GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: sean on 14 Aug 2007 09:34 On 6 Aug, 01:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:58:27 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 4 Aug, 00:27, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> If you apply the BaTh to the rotating four mirror Sagnac, you will discover two > >> things. The path lengths end up different but not very different...and two rays > >> that leave the source 90 apart end up displaced sideways at the screen. The > >> latter alone should not cause a fringe shift. > > >> There are however certain assumptions here..and one cannot assume that light > >> reflects from a moving mirror at the angle of incidence or same relative speed. > > >Why not? The photon dot is actually a theoretical point travelling at > >c > >in the classical wave train. > > Ah! But it isn't that at all. That's what they want us to believe. > Infinitesimal points cannot possess properties. > > >When that single infinitely small point > >hits > >the mirror the corresponding time for this instance is...0 seconds. > >Which means that theoretically the only possible way to describe > >this on a simulation is to have the mirror at that point in space and > >time to be travelling at speed 0. THe reflection is calculated at > >that point > >and the incident angle has to be the same as the reflected angle. > >Anything else would mean that a theoretical infinitely small point in > >space has length. Which is a contradiction. An impossibilty > >So one has to assume that incident angle=reflected angle > > Forget all about it. Photons are long. They have a field structure and > intrinsic oscillations. You dont have to think of emr as a stream of photons. Classical wave model does just as well describing all observed properties of light as a wave pattern propagating through space at c relative to any source. Without the downsides of having to explain the magic of wave particle duality. And classical wave only propagation can also explain sagnac and MMx as well as my simulations show at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > >As for relative speed. You could argue that the mirror is moving when > >the light reflects and thus imparts extra speed. But Ive thought > >about > >this and this dosnt work . At least not the way you want it. > >Lets say that your mirror changs the relative speed of the light. > >How could it do this? It needs time to move from point a to b to have > >velocity relative to the source. Which means that any single point > >in the wave train cannot therefore be a single point in space > >and time if it also has to be as you demand happening over a > >small period of time. So you contradict yourself here. > >Your way has each infinitely small point in the wave train being > >given > >a duration in time and space. > >THis is impossible and counterintuitive. > >Or look at it this way.If the source has a frequency of 1/sec. > >This means that every second regardless of where the mirror is > >there is always only 1 frequency per second being incident and > >reflected. The same happens at at the other 2 mirrors and at the > >detector. > >Therefore the detector still only observes the same frequency > >regardless > >of the rotating speed. This you cannot deny as its observed. The > >fringe > >shift isnt due to nor would be visible were one path to have a > >different > >frequency than the other. > >THerefore a classical simulation like mine which has the frequency > >unchanged at every reflection,can be corroborated by the knowledge > >that any > >observed fringe shift cannot be explained by two different > >frequencies > >arriving at the detector.In other words sagnac wouldnt work if both > >paths had different arrival frequencies > >THerefore seeing as my classical simulations predictions match those > >observed it must be true that my mathematical calculation that leads > >to the assumption of the same relative speed on reflection... must be > >correct. > >In other words one can assume the same relative speed because > >one can calculate it and one can confirm it with observation. > >What more does any theory ever supply then these two basic criteria > >that my simulation uses.? > > >For you to succesfully argue that there could be a change in speed > >on reflection you would have to show that the mirror recieves more > >or less beats/second of light from the source than emitted by the > >source. > >And this is physically, mathematically impossible to prove > >or even simulate. And you should know that. > > Forget it Sean, photons are not ball bearings. THis is your delusion. I never said photons were or were not ball bearings. In fact what I say is that thinking of light as any particle or packet is incorrect. Anyways, youve just avoided answering my point. If you think my simulations are incorrect,.. show the evidence where you think they are so. Supply incontrovertable mathematical evidence not just unscientific conjecture. > >> Sagnac is much more complicated than anyone thinks. > >Light is more complicated, not sagnac. Thats why its best doing the > >sim in the source frame. The source doesnt move. And the mirrors/ > >source and > >also do not move relative to each other. > >Think about it.... Does any mirror move farther away from the source > >during the experiment? No. Does the distance between any mirror and/or > >the > >source or detector change when the experiment rotates ? NO. > >THis can only mkean that any light in the source frame must always > >be traveling at c as long as any mirror is not moving away or towards > >the source during the experiment. > >> I wouldn't even compare it with the MMX which is a quite straightforward > >> example of light moving at c wrt its source and everythiug at rest in the > >> source frame. > > >> >George is in denial like most relativistas. > >> >THey say light has to be at c+-v in their ` inertial lab frame` in > >> >sagnac. But they forget that the sagnac experiment is in fact a snall > >> >version of the MMx minus the mirror setup . In the sense that both > >> >sagnac and MMx sources rotate around a central axis. > >> >Yet the relativistas pretend that in sagnac light is at c in the > >> >sagnac `lab frame` but then pretend that in MMx the light is at c+-v > >> >in the MMx `lab frame` > >> > The Mx lab frame would be what george tries to show in his java sim. > > >25 July henri > >> I must correct you here Sean. Moseley's animation is wrong. I did the same > >> myself. > >> If you apply the ballistic theory, the path lengths turn out to be the same > >> although the rays are displaced sideways wrt each other. ...That is true IF one > >> assumes that the rays reflects from the (moving) mirrors at their incident > >> angles and speeds. > > >Absolutely wrong. Wheres your proof? You have to show where my > >simulations > >are incorrectly calculated if you want to prove they are incorrect. > >And as with georges attempts, I can show your criticisms to be > >unfounded > >and unsubstantiated. Try a correct simulation and youll get a > >different path > >length on one path. How could you even pretend you wouldnt? The only > >way you can > >get equal path lengths in your incorrect simulations would be if you > >had given the light speed C+-v ***RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE** as most > >other > >bungling relativistas do. And as you should know... the whole premise > >behind classical theory is that light is always at c relative to any > >source. > >And MMx proves this. The light is observed to travel around the MMx > >setup at > >c, not a c+-v as you seem to think. I cant believe you fall for the > >same mistake > >george does. He thinks light has to travel at c+-v in any source > >frame , > >even MMx. Even though all observational data contradicts his view. > >Look at his sean planets sim. Here he models light traveling > >at c in straight lines relative to the earth (MMX frame). > >yet for some bizarre reason he thinks this is not whats observed!! > >Wheres his proof? He hasnt any. My proof on the other hand shows > >that light does indeed travel at c in straight lines in any source > >frame > >Its called MMx. And these straight line paths when plotted onto > >georges sean planets simulation frame.. always give the > >curved dragged frames that he thinks arent observed. > > I have done the same simulations and these were discussed at length with George > last year. I will dig them out again for you. Please dig them out, Im sure they are flawed and Ill show you the flaws like I showed george the flaws in his argument. While your at it try digging up some concrete evidence or argument to back up your claim that my simulations are incorrect. You need proof that my calculations are incorrect. Not just assumption of proof. Sean www.gammarayburst.com To see accurate simulations showing how classical theory can explain sagnac see... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: sean on 14 Aug 2007 10:07 On 7 Aug, 02:16, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:49:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > > >> Henri Wilson wrote: > >>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >>> <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > > >>>> Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >>>>> <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >>>>>> Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>>>>> 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.!!!! > >>>>>> The idiot hits again. > >>>>>> SR predicts that that the speed of light is c in > >>>>>> the inertial (non rotating) frame, and since the source > >>>>>> is moving with the speed v in this frame, SR predicts > >>>>>> that the two contrary moving beams will be > >>>>>> out of phase when they meet the source again. > >>>>> ...and in doing so SR requires that, in the inertial frame, the two rays move > >>>>> at c+/-v wrt the source. > >>>> Quite. > >>>> According to the second postulate of SR the speed of > >>>> the ray is c in the inertial frame, hence the speed difference > >>>> between the source and the ray is c +/- v. > >>> If you have good look, you will soon realise that the standard Sagnac analysis > >>> has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with SR. For one thing, it shows the > >>> rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source. For another, it assumes some kind of > >>> absolutely nonrotating frame. In fact, the standard explanatin is completely > >>> wrong. > >> "some kind of absolutely nonrotating frame" :-) > > >> Henri, what do you think the rotation detected by > >> a Sagnac ring is relative to? > > > That's all right. We know Rotaton IS absolute...but we can still talk about > > nonrotating frames that ARE MOVING RELATIVE TO OTHERS. > > >>>>> Don't deny it Paul. It is plainly obvious. > >>>> Of course I won't deny that, it is plainly obvious. > >>>> It is the very reason why SR predicts fringe shifts as observed. > > >>>> According to the emission theory - to use your awkward wording - > >>>> in the inertial frame, the two rays move at c wrt the source. > >>>> The consequence is of course that no fringe shifts are predicted. > >>> To the untrained eye, that would appear correct. > > >>> On closer examination by the better informed, it is immediately clear that the > >>> assumptions made are not justified and are incorrect. > >> Quite. > >> To the trained eye, it is immediately clear that > >> the fringes shift because the photons get dizzy when the ring > >> rotates relative to - eh - what? (we cannot assume some kind of > >> absolutely nonrotating frame, can we?) > > > I can't draw it properly her but will try to (fixed pitch): > > > This is NOT what happens when the apparatus rotates. > > > S________M > > | > > | > > | > > | > > M > > > This IS what happens to the photon axes: > > > S///////////////////M^ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > \ > > M-> > > > Get it now? They tilt slightly. > > Quite. > It's not easy to walk strait when you are dizzy. > > This is stupid nonsense, Henri. > > An interferometer measures phase differences. > They have been understood and used for centuries. > Thousands are in daily use in a multitude of different > instruments. We know how they work. > > >>>> Don't deny it Henri. It is plainly obvious. > >>> It is indeed obvious that Sagnac makes a mockery of SR's second postulate. > >> Of course it is clear to Henri Wilson that since the Sagnac experiment > >> prove the speed of light to be c in the inertial frame, then it falsifies > >> the second postulate which says that the speed of light is c in an inertial > >> frame. > >> That is after all Henri Wilson's way of thinking, isn't it? > > > The standard Sagnac diagram shows the rays to be moving at c+/-v wrt the > > source, AS VIEWED IN THE LAB FRAME. > > Ambiguous mumbo jumbo talk cannot change the fact that > the standard Sagnac diagram shows the ray to be moving > at c in the inertial frame. I dont subscribe to Henri photon spin explanation but Ill have to confirm what he says. Its not mumbo jumbo that the standard illustration of sagnac has light at c+-v in the lab or what you pretend is the inertial frame. Its the standard mumbo jumbo of relativistas like yourself who cant admit youve just made light travel at c+-v relative to the source (source frame) in your diagrams of sagnac. But you dont want to admit this mistake youve made, because you know that from the MMx results light is also observed to be at c in any rotating source frame. Which means that in a correct diagram of sagnac, light should be drawn as being at c relative to the source, not the lab. > > Do you not agree that the diagram itself IS drawn at rest in the LAB FRAME. > > It's drawn in an inertial frame. > > The LAB FRAME can in many cases be considered inertial, > and will often be used as a synonym for inertial frame. > But not for precision Sagnac rings which can detect Earth rotation, > then the LAB FRAME is rotating. Once again standard mumbo jumbo from a relativista. How can a lab be both non inertial and inertial at the same time? How can light be at C-v and c at the same time in a lab? Absolute rubbish on your part. > >>>>> SR proves its own postulate wrong. > >>>> Come again? :-) > >>>> SR predicts the speed of light is c in the inertial frame, > >>>> Sagnac demonstrates that this is correct. > >>> Which inertial frame might that be. There is an infinite number of inertial > >>> frames at the source. Why does light pick the one defined by the ring? Are the > >>> fairies involved again? > >> Beautiful, Henri. :-) > >> Thanks for the demonstration yet again. :-) > > > Well, you can't answer it can you.... > > The question: > "Why does light pick the one defined by the ring?" > is indeed very revealing. > > It demonstrates that you don't understand that the speed of > one particular light beam is c in _all_ inertial frames, > including the one in which the centre of the ring is stationary. > > The light doesn't 'pick' a frame in which it moves at c. > One particular light beam moves at c in _all_ inertial frames > at the same time! Or: the speed of light is invariant. > So _we_ are free to pick the frame that gives the simplest > calculation in each case. Im sorry paul but... What a load of nonsense. To start with you dont need to have light at c in any frame just to back up some rubbish theory like SR. You only need to describe it as being at c in the source frame. This way you can still explain MMX,sagnac and any other observataion Ive shown this with mathematically correct vector simulations of sagnac at this url... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb You will find that any accurate simulation of light travelling at c only in the source frame will still explain sagnac results. Not only that you wont have to resort to hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo magic revisionism of pretending light is at c in whatever the best frame you can think of that fits your ridiculous SR model is. THe truth is Paul...any simulation of of light at c+-v in a sagnac lab inertial frame is incorrect. As you have inadvertantly admitted above where you admit that sometimes light *is* at c+-v in the lab frame when you try to explain how sagnac measures earths rotation > I know. > You will _never_ accept it or understand it, > despite the fact that it is experimentally verified. > > > > >> The Sagnac ring works fine in an aeroplane at high speed > >> which show that the light picks the plane-frame as reference. > >> Don't you think that this prove that the speed of light > >> relative to the Earth is different from c? :-) > > You didn't get it, did you? > The point is spelled out below. > > > Paul, let's perform a thought experiment. > > Let two ring gyros move past eachother at speed. When adjacent, a source emits > > a pulse of light that is directed around the two. > > > Please now describe the two separate diagrams that demonstrate the sagnac > > principle in each relatively moving ring. > > You can draw one and duplicate it. > > You simply don't get it, do you? > The Sagnac experiment _prove_ that the speed of light > is c in the inertial frame in which the centre of the ring is > stationary, that's the _only_ way the speed difference > source - light can be c+/-v, which it _must_ be to produce > the observed phase shift. > It proves that the speed of light in the inertial frame > is NOT c+/-v as the emission theory demands, and which would > produce no phase shift. Right Paul,.. except where you have to use a sagnac interferometer to measure earths rotation. Then suddenly and magically you accept that light does have to be at c+-v in the so callled inertial lab frame. Good science theory is consistent. A classical wave only theory always states that light can only be at c in one frame. And it always is able to explain the observations. Sr on the other hand changes its predictions. Sometimes light is at c,.. sometimes its a c+-v wow! Thats called inconsistent theory and its also called SR. Its also called mumbo jumbo. Sean www.gammarayburst.com To see accurate simulations showing how classical theory can explain sagnac see... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Aug 2007 20:02 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:30:28 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 6 Aug, 08:44, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On 5 Aug, 13:45, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 4 Aug, 18:02, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> > > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in > >messagenews:0jd7b31i2ov9ql32vjg4e9c73mr57r30vr(a)4ax.com... >> ... >> > > > George, Sean clearly understands that the rays are shown moving at c+/-v >> > > > wrt the source. >> >> > > No, like you Sean thinks the light is launched at c >> > > relative to the cource, not c+v, but he then thinks >> > > that, as the source moves in a circle, the photons >> > > move as if sliding along a rod locked to the source >> > > so their path through space becomes something between >> > > a cycloid and a sine wave like this: >> >> > Your too thick for words here. If classical theory >> > has light leaving any source always at c then any simulation of this >> > would look exactly like your simulation . >> >> A minor point Sean, "classical theory" should probably >> be considered to be Maxwell's Equations, what we are >> talking about here is a theory suggested by Ritz about >> 50 years after Maxwell. >Maybe what you want to talk about is Ritz. But Im not >and never have. Thats your disinformation at work as usual. >Ritz was just another failed theorist like Lorentz or >Einstein so why should I promote his failed concept >of light being a particle? Like SR it doesnt explain MMx >or sagnac. Now you really ARE talking nonsense. The MMX null result is obviously a direct result of light moving at c wrt everything in the apparaus frame. >What Im talking about is a model of light that is >based on all the classical *wavelike * observations >of light... thats wave...not a particle! > >( I dont know ,Maybe not.) >> > So its not me speculating >> > this rod effect >> > you pretend exists. Its the obvious interpretation of >> > classical. >> >> No, the obvious interpretation is light being launched >> as you say but therefter obeying the basic laws of >> mechanics. What Ritz suggested was that light left the >> source at c but after Newton's First Law applied, the >Your obvious interpretation of a flawed theory like Ritzs >maybe. But Im not suggesting that light should have particle >like properties arent I? Why dont you try reading my posts >for a change. How many times have I said that all the >observations of light point to it being wave like and >as having a propoagation speed always at c relative to the >source? >I never said its particle like . None of the evidence >points to it having mass or particle like properties. Thats >your delusion. All evidence points to it being a long narrow particle with an intrinsic oscillation that moves along with it. A photon is like a self contained 'package of fields' that oscillates and initially self propagates losslessly at c wrt its source. 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: Henri Wilson on 14 Aug 2007 20:33 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:07:43 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 7 Aug, 02:16, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> >wrote: >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> The light doesn't 'pick' a frame in which it moves at c. >> One particular light beam moves at c in _all_ inertial frames >> at the same time! Or: the speed of light is invariant. >> So _we_ are free to pick the frame that gives the simplest >> calculation in each case. >Im sorry paul but... >What a load of nonsense. To start with you dont need to have >light at c in any frame just to back up some rubbish theory like SR. >You only need to describe it as being at c in the source frame. >This way you can still explain MMX,sagnac and any other observataion >Ive shown this with mathematically correct vector simulations of >sagnac >at this url... >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Try this one: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe >You will find that any accurate simulation of light travelling >at c only in the source frame will still explain sagnac results. >Not only that you wont have to resort to hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo >magic revisionism of pretending light is at c in whatever the best >frame you can think of that fits your ridiculous SR model is. >THe truth is Paul...any simulation of of light at c+-v in a sagnac lab >inertial frame is incorrect. As you have inadvertantly admitted above >where you admit that sometimes light *is* at c+-v in the lab frame >when you try to explain how sagnac measures earths rotation >> I know. >> You will _never_ accept it or understand it, >> despite the fact that it is experimentally verified. >> >> >> >> >> The Sagnac ring works fine in an aeroplane at high speed >> >> which show that the light picks the plane-frame as reference. >> >> Don't you think that this prove that the speed of light >> >> relative to the Earth is different from c? :-) >> >> You didn't get it, did you? >> The point is spelled out below. >> >> > Paul, let's perform a thought experiment. >> > Let two ring gyros move past eachother at speed. When adjacent, a source emits >> > a pulse of light that is directed around the two. >> >> > Please now describe the two separate diagrams that demonstrate the sagnac >> > principle in each relatively moving ring. >> >> You can draw one and duplicate it. >> >> You simply don't get it, do you? >> The Sagnac experiment _prove_ that the speed of light >> is c in the inertial frame in which the centre of the ring is >> stationary, that's the _only_ way the speed difference >> source - light can be c+/-v, which it _must_ be to produce >> the observed phase shift. >> It proves that the speed of light in the inertial frame >> is NOT c+/-v as the emission theory demands, and which would >> produce no phase shift. >Right Paul,.. except where you have to use a sagnac interferometer >to measure earths rotation. Then suddenly and magically you accept >that light does have to be at c+-v in the so callled inertial >lab frame. >Good science theory is consistent. A classical wave only theory >always states that light can only be at c in one frame. And it >always is able to explain the observations. >Sr on the other hand changes its predictions. Sometimes >light is at c,.. sometimes its a c+-v wow! Thats called inconsistent >theory and its also called SR. >Its also called mumbo jumbo. >Sean >www.gammarayburst.com >To see accurate simulations showing how classical theory can explain >sagnac see... >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Try mine: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe But they are both wrong. Light does not reflect at the incident angle and speed from a moving mirror. 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: Henri Wilson on 14 Aug 2007 20:48
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:34:38 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 6 Aug, 01:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:58:27 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On 4 Aug, 00:27, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >When that single infinitely small point >> >hits >> >the mirror the corresponding time for this instance is...0 seconds. >> >Which means that theoretically the only possible way to describe >> >this on a simulation is to have the mirror at that point in space and >> >time to be travelling at speed 0. THe reflection is calculated at >> >that point >> >and the incident angle has to be the same as the reflected angle. >> >Anything else would mean that a theoretical infinitely small point in >> >space has length. Which is a contradiction. An impossibilty >> >So one has to assume that incident angle=reflected angle >> >> Forget all about it. Photons are long. They have a field structure and >> intrinsic oscillations. >You dont have to think of emr as a stream of photons. Classical wave >model does just as well describing all observed properties of light as >a wave pattern propagating through space at c relative to any source. >Without the downsides of having to explain the magic of wave particle >duality. And classical wave only propagation can also explain sagnac >and >MMx as well as my simulations show at... >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Not so Sean. Classical wave theory went out with the P.E. effect. My model of photons explains everything. Photons are like long cigars with pointed ends. They consist of the 'stuff that fields require to exist'. They have a lossless standing wave structure moving along their lengths and producing a spatial pattern that corresponds to what we know as 'wavelength'. Photons are normally many wavelengths in length except for VFL. Frequebcy is the rate at which wavecrests arrive at an observer. Photons are emitted at c wrt their source because of local Maxwellian conditions. That speed can change as they traverse space. Any change is accompanied by a similar change in wavelength. In a rotating sagnac, each photon axis is not aligned with its direction of travel. So each 'end' strikes the mirrors at slightly different points, resulting in reflection angles and path lengths that are different for hte two rays. One day I will illustrate this with a computer simulation. > >> >As for relative speed. You could argue that the mirror is moving when >> >the light reflects and thus imparts extra speed. But Ive thought >> >about >> >this and this dosnt work . At least not the way you want it. >> >Lets say that your mirror changs the relative speed of the light. >> >How could it do this? It needs time to move from point a to b to have >> >velocity relative to the source. Which means that any single point >> >in the wave train cannot therefore be a single point in space >> >and time if it also has to be as you demand happening over a >> >small period of time. So you contradict yourself here. >> >Your way has each infinitely small point in the wave train being >> >given >> >a duration in time and space. >> >THis is impossible and counterintuitive. >> >Or look at it this way.If the source has a frequency of 1/sec. >> >This means that every second regardless of where the mirror is >> >there is always only 1 frequency per second being incident and >> >reflected. The same happens at at the other 2 mirrors and at the >> >detector. >> >Therefore the detector still only observes the same frequency >> >regardless >> >of the rotating speed. This you cannot deny as its observed. The >> >fringe >> >shift isnt due to nor would be visible were one path to have a >> >different >> >frequency than the other. >> >THerefore a classical simulation like mine which has the frequency >> >unchanged at every reflection,can be corroborated by the knowledge >> >that any >> >observed fringe shift cannot be explained by two different >> >frequencies >> >arriving at the detector.In other words sagnac wouldnt work if both >> >paths had different arrival frequencies >> >THerefore seeing as my classical simulations predictions match those >> >observed it must be true that my mathematical calculation that leads >> >to the assumption of the same relative speed on reflection... must be >> >correct. >> >In other words one can assume the same relative speed because >> >one can calculate it and one can confirm it with observation. >> >What more does any theory ever supply then these two basic criteria >> >that my simulation uses.? >> >> >For you to succesfully argue that there could be a change in speed >> >on reflection you would have to show that the mirror recieves more >> >or less beats/second of light from the source than emitted by the >> >source. 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. |