys 27(2), 167 (1955) reviews past Michelson-Morley type experiments, and notes Miller (Miller PNAS 11, 311 (1925)) and Tomaschek (Tomaschek, Ann. d. Phys. 73, 105 (1924)) used sunlight and starlight as their sources. Neglecting the "extinction argument", these rule out emission theories where the velocity of light after reflection still has the source _velocity_ added to it (the original Ritzian theory) and where the mirror acts as a new source. Emission theories with _speed_ of reflected light equal to _speed_ of incident light aren't ruled out (by these experiments alone). The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement? -- Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Sep 2005 18:35 On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:02:51 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: >> >> > (change subject) >> > Proposed experiment: >> > Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the >> > source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle >> > through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is >> > determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to >> > give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the >> > clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS >> > light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from >> > Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. >> >> I believe this has been done and the speed was >> the same but I couldn't cite an experimeter. Most >> people would just say it is because the light is >> moving through the atmosphere. If the speed didn't >> change when starlight hits the atmosphere, you >> wouldn't get refraction. Remember c is the speed >> in vacuo. > >Spinning disk measurement would be tricky to do accurately enough. they are impossible at this stage. >Interferometric measurement has been done (but see below) - Shankland et >al, Rev Mod Phys 27(2), 167 (1955) reviews past Michelson-Morley type >experiments, and notes Miller (Miller PNAS 11, 311 (1925)) and Tomaschek >(Tomaschek, Ann. d. Phys. 73, 105 (1924)) used sunlight and starlight as >their sources. Neglecting the "extinction argument", these rule out >emission theories where the velocity of light after reflection still has >the source _velocity_ added to it (the original Ritzian theory) and where >the mirror acts as a new source. Emission theories with _speed_ of >reflected light equal to _speed_ of incident light aren't ruled out (by >these experiments alone). I have suggested a perfectly sound way to check the BaT. All we need is a relay receiver/transmitter on the edge of the moon and a space capsule equipped with a powerful EM pulse generator. The capsule will move at high speed v, away from Earth. When the capsule, relay station and Earth observer are approximately in line, a pulse is intercepted by the R/X, which after a short and known delay, sends another similar pulse down to Earth. The original pulse is traveling at c-v, the relayed one at c, wrt the observer. The arrival time difference between the two pulses can be around 20us or more . NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely simple and cheap experiment? >The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue >against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium >would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement? I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. These is normally based on observed doppler shifts. If speed is unified, then so too would be doppler shift. De Sitter was plainly wrong. He interpreted all his observed data using Einsteiniana so his findings naturally conflicted with BaT concepts. His radial velocity estimates were probably way out. 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: Timo Nieminen on 21 Sep 2005 20:49 On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, it was written: > Timo Nieminen wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: > >> > >> > (change subject) > >> > Proposed experiment: > >> > Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the > >> > source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle > >> > through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is > >> > determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to > >> > give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the > >> > clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS > >> > light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from > >> > Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. > > > >Spinning disk measurement would be tricky to do accurately enough. > > they are impossible at this stage. I have in the past suggested to the proposer of that experiment some paths to follow to try to find a cheap and convincing test of his favoured emission theory. He hasn't been interested in following up. What about you? Do you want your theory tested? Dirt cheap compared to any space-based experiment. Emission theories mean that the Maxwell equations are wrong. This is very likely to have consequences that can be measured in the lab. All you need to do is come up with testable predictions about deviations from Maxwellian electrodynamics, do the test, and you'll have falsified one or the other. > I have suggested a perfectly sound way to check the BaT. > All we need is a relay receiver/transmitter on the edge of the moon and a > space capsule equipped with a powerful EM pulse generator. The capsule will > move at high speed v, away from Earth. When the capsule, relay station and > Earth observer are approximately in line, a pulse is intercepted by the R/X, > which after a short and known delay, sends another similar pulse down to Earth. > The original pulse is traveling at c-v, the relayed one at c, wrt the observer. > > The arrival time difference between the two pulses can be around 20us or more . > > NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely > simple and cheap experiment? If it involves going to the moon, it isn't simple or cheap. If you're willing to fund it, it can be done. Start writing those grant proposals now! However, think very carefully: > >The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based > >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue > >against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium > >would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement? Basically, will extinction by the interplanetary medium mean that such an experiment would be useless? If you can't give a definite answer, then can you convince a donor to fund an experiment that might well be useless? > I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause > corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. > These is normally based on observed doppler shifts. If speed is unified, then > so too would be doppler shift. Why? Emission theories, special relativity, and Galilean ether theories all give the same 1st order Doppler shift, assuming that light is an electromagnetic wave with frequency given by the rate of oscillation of fields. If your theory has a different mechanism for Doppler shift, then, great! That's even more deviations from currently accepted classical electrodynamics, so it should be even easier to do a cheap tabletop experiment. -- Timo
From: Henri Wilson on 22 Sep 2005 19:17
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:49:25 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, it was written: > >> Timo Nieminen wrote: >> >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> > (change subject) >> >> > Proposed experiment: >> >> > Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the >> >> > source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle >> >> > through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is >> >> > determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to >> >> > give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the >> >> > clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS >> >> > light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from >> >> > Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. >> > >> >Spinning disk measurement would be tricky to do accurately enough. >> >> they are impossible at this stage. > >I have in the past suggested to the proposer of that experiment some >paths to follow to try to find a cheap and convincing test of his favoured >emission theory. He hasn't been interested in following up. What about >you? Do you want your theory tested? Like I said, spining disk methods are just not quite accurate enough. > >Dirt cheap compared to any space-based experiment. Emission theories mean >that the Maxwell equations are wrong. No they don't. Maxwell's equations apply to an aether. At best, they describe the speed of light EMITTED by the observer who measures the two constants. They say nothing about the speed of light from moving sources. They say nothing about light speed in 'no aether'. >This is very likely to have >consequences that can be measured in the lab. All you need to do is come >up with testable predictions about deviations from Maxwellian >electrodynamics, do the test, and you'll have falsified one or the other. > >> I have suggested a perfectly sound way to check the BaT. >> All we need is a relay receiver/transmitter on the edge of the moon and a >> space capsule equipped with a powerful EM pulse generator. The capsule will >> move at high speed v, away from Earth. When the capsule, relay station and >> Earth observer are approximately in line, a pulse is intercepted by the R/X, >> which after a short and known delay, sends another similar pulse down to Earth. >> The original pulse is traveling at c-v, the relayed one at c, wrt the observer. >> >> The arrival time difference between the two pulses can be around 20us or more . >> >> NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely >> simple and cheap experiment? > >If it involves going to the moon, it isn't simple or cheap. they are going anyway and will have a powerful transmitter. All they have to do is place a small receiver on the edge which can intercept signals from any distant probe that is sending pulses back to Earth. >If you're willing to fund it, it can be done. Start writing those grant >proposals now! > >However, think very carefully: > >> >The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based >> >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue >> >against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium >> >would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement? > >Basically, will extinction by the interplanetary medium mean that such an >experiment would be useless? If you can't give a definite answer, then can >you convince a donor to fund an experiment that might well be useless? There is probably enough 'extinction free' space between earth and moon to make this work. However an unlikely null result would not rule out the BaT. A signal takes 1.3 secs to travel from moon to Earth. If the distant pulse transmitter is moving away at 0.0001c or 30 kms/sec, the arrival time difference between the two pulses should be about 130 microsecs...easily detectable. >> I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause >> corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. >> These is normally based on observed doppler shifts. If speed is unified, then >> so too would be doppler shift. > >Why? Emission theories, special relativity, and Galilean ether theories >all give the same 1st order Doppler shift, assuming that light is an >electromagnetic wave with frequency given by the rate of oscillation of >fields. If your theory has a different mechanism for Doppler shift, then, >great! That's even more deviations from currently accepted classical >electrodynamics, so it should be even easier to do a cheap tabletop >experiment. At practical speeds, the Doppler equation is virtually the same for all three theories. 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. |