Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 1 Oct 2007 00:54 On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:22:45 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 30, 11:05 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:24:57 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >No. You MUST consider phase. Since the length_cw + length_ccw >> >equals a constant, and since BaTh asserts wavelength to be >> >invariant, any advance in phase over the shorter path is >> >precisely matched by a retardation in phase of the counter- >> >rotating beam over the longer path. BaTh predicts that the phase >> >relationship remains constant. >> >> There's your mistake....It's a doubling effect...not a >> cancellation. >> As one increases in length the other decreases. > >The beams are COUNTERROTATING, Henri. >The effect is a cancellation. During acceleration one path length increases and the other decreases. Can you calculate x-(-x) ___________ Here's a paper I'm writing. You'll need the original diagram. It has long been claimed that the Sagnac effect is a consequence of Einstein�s theory of relativity and directly refutes the Ritzian or Ballistic Theory of light (BaTh). A simple analysis shows that this is not true and the effect is fully in accordance with the BaTh, a theory that many still believe is the correct one. The diagram below represents a four mirror Sagnac interferometer that is rotating anti-clockwise at constant angular velocity (w), shown grossly exaggerated for clarity. It will be shown that difference between the path lengths of the two rays is proportional to the angular velocity and that this quantity rather that light�s travel time around the loop determines the current fringe displacement. There are several points to note: 1) the velocities are defined with respect to the inertial or non-rotating frame. 2) the diagram analyses the paths of the clockwise and anti-clockwise rays that strike the exact centres of the source, detector and mirrors. 3) During rotation, the angle between the splitting mirror and the ray that strikes the centre of the first mirror departs very slightly from 45 degrees as measured in the non rotating frame. That pattern is repeated at each reflection. 4) �Fringe displacement� refers to the distance between the current fringe position and the one that exists at zero rotation speed. Units are typically �fringes�. 5) �Fringe movement� is a dynamic term associated with the rate of change of displacement. Units are typically �fringes per second�. A fringe is �moving� when it is changing position. 6) �Fringes moved� of �fringes shifted� are measures of the difference between the displacement of the fringe pattern before and after a fringe movement. 7) During constant rotation speed, the four legs of each ray has identical length. During an acceleration, those lengths will vary slightly as �wavelengths� are added or subtracted. 8) According to BaTh, wavelength (lambda) of emitted light is absolute and cannot experience Doppler shift at the source. It will vary with a light speed change. Both rays retain their emission speeds for their entire paths. According to the Ballistic Theory, the speeds of the two rays as they move between the source to the first mirror are very close to c+(v/root2) and (c-v/root2). Here, �v� is the linear velocity of the source in the inertial frame. Let t1 and t2 be the travel times in each leg for the two rays. The distances travelled by the two rays are: c+(v/root2).t1 ���������1) c-(v/root2).t2.�������2) The value of t1 is derived from the length relationship: (c+(v/root2).t1- (v/root2).t1 = R.root2 Therefore: t1 = R.root2/c�������.3) and similarly: t2= R.root2/c������..4) (These travel times are independent of rotation speed, a point that has been wrongly interpreted to infer that no fringe displacement can occur according To BaTh) Substituting for t in 1 and 2, The total path length of ray1 is: 4.[c+(v.root2).R.root2/c] That of ray2: 4.[c-(v.root2).R.root2/c] The difference path lengths = 8Rv/c = 8wR^2/c The area of the apparatus is 2R^2. Path difference= 4Aw/c Fringe displacement = 4Aw/(c.lambda). This is identical to the well established relationship that has been verified experimentally. Notes: 1) There is no fringe MOVEMENT during constant angular velocity. 2) Fringe movement occurs during angular acceleration as one path length increase and the other decreases. The physical reason for this is that the speed of the �wave crests� arriving at the splitting mirror is different from that leaving. Wavecrests move into one path and out of the other. 3) A question may arise as to why the angle of each ray�s approach to each mirror is seemingly different from that of its departure. In the inertial frame, that is correct. However in the frames of the mirrors, the incident and reflected angles are identical. >BaTh is falsified by your own diagram. > >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 1 Oct 2007 03:50 On 1 Oct, 00:45, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:27:48 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:b440g31r97uh176ao5gjn0f28elsohhva8(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:14:15 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >>>news:1191157470.402734.247630(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >>>... > >>>> Henri believes that a Sagnac apparatus needs to be > >>>> accelerated from zero rotational velocity in order to > >>>> yield an integrated current rotational velocity. He > >>>> believes that if a Sagnac apparatus is turned on while > >>>> it is in a constant state of rotation, it will measure > >>>> no fringe shift. > > >>>Oh good grief, he's not back to that again. I > >>>straightened him out on that during the thread > >>>in late 2005 referenced above. If you look at > >>>the rest of the post beside the bit on constant > >>>velocity, it was discussing the effect of angular > >>>acceleration. > > >>>> Arguing along these lines, Henri falsely asserts that > >>>> the Michelson-Gale experiment must have yielded a null > >>>> result since Michelson had no means of stopping and > >>>> starting the Earth's rotation: > >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c79776b55d... > > >>>Clueless. Henry, the Sagnac experiment gives a > >>>fringe displacement (remember the discussion of > >>>terminology with Jim Greenfield?) which is > >>>proportional to the angular velocity when that > >>>velocity is constant. > > >> That's what I said dummy. Can't you people even read now. > > >> At constant angular velocity there is A CONSTANT DISPLACEMENT NOT A > >> CONSTANT > >> MOVEMENT of fringes. > > >> How dumb can you people get? > > >It's the same problem as last time, "movement" is > >ambiguous. You continued by saying to Jerry: > > >> >> >How about Michelson-Gale? The Earth was ALWAYS rotating > >> >> >at constant angular velocity throughout the course of the > >> >> >experiment. > > >> >> Naturally it returned a null result...pure ballistic stuff > >> >> also.. > > >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > > >> No it didn't. A well known fact... > > >A constant DISPLACEMENT is NOT a null result, it > >is a positive result so of course we all read the > >previous use of "movement" as meaning "displacement". > > Quote: > > "It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned what > appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The > results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 > fringes, ... That would be a surprise to Michelson and Gale, their paper said: Observed shift 0.230 +/- 0.005 Predicted shift 0.236 +/- 0.002 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M > which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the > same time they were not statistically significant." > > George, the anticipated result was a cyclical variation in fringe displacement > as the side of the earth changed speed through the aether. The result was NULL. Henry, the numbers you quoted are wrong. > ....and don't change the subject... I was not changing the subject, just bringing the ambiguity in your wording to your attention. I think that is cleared up now. > My Sagnac diagram is correct.... Yes. > and YOU probably realise that now even if the > others are incapable. Nobody has said otherwise. > It doesn't agree with anything you said before.... You repeat what I said before on the page, you confirm that the time taken is unchanged. > which > was all about travel time instead of path length differences. Your new page is about the number of waves in flight at any time. Take the travel time and multiply by the frequency and you get the number of waves. Since both the travel time and the frequency are unaffected by a constant rotational velocity, the number of waves is conseqently also unchanged. To get the number of waves along the _path_, you need to divide the path length by the distance moved by a wave along the path, not by the wavelength. It's an understandable mistake. George
From: Jerry on 1 Oct 2007 05:33 On Sep 30, 6:45 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > Quote: > > "It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also > returned what appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather > inconclusive one. The results consisted of 269 measurements that > showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, which could be seen > as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the > same time they were not statistically significant." The earliest versions of the Wikipedia article that you quote were written by a self-described "failed physicist" whose interests include various fringe topics as the Biefeld-Brown effect, etc. It is untrustworthy. Subsequent Wiki editors have mostly worsened the situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Gale-Pearson_experiment The extreme range, including outliers, of all measurements did indeed span -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, but the complete graphical display of all measurements in Figure 3 of the Michelson-Gale paper shows a well defined peak around +0.230 fringes. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M I estimate the standard deviation of the set of observations shown in Figure 3 to be approximately 0.09 fringe, and the standard error of estimate of the mean would be about 0.006 fringe. Although we know from various of Tom Robert's postings that the data averaging procedure that Michelson and Gale used in Table 1 is suspect by modern standards, direct analysis of the data in Figure 3 shows the data to be highly significant, and the null hypothesis is definitively rejected. Jerry Henri Wilson's Lies (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
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 1 Oct 2007 17:18 On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:33:07 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 30, 6:45 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> Quote: >> >> "It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also >> returned what appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather >> inconclusive one. The results consisted of 269 measurements that >> showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, which could be seen >> as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the >> same time they were not statistically significant." > >The earliest versions of the Wikipedia article that you >quote were written by a self-described "failed physicist" >whose interests include various fringe topics as the >Biefeld-Brown effect, etc. It is untrustworthy. Subsequent >Wiki editors have mostly worsened the situation. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Gale-Pearson_experiment > >The extreme range, including outliers, of all measurements >did indeed span -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, but the complete >graphical display of all measurements in Figure 3 of the >Michelson-Gale paper shows a well defined peak around >+0.230 fringes. >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M > >I estimate the standard deviation of the set of >observations shown in Figure 3 to be approximately >0.09 fringe, and the standard error of estimate of the >mean would be about 0.006 fringe. > >Although we know from various of Tom Robert's postings >that the data averaging procedure that Michelson and >Gale used in Table 1 is suspect by modern standards, >direct analysis of the data in Figure 3 shows the data >to be highly significant, and the null hypothesis is >definitively rejected. > >Jerry What are you trying to prove?.... that an aether really exists? I suppose you will try anything now your sacred Sagnac cow is dead.... Have you seen yet: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg Do you now accept that you have been wrong for years and that I am laughing my head off at the lot of you because I know how stupid you all must feel right now. There's nothing more humiliating that discovering you have been the victim of a hoax, is there Crank. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 1 Oct 2007 17:35
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:21:40 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:vad0g39vvhr4e3evat3birni87hr020et5(a)4ax.com... >>>> The two path lengths change whenever there is an acceleration. During an >>>> acceleration, the number of wavelengths in one ray increases and the >>>> other >>>> decreases. A fringe movement is observed. >>>> >>>> During constant rotation, no fringe shift occurs. >>> >>>During constant rotation, there is a constant fringe >>>displacement. >> >> That is what I said. There is constant displacement but no 'shifting' or >> movement. > >Some would read "no fringe shift occurs" as "no >displacement exists." There is an ambiguity in >the terminology which I was clarifying, we agree >the effect. I have defined these terms now, to reduce this confusion. >> George, let's get our definitions straight so we can get on with what >> matters . >> >> Fringe 'displacement' is the current distance of a fringe from its defined >> position at zero rotation speed. > >Yes, that's the key one. > >> Fringe 'movement' or 'shifting' is a dynamic term describing the process >> of >> changing displacements. It has units of velocity. > >No, it has units of fringes per second and since >fringes are dimensionless, that is actually Hz. No George, 'fringes' are actually distances.....small ones. The pattern actually moves across the screen even though fringe movement is detected and counted as just the way a particular spot on the screen goes alternatively dark and light.. Displacement has units of length. Fringe movement is rate of change of displacement dx/dt. If it has value zero, there is no change in displacement..ie., no movement..signifying no angular aceleration. >> Having said that, I repeat, what you said is wrong. Travel time is not the >> criterion. Path length difference is what matters.... > >Actually, what matters is the relative phase of the >two signals. That can be calculated easily as the >time difference divided by the source period (inverse >of frequency) or with some care from the path length >difference and the two different distances moved by >the waves along their respective paths during the >period. Phase is irrelevant....except insofar as it creates the actual fringes. >> and that varies with >> angular velocity. > >No. I think you had a problem following my explanation >of your error above so I have marked up a copy of your >diagram. Only the bit near the source matters, you >should be able to extrapolate the rest of the path >yourself. I've not trimmed as this also illustrates the >text of my previous post. > > http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Sagnac_wavelength.png No, you have made the common mistake of thinking there is a doppler shift at the source. In BaTh, that doesn't happen. If the source is inertial..and in this case it's near enough..the absolute wavelength of the emitted light is the same no matter what the source is doing.... or whatever frame is used to measure it.. >Imagine one positive zero-crossing (or wave crest or >whatever marker you like) leaves the source S when it is >at point A, the start of your blue path. After one source >cycle time, that marker has moved to point B on the blue >path, a distance of: > > (1 + v*sqrt(2)/c)*lambda > >as shown. The same works for the green path but with a >minus sign of course. It's wrrong. > >The source in this time has moved to point C (roughly >the diagram gives about three waves per leg arbitrarily). >At that time, the next cycle starts. Your "absolute >wavelength" is thus from point C to point B, and you are >right in that it has the same value whether the table is >rotating or not, but the first cycle has moved from point >A to point B which is farther. If you want to work out >the number of waves in the system, you can use the length >of the blue line and the distance from A to C. > >Alternatively, if you imagine repeating the step shown >12 times, the first wave arrives at S' just as the >twelfth is being emitted by the source which is also >at S'. The wavelength you use is your invariant lambda >but the path length along which it is measured is now >from S' round the loop and back to S' which is the same >as when the equipment was at rest. (Essentially you are >working in the co-rotating frame since Galilean Relativity >applies). > >All the methods give the same conclusion, the number of >waves is unchanged by the velocity and the time difference >is zero. George, I am correct. Sagnac is a purely ballistic effect. Einstein is DEAD. > >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |