Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: George Dishman on 2 Oct 2007 06:48 On 2 Oct, 08:59, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1191309765.557105.320160(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > On 1 Oct, 23:50, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:56:33 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > ... > >> George, I think the ring gyro diagram clears this up. > > >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg > > > I've had another brief look, your title is inappropriate > > and I was trying to see how it related to a ring gyro. > > The answer is it doesn't, it again shows the Sagnac > > experiment. > > > Anyway, your "Einstein" column is valid and the > > "Ballistic" column is ok down to the time difference > > row where you show zero difference. > > > Below that you have a problem because the phase is > > determined by the path length divided by the distance > > moved per cycle, not the wavelength, and that distance > > isn't common to the two paths. That is just the same > > error I pointed out before. > > It must be the same distance in the moving frame, as they arrive back at the > same position at the same time in ballistic theory Yes, in the moving frame the distance is just the wavelength because the source is at rest by definition. In the inertial frame it is the wavelength plus the distance moved by the source along the path. Henry has mixed his frames. > .. ballistic theory is > clearly refuted by Sagnac. Obviously, but Henry's error is somewhat more subtle. George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 2 Oct 2007 17:37 On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:48:11 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 2 Oct, 08:59, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1191309765.557105.320160(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> > On 1 Oct, 23:50, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:56:33 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> > ... >> >> George, I think the ring gyro diagram clears this up. >> >> >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg >> >> > I've had another brief look, your title is inappropriate >> > and I was trying to see how it related to a ring gyro. >> > The answer is it doesn't, it again shows the Sagnac >> > experiment. >> >> > Anyway, your "Einstein" column is valid and the >> > "Ballistic" column is ok down to the time difference >> > row where you show zero difference. >> >> > Below that you have a problem because the phase is >> > determined by the path length divided by the distance >> > moved per cycle, not the wavelength, and that distance >> > isn't common to the two paths. That is just the same >> > error I pointed out before. >> >> It must be the same distance in the moving frame, as they arrive back at the >> same position at the same time in ballistic theory > >Yes, in the moving frame the distance is just >the wavelength because the source is at rest >by definition. In the inertial frame it is the >wavelength plus the distance moved by the source >along the path. Henry has mixed his frames. The wavelength is the same in all frames. >> .. ballistic theory is >> clearly refuted by Sagnac. > >Obviously, but Henry's error is somewhat more >subtle. > >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 2 Oct 2007 17:41 On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:22:45 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 1 Oct, 23:50, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:56:33 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >... >> George, I think the ring gyro diagram clears this up. > > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg > >I've had another brief look, your title is inappropriate >and I was trying to see how it related to a ring gyro. >The answer is it doesn't, it again shows the Sagnac >experiment. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm Optic fibre gyros are just this with lots of turns. They use the sagnac effect and the output is exactly as predicted on purely ballstic grounds. >Anyway, your "Einstein" column is valid and the >"Ballistic" column is ok down to the time difference >row where you show zero difference. > >Below that you have a problem because the phase is >determined by the path length divided by the distance >moved per cycle, not the wavelength, and that distance >isn't common to the two paths. That is just the same >error I pointed out before. You are raving pure relativistic nonsense out of sheer desperation. The wavelenght is absolute and exactly the same in both rays. Relativity is dead. >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 3 Oct 2007 03:07 On 2 Oct, 22:37, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:48:11 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On 2 Oct, 08:59, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: ... > >Yes, in the moving frame the distance is just > >the wavelength because the source is at rest > >by definition. In the inertial frame it is the > >wavelength plus the distance moved by the source > >along the path. Henry has mixed his frames. > > The wavelength is the same in all frames. Your mistake is that you should not be using the wavelength, you should be using the distance moved between wave emissions. In the co-rotating frame they have the same value but not in the inertial frame which is where you measured the path length. As I said, it is a subtle error. George
From: George Dishman on 3 Oct 2007 03:14
On 2 Oct, 22:41, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:22:45 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On 1 Oct, 23:50, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:56:33 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >... > >> George, I think the ring gyro diagram clears this up. > > >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg > > >I've had another brief look, your title is inappropriate > >and I was trying to see how it related to a ring gyro. > >The answer is it doesn't, it again shows the Sagnac > >experiment. > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > > Optic fibre gyros are just this with lots of turns. > They use the sagnac effect and the output is exactly as predicted on purely > ballstic grounds. Right, those are the iFOG devices we discussed months ago. A ring laser gyro on the other hand is quite different. From the same page: "A ring interferometer typically consists of many windings of fiber optic lines, conducting light (of a fixed frequency) in opposite directions around a loop, and then recombining them to measure the phase difference, just as in the original Sagnac apparatus, but with greater efficiency and sensitivity. A ring laser, on the other hand, consists of a laser cavity in the shape of a ring, which allows light to circulate in both directions, producing two standing waves with the same number of nodes in each direction." I thought your graphic was supposed to be related to the latter. > >Anyway, your "Einstein" column is valid and the > >"Ballistic" column is ok down to the time difference > >row where you show zero difference. > > >Below that you have a problem because the phase is > >determined by the path length divided by the distance > >moved per cycle, not the wavelength, and that distance > >isn't common to the two paths. That is just the same > >error I pointed out before. > > You are raving pure relativistic nonsense out of sheer desperation. > The wavelenght is absolute and exactly the same in both rays. Your naive assumption that you divide by the wavelength is your error. It applies to your analysis of both graphics. George |