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 25 Sep 2005 07:38 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127636909.093068.229090(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 Sep 2005 14:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:47:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:24:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> > > >> >>I would advice you to forget the eyepiece. >>Think that the interference pattern is formed >>on a screen. > > > If the beam was perfectly parallel there would be > NO inteference pattern on the > screen. Quite. Read my posting again, please. >>Using an eyepiece doesn't change the principle. >>All it does is to project the light into your >>eye so that the interference pattern is formed >>on your retina. > > > Have a think about interference from thin films. An entirely different phenomenon. Which you must know. [..] >>You are babbling. >>I will take the typos as an indication that >>you are writing without thinking. > > > They are an indication that I am sick and tired of trying to educate you. You are babbling. [..] >>I don't think you read my posting properly. >>Please read it agin, carefully. > > > too busy... ...to learn? [..] >>"The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >>of the light paths (measured in wavelengths)." >>So far you agree. > > > Absolute rubbish. Really? 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 unless you were lying, we agree that "The ballistic theory predicts no length difference of the light paths (measured in wavelengths)." And it is because you realized this, that you now are claiming that an interferometer works in an entirely different way than physicists think, so there still will be fringe shifts despite the fact that the ballistic theory predicts no difference in the light paths. >>But you cannot explain this away by claiming that >>interferometers work in an entirely different >>way than they actually do. >> >>Interferometers are used in a lot of different >>applications, and they have been used for centuries. >>It is very well know how they work. >>Disputing this is idiocy. >> >>You are not even able to state what your alternative >>explanation for how interferometers work, is. >>You are only babbling some incoherent nonsense about >>changing angles. > > > It is all based on angles and the consequent path > length diffferences at thsoe different angles. Indeed it is, Henri. That was what I told you. The interference pattern is formed because the path length difference from a point on the screen to the two sources is different at different points on the screen. But to make that pattern _change_, one or both of the two path lengths must change. No angles are changing when the interferometer is rotated. So when the fringes shift, it must be because the path length - measured in wavelengths - of one or both beam changes. The ballistic theory predicts no changes in the path lengths, and thus no fringe shifts. I think you better read my posting again. Please THINK while doing so this time. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Sep 2005 18:05 On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:22:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:47:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > >>>Using an eyepiece doesn't change the principle. >>>All it does is to project the light into your >>>eye so that the interference pattern is formed >>>on your retina. >> >> >> Have a think about interference from thin films. > >An entirely different phenomenon. >Which you must know. > >[..] > >>>You are babbling. >>>I will take the typos as an indication that >>>you are writing without thinking. >> >> >> They are an indication that I am sick and tired of trying to educate you. > >You are babbling. > >[..] >>>I don't think you read my posting properly. >>>Please read it agin, carefully. >> >> >> too busy... > >..to learn? > >[..] > >>>"The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >>>of the light paths (measured in wavelengths)." >>>So far you agree. >> >> >> Absolute rubbish. > >Really? > >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 unless you were lying, we agree that >"The ballistic theory predicts no length difference > of the light paths (measured in wavelengths)." > >And it is because you realized this, that you now are >claiming that an interferometer works in an entirely >different way than physicists think, so there still >will be fringe shifts despite the fact that the ballistic >theory predicts no difference in the light paths. > >>>But you cannot explain this away by claiming that >>>interferometers work in an entirely different >>>way than they actually do. >>> >>>Interferometers are used in a lot of different >>>applications, and they have been used for centuries. >>>It is very well know how they work. >>>Disputing this is idiocy. >>> >>>You are not even able to state what your alternative >>>explanation for how interferometers work, is. >>>You are only babbling some incoherent nonsense about >>>changing angles. >> >> >> It is all based on angles and the consequent path > > length diffferences at thsoe different angles. > >Indeed it is, Henri. >That was what I told you. >The interference pattern is formed because the path >length difference from a point on the screen to >the two sources is different at different points >on the screen. > >But to make that pattern _change_, one or both >of the two path lengths must change. >No angles are changing when the interferometer >is rotated. So when the fringes shift, it must >be because the path length - measured in wavelengths - >of one or both beam changes. > >The ballistic theory predicts no changes in the path >lengths, and thus no fringe shifts. > >I think you better read my posting again. >Please THINK while doing so this time. > >To get an interference pattern with fringes, >the beams must be diverging and overlapping. Thank you for explaining that to geese. > >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 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. > >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. > >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. > >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. > >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. This whole posting would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. The truth is, the sagnac principle relies on the fact that light has its own built-in 'gyro' in the form of an 'axis'. It is not directly related to changes in light speed. Rather, the rotation of the axes at each reflection gives rise to fringes when the beams reunite (at different angles). PS: You wont find this in any book. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: jgreen on 26 Sep 2005 03:48 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1127636909.093068.229090(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life > > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? > > http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html > > George Ta George. It would seem that the discovery of one close handy would be very bad news :-) Jim
From: Paul B. Andersen on 26 Sep 2005 09:23
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:22:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:47:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>>>Using an eyepiece doesn't change the principle. >>>>All it does is to project the light into your >>>>eye so that the interference pattern is formed >>>>on your retina. >>> >>> >>>Have a think about interference from thin films. >> >>An entirely different phenomenon. >>Which you must know. >> >>[..] >> >> >>>>You are babbling. >>>>I will take the typos as an indication that >>>>you are writing without thinking. >>> >>> >>>They are an indication that I am sick and tired of trying to educate you. >> >>You are babbling. >> >>[..] >> >>>>I don't think you read my posting properly. >>>>Please read it agin, carefully. >>> >>> >>>too busy... >> >>..to learn? >> >>[..] >> >> >>>>"The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >>>>of the light paths (measured in wavelengths)." >>>>So far you agree. >>> >>> >>>Absolute rubbish. >> >>Really? >> >>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 unless you were lying, we agree that >>"The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >> of the light paths (measured in wavelengths)." >> >>And it is because you realized this, that you now are >>claiming that an interferometer works in an entirely >>different way than physicists think, so there still >>will be fringe shifts despite the fact that the ballistic >>theory predicts no difference in the light paths. >> >> >>>>But you cannot explain this away by claiming that >>>>interferometers work in an entirely different >>>>way than they actually do. >>>> >>>>Interferometers are used in a lot of different >>>>applications, and they have been used for centuries. >>>>It is very well know how they work. >>>>Disputing this is idiocy. >>>> >>>>You are not even able to state what your alternative >>>>explanation for how interferometers work, is. >>>>You are only babbling some incoherent nonsense about >>>>changing angles. >>> >>> >>>It is all based on angles and the consequent path >>>length diffferences at thsoe different angles. >> >>Indeed it is, Henri. >>That was what I told you. >>The interference pattern is formed because the path >>length difference from a point on the screen to >>the two sources is different at different points >>on the screen. >> >>But to make that pattern _change_, one or both >>of the two path lengths must change. >>No angles are changing when the interferometer >>is rotated. So when the fringes shift, it must >>be because the path length - measured in wavelengths - >>of one or both beam changes. >> >>The ballistic theory predicts no changes in the path >>lengths, and thus no fringe shifts. >> >>I think you better read my posting again. >>Please THINK while doing so this time. >> >>To get an interference pattern with fringes, >>the beams must be diverging and overlapping. > > > Thank you for explaining that to geese. > > >>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 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. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>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. > > > This whole posting would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. > You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. Was this the best you can do? Since you cannot refute my arguments, you flee the discussion. > The truth is, the sagnac principle relies on the fact that light has its own > built-in 'gyro' in the form of an 'axis'. > It is not directly related to changes in light speed. Rather, the rotation of > the axes at each reflection gives rise to fringes when the > beams reunite (at different angles). This is very funny even if it is pathetic, :-) You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. So the Sagnac interferometer works in an entirely different way than other interferometers? The interference pattern is formed by different laws of nature? The interference pattern is moving, not because the path length difference between the two beams is changing, but because the photons are rotated? :-) There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict what it predicts, is it? > PS: You wont find this in any book. I wonder why. :-) Seriously, Henri. If you really believe your fantasies yourself, you have a serious sanity problem. But you do not really believe it, of course. Paul |