Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 4 Oct 2007 04:29 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:01:31 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 4 Oct, 00:27, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 23:34:24 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >news:h638g3hgnraifpinqsbl5hbgi602u414sd(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:04:00 -0700, George Dishman >> >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On 2 Oct, 22:35, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:08:20 -0700, George Dishman >> >>>> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> So what? >> >> >>>> >What determines the intensity, hence the fringes, is >> >>>> >phase difference. To work out the phase difference, >> >>>> >you can use 2 pi times the time difference between >> >>>> >the paths divided by the source period, or you can >> >>>> >use the difference in the number of cycles along >> >>>> >the paths. The former is zero as you agree on your >> >>>> >web page, and the latter must be the same since these >> >>>> >are just two different ways to work out the same >> >>>> >value, there is only one phase difference. >> >> >>>> George, George, I can see I will have to educate you on the very basics. >> >>>> For constant rotation, the travel times are indeed the same and the >> >>>> fringe >> >>>> pattern remains static. During a speed change, the travel times are NOT >> >>>> the >> >>>> same, pahse changes occcur AND THE FRINGE PATTERN MOVES SIDEWAYS. >> >> >>>> THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. >> >> >>>Right, and if you divide the distance moved by >> >>>the distance between the fringes and multiply >> >>>by 2 pi, you get the phase difference between >> >>>the waves for that constant rotational velocity. >> >> >>>That phase difference is equal to the time >> >>>difference divided by the period of the source, >> >>>or you can use path length difference but you >> >>>_don't_ use the wavelength to do that calculation, >> >>>that is where you make your mistake. >> >> >> The phase difference has nothing to do with travel times. >> >> It is purely a function of path LENGTH DIFFERENCES. >> >> >It is what you divide that difference by that >> >you are getting wrong, it shouldn't be the >> >wavelength. >> >> I want to know the number of absolute wavelengths (l) in the path length (L). > >What you really want to know is the phase difference >at the detector. > >> The answer is L/l.....primary school stuff.... but obviously too hard for you >> George.... > >The answer is L/l in the rotating frame. > >> >> An absolute length L contains L/lambda absolute wavelengths no matter how >> >> fast >> >> the light is moving through it. >> >> >> That should be obvious to anyone. >> >> >The number of waves is the time of flight divided >> >by the period, that should also be obvious, however >> >those sms give different answers so while both may >> >be obvious, one is wrong. You have divided by the >> >wrong number. >> >> You are merely calculating the number of waves emitted by the source during the >> time taken for light to complete one loop. ..that's irrelevant > >That is the number that can be drawn along the >blue line. Since you calculated the length of >the blue line to get your path length, you need >the corresponding number. > >> The number lying AROUND the loop depends solely on the length of the loop and >> the absolute wavelength. > >The path length in the rotating frame is not >the same as that in the inertial frame yet the >wavelength is the same in both. Can there be a >different number of waves round the path >depending on which frame you choose? Think about >it, you are wrong. > >If you cannot see why, go back to basics and work >out the phase difference at the detector, that's >what causes. George, i'm not interested in your childish drivel. I know you have a vested interest in keeping Einstein alive. I have a vested interest in science. >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 4 Oct 2007 04:31 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:04:42 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 4 Oct, 00:11, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 23:37:55 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >the time of arrival. >> >> but I don't want to know that. I want to know how many teeth are involved... > >No you don't. What you really need to know is the >phase difference at any given point on the screen. >For that you need to know the delay between the >emission of some part of the wave and its arrival >at the detector. If the delay along the two paths >is equal you ge constructive interference while >if it is half a period you get destructive. That >is what creates the fringes. George, I'll give you time to sober up then I'll talk to you again. you are raving.... > >> and >> that number is independent of speed. > >The phase difference is zero, independent of speed. > >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 4 Oct 2007 07:52 On 4 Oct, 09:31, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:04:42 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >... What you really need to know is the > >phase difference at any given point on the screen. > >For that you need to know the delay between the > >emission of some part of the wave and its arrival > >at the detector. If the delay along the two paths > >is equal you get constructive interference while > >if it is half a period you get destructive. That > >is what creates the fringes. > > George, I'll give you time to sober up then I'll talk to you again. you are > raving.... If you really think that, there is no point continuing, you always resort to abuse when you find yourself out of your depth. You obviously don't understand what causes the phenomenon we call "interference" in this context and until you learn the basics, you are incapable of holding a sensible conversation. George
From: Jerry on 5 Oct 2007 10:10 On Oct 5, 8:03 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:eslag31kt24b8o9lq3v6sq5mgadd3n97qm(a)4ax.com... > > see my 'spinning wheel' post...i will provide diagrams > > when i get around to it. > > A static diagram won't be much use, you will need > to do an animation so that we can see the phase > of the signals at the detector and make the table > speed variable. Since Henri doesn't understand math, I posted an applet (including source code) that MAYBE Henri can understand. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1c03f332f90d65b5 which links to http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm Of course, I see that people like Androcles are capable of misunderstanding the clear message conveyed by this program. In all probability, Henri will misunderstand as well. Jerry
From: Androcles on 5 Oct 2007 10:54
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1191593421.613830.159110(a)50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... : On Oct 5, 8:03 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: : > "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:eslag31kt24b8o9lq3v6sq5mgadd3n97qm(a)4ax.com... : : > > see my 'spinning wheel' post...i will provide diagrams : > > when i get around to it. : > : > A static diagram won't be much use, you will need : > to do an animation so that we can see the phase : > of the signals at the detector and make the table : > speed variable. : : Since Henri doesn't understand math, I posted an applet : (including source code) that MAYBE Henri can understand. : : http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1c03f332f90d65b5 : : which links to : : http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm : : Of course, I see that people like Androcles are capable : of misunderstanding the clear message conveyed by this : program. In all probability, Henri will misunderstand : as well. The speed of the waves are -c, c in the rotating frame and v-c, v+c in the stationary frame of the screen and the screen's observer. What it is not is c in both frames. What's to misunderstand? Hint: you proved it. Why would you deny your own proof? |