GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Oct 2007 14:36 Androcles skrev: > > Look at Tusseladd's sketch (fig 1) at: > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > > On the right, between the half silvered mirror and the viewing screen, > are a red ray and a blue ray travelling in the same direction but with > different speeds, c+v and c-v. Same argument, same answer: No, but it is an interesting point, so let's have a look at it. The following is according to Ritz Emission Theory and Galilean relativity: The red ray will go right through the mirror without changing speed, and it will thus have the speed c_f ~= c + v/(c*sqrt(2)), measured in the inertial frame. The blue ray will have the speed c_b ~= c - v/(c*sqrt(2)) _before_ it is reflected off the half silvered mirror. The "law of reflection" is that the ray will be reflected off the mirror at the same speed as the incident speed _in the stationary frame of the mirror_. If we first transform the speed of the incoming ray to the mirror frame, we will find that the speed of the incoming ray is c. The speed of the reflected ray will thus also be c in the mirror frame. When we transform this back to the inertial frame, the speed of the blue, reflected ray will be ~= c + v/(c*sqrt(2)), just like the red ray. V ^ \ / c1 = c - v/(c*sqrt(2)) \c1 /c2 c2 = c + v/(c*sqrt(2)) \ / \ / \ / \/ ^ ------------- | v moving mirror If the red and blue ray are in phase at the mirror, they will according to the emission theory still be in phase at the screen. If you bounce a ball off an approaching wall, it will come back to you faster than it went in. According to the emission theory, the same applies for light. [..] -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Oct 2007 14:37 Androcles skrev: > None, Norwegians are more sensible than Ozzies. See, the nail heads > represent direction... that gets turned around at half-silvered mirrors. > Look at Tusseladd's sketch (fig 1) at: > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > > On the right, between the half silvered mirror and the viewing screen, > are a red ray and a blue ray travelling in the same direction but with > different speeds, c+v and c-v. Same argument, same answer: No, but it is an interesting point, so let's have a look at it. The following is according to Ritz Emission Theory and Galilean relativity: The red ray will go right through the mirror without changing speed, and it will thus have the speed c_f ~= c + v/(c*sqrt(2)), measured in the inertial frame. The blue ray will have the speed c_b ~= c - v/(c*sqrt(2)) _before_ it is reflected off the half silvered mirror. The "law of reflection" is that the ray will be reflected off the mirror at the same speed as the incident speed _in the stationary frame of the mirror_. If we first transform the speed of the incoming ray to the mirror frame, we will find that the speed of the incoming ray is c. The speed of the reflected ray will thus also be c in the mirror frame. When we transform this back to the inertial frame, the speed of the blue, reflected ray will be ~= c + v/(c*sqrt(2)), just like the red ray. V ^ \ / c1 = c - v/(c*sqrt(2)) \c1 /c2 c2 = c + v/(c*sqrt(2)) \ / \ / \ / \/ ^ ------------- | v moving mirror If the red and blue ray are in phase at the mirror, they will according to the emission theory still be in phase at the screen. If you bounce a ball off an approaching wall, it will come back to you faster than it went in. According to the emission theory, the same applies for light. [..] -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2007 14:41 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:brinh3hqfqvicvbptqm13kldp4o2ea6gsq(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:26:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: .... >>So the phase at the front of the ray - which moves with >>the phase velocity of the ray - is varying. >> >>Thanks again. >>Your amusing, nonsensical, revealing answer duly noted. >> >>And what is most hilarious is that Henri Wilson is so >>confused that he doesn't even understand why his answer >>is amusing, nonsensical and revealing! :-) > > Paul, let me explain. > Photons are particles and not classical waves in a medium. So why did you draw a wave round your diagram if they are not waves? Clueless as ever. George
From: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2007 14:45 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:j6jnh31t1l51v5jb1n9b964nfbtr9s8frp(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:36:49 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:tk0lh3l045j914i2bru14hvch37vst9abc(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:59:53 -0700, Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>... >>>>Scroll down a bit for the new applet, or click on the following: >>>>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm#transients >>> >>> Still wrong. >>.. >>> Your colleagues still cannot grasp the difference between 'the 'static >>> emission point' and the 'moving source'. >> >>That's because the emission "point" moves with the >>source, your model is for a dragged aether which is >>statinary in the lab. That theory actually survives >>Sagnac's, ballistic theory doesn't. > > I wont keep repeating my answer to this monotonous nonsense. That's because you don't have an answer, you just keep ignoring the fact that your wave doesn't propagate at all when ballistic theory says it does. George
From: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2007 14:48
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:v8jnh397qh97ffru0ne7d8pcuei38h1th5(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:34:13 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: .... >>Excellent Jerry, though Henry doesn't have the >>ability to understand any of this. Still, the >>point is that any lurkers who have trouble >>following the verbal descriptions can access >>the applet and see what ballistic theory really >>says. I often think it must be difficult for >>anyone coming into such a long running thread >>to pick up on the references to previous parts >>of the discussions. > > I must congratulate Jerry. He/she/it .. "She, clueless. > .. has proved that a ring gyro based on the > interference of sound waves moving both ways around a toroidal ring full > of air > wont work if all the air is removed. No, she has proved it gives no fringe shift if the air is constrained to rotate with the table, for example by having a thin membrane somewhere in the ring. That of course is precisely the ballistic model, a classical wave system where the speed is the speed of sound relative to the source and Galilean Relativity applies. Well done Henry, you finally acknowledged that Jerry's program is the correct illustration of ballistic theory, even if you got the details wrong as always. George |