GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Paul B. Andersen on 31 Jul 2007 17:01 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:27:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:04:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>> > >>>> Of course an interferometer must work entirely different from how >>>> the rest of the world think it does. Otherwise the Sagnac experiment >>>> would confirm SR and falsify the emission theory, and that is obviously >>>> not possible. >>> The standard Sagnac explanation clearly requires that in the rest frame, the >>> rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. >>> Don't say this is incorrect Paul. >> I won't. >> The source move with +/- v, and SR predicts that the light move with c. >> That's why SR predict that the two contrary moving beams will be >> out of phase when they meet the source again. >> >> To adopt your somewhat awkward wording (which was used by Einstein in 1905, >> but is now unusual): according to the BaTh both light beams are moving in >> the stationary frame with the speed c wrt the source. >> That's why the BaTh predicts that the two contrary moving light beams will >> be in phase when they meet the source again. >> Don't say this is incorrect Henri. > > On the surface, that is correct Paul...even though the beams that star out 90 > apart end up displaced sideways wrt each other. George and I went right into > this last year. I don't care about what "you and George" went through last year. This nonsense about "displaced beams" can only be uttered by someone who doesn't know how an interferometer works. I wrote the following September 20. 2005 (which is before "last year"), it is still valid: You seem to be completely ignorant of how an interference pattern is formed, and why fringes shifts. 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 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. > However, as I have pointed out, this is not the right BaTh analysis. It ignores > many factors. > >> So you have to insist that an interferometer produce a fringe shift >> when the two beams are not phase shifted. > > No Paul, nobody has ever produced the correct BaTh anaylsis of sagnac....except > me of course. Here is the correct BaTh analysis: Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005: | 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. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 31 Jul 2007 18:29 On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:01:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:27:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >I don't care about what "you and George" went through last year. >This nonsense about "displaced beams" can only be uttered by someone who >doesn't know how an interferometer works. > >I wrote the following September 20. 2005 (which is before "last year"), >it is still valid: > >You seem to be completely ignorant of how an >interference pattern is formed, and why fringes shifts. :) >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 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. If the beam is perfectly parallel, the screen will be alternate between dark and light if the path length is progressively changed, >The angle of the beams when they unite >has obviously nothing whatsoever with >the matter to do. I didn't say it was. >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. Nice to know they DO teach SOME physics in Norway. >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. Don't use rotating frames Paul...they can lead to errors. ....and like I said, George and I went right into this last year. >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. That's what I pointed out to Sean. Two rays that leave the source at the same point but at 90 apart will be parallel but displaced sideways on arrival. This is not enough to cause a fringe shift because of the wavefront geometry. See, you have learnt something... >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." It is a fact...so how can it be stupid? >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. NO IT DOES NOT. MY THEORY EXPLAINS WHY. >But the fringes do shift when the Sagnac ring rotates. > >Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. > >No other conclusion is possible. Paul, the standard Sagnac argument against BaTh does not take into account all the relevant factors. I have explained previously what happens. When the apparatus rotates, the photon axes become misaligned with their velocity vectors...IN OPPOSITE SENSES. When they arrive at each mirror, the 'front end' hits the mirror at a different point from the 'back end'. Assuming pahots are many wavelengths long, this results in a small but significant path length difference as well as a reflection angle that is not the same as the incident angle. PS: You wont find this in a text book. It is MY discovery and you should feel very priviledges for being one of the first to read about it. >> However, as I have pointed out, this is not the right BaTh analysis. It ignores >> many factors. > > >> >>> So you have to insist that an interferometer produce a fringe shift >>> when the two beams are not phase shifted. >> >> No Paul, nobody has ever produced the correct BaTh anaylsis of sagnac....except >> me of course. > >Here is the correct BaTh analysis: > >Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005: >| 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. The SR sagnac analysis requires that an absolute frame exists and that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source at hte point of emission. SR proves its own postulate wrong.!!!! What a wonderful theory......!!!!! Hahahahahohjohohohawhawhaw!!! >Paul www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: George Dishman on 1 Aug 2007 03:18 On 24 Jul, 09:29, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:26:45 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:6f8aa3pu62v3bjbei4sc10uou7pkao5j5f(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" > > >>>Yes Henry, you do, because you cannot translate from > >>>one frame to another without a transform and the c+v > >>>result only comes from the Galilean version. > > >> George, you tried to confuse the issue by introducing 'a frame that is > >> comoving with the source' I am not 'introducing' anything, that is the just the correct terminology for what we have been discussing. You have had more than ten years to learn the jargon Henry, you should not be writing like a layman after all this time. > >You started rambling on about the speed being "c+v" > >wrt the source Henry, not me. If you don't know how > >to express simple concepts in unambiguous terms, the > >rest of us have to clarify it for you. Learn the > >basics and you won't need to be corrected. > > George, have another look atthe standard SR explanation of Sagnac, The standard explanation is that, in the "lab" frame, by which I mean an inertial (hence non-rotating) frame whose origin is the axle of Sagnac's turntable, the light moves at c and the detector (the photographic plate) moves during the time that the light is propagating thus the two beams travel different distances at the same speed. The different times taken produce the fringe shift. > It relies on the two rays traveling at c+/-v wrt the source. Don't keep denying > the fact. The standard explanation doesn't use the frame of the source at all. > It is plainly obvious to anyone and you are only making an even > bigger fool of yourself by doing so. The fact that you don't even know the standard explanation having had it painstalkingly laid out for you time after time for more than a decade says it all. > >> and then started to rave on about frame transformations. > > >That's what you are doing. Until you learn some physics, > >it is going to remain a black art to you. > > George, do you deny that in the inertial non-rotating frame, the rays move at > c+/-v wrt the source? > Come on! Yes or No! Of courseI deny it, and so would you if you had any idea about SR. They move at c in the inertial non-rotating "source" frame, i.e. the frame whose origin is co-moving with the source at the time of emission. > >> Now I expects kids liek eric geese might fall for this kind of tactic but > >> I > >> wont. > >> You 'frame' is no different from the source itself. > > >You have been told many times what the difference > >is but you insist on using the term to refer to your > >aether instead. I warned you it would only confuse > >you and here you see the proof. > > I'm not confused. If you think light moves at c+/-v in any inertial frame according to SR then you are hopelessly confused. > I realise your aim WAS to confuse but I'm not a sucker like > little boy geese and the like. > > >> In the inertial (nonrotating) frame, the SR Sagnac explanation > >> specifically > >> requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source. > > >Nope, it is c in both inertial frames. > > Have another look at it George. No need, it is c in both inertial frames. > >> You can argue no longer. It is an obvious fact. > > >Only if you assume a Galilean transform, you > >cannot derive that result without it. > > No transformations are required to see that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the > source, according to SR. To get from "wrt the axle" to "wrt the source", you use the Lorentz Transforms in SR and the Galilean Transforms in ballistic theory. > >> Sagnac proves Einstein wrong. > > >Nope, the measured speed of the light ("OWLS" as > >you call it) from the moving source is c so it > >proves the postulate directly and the rest follows. > > hahahaha! thanks for the laugh George. So you're too stupid to follow the physics, that doesn't surprise me. > >>>> the standard sagnac theory does. > > >>>There is no "sagnac theory" Henry, there is > >>>Sagnac's _experiment_ which you can analyse > >>>with any theory you like. > > >> Don't try to wriggle away George. > > >Then stop making obvious errors and learn some > >basic terminology, that way it won't be so easy > >to make a fool of you. > > George, for how much longer are you going to keep your head firmly stuck in the > sand? Henry, for how much longer are you going to keep trying to use personal insults to cover up your lack of understanding of basic aspects of physics, such as how to express yourself in unambiguous terms? You still don't know what "frame" means or even that you need a transform to convert coordinates from one frame to another, you still don't know what "wrt" or "with respect to" means and you don't know how to define a frame. Ten years Henry, you were posting in s.p.r back in 1997 and you haven't even learnt the technical language in all that time.
From: Henri Wilson on 1 Aug 2007 18:37 On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:31:13 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 28 Jul, 23:39, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:20:19 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >news:0uska3himhqqokf409p2arnbc9cqh1gtbd(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:29:04 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> "What Im saying is that MMx shows us that light > >... > >Henry is lying again, I said no such thing, those >words and the rest of that paragraph were written >by Sean. Here is the corrected quote including the >correction of Henry's last attempt at falsifying >the record: As far as I recall I ws replying to sean. >> >> Sean is correct about some things, wrong about others. I have already corrected >> him wrt the Mosely Sagnac animation. > >Really? So has he agreed with and corrected his animations? I don't think they are his. > >George www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Jerry on 2 Aug 2007 00:52
On Jul 21, 2:06 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to > initially move at c+v wrt the source. > Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. Sorry for coming in on this discussion rather late. The last I bothered checking your views on Sagnac (some time last year), you had NO quantitative expression for the fringe displacement versus rotational velocity that was anywhere close to the experimental values. Among MANY issues that you had not resolved, was the simple question of whether light elastically "bounced" off mirrors at the same speed as the speed of the incident light, or alternatively, was re-radiated at c regardless of the speed of the incident rays. As I recall, the VB model that you developed assumed elastic bouncing, but elsewhere you seemed to adopt the viewpoint that light was emitted from mirrors, gratings, etc. at c relative to the mirrors, gratings, etc. Or was it vice-versa? You've never been clear on this. Regardless, what is your equation predicting the fringe displacement, and how do you justify your equation in terms of BaTh? Jerry Henri Wilson's Mendacity (1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program (4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying 1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm 2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm 3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm 4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm 5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm 6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm |