Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Androcles on 5 Oct 2007 18:11 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:3fadg3tt0i775n0clhtijr4kilsffast9o(a)4ax.com... : On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:10:21 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> : wrote: : : >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 : : You have made the same mistake as George. You have used the rotating frame to : wrongly conclude that the number of wavelengths around the ring is the same in : both directions. It is, idiot, from start point to moved end point, the number of cycles is the same. You gonna invent tick fairies now? Jeery didn't use an exact fraction of the circumference as I would have but that's ok for a first attempt. The code is good. : In fact, wavelength is NOT absolute and constant in the rotating frame. But the NUMBER of waves is or else you have tick fairies. The simplest way to see it to have just one wavelength around the entire circumference. Jeery's program is short and excellent, far better than any of yours (although it does have the constants 1.1 and 0.9 imbedded). It takes experience to know not to do that. import java.applet.*; import java.awt.event.*; import java.awt.*; import java.util.*; public class BallisticSagnac extends Applet { Graphics bufferGraphics; Image offscreen; Timer timer = new Timer(false); // To get the width and height of the applet. Dimension dim; // Circle characteristics int diameter = 400; int xCenter; int yCenter; double circumference = Math.PI * diameter; // Counters, etc. int currentStep = 0; int maxSteps = 250; int timerPeriod = 100; // msec per step; // Characteristics of light int speedOfLight = 11; // pixels per step int speedOfFrame = 2; // pixels per step int periodOfLight = 12; // steps per cycle int amplitudeOfWaves = 15; // amplitude of cycles // toggle boolean writeCaption = false; LightRays lightRays = new LightRays(speedOfLight, diameter); Animate animate = new Animate(); class Animate extends TimerTask { public void run() { double currentYPos; if (currentStep > maxSteps) { cancel(); } else { currentStep = currentStep + 1; currentYPos = -amplitudeOfWaves * Math.sin(2*Math.PI*(double)currentStep/(double)periodOfLight); lightRays.addHistory(currentYPos); } repaint(); } } public void init() { // The width and height of the applet dim = getSize(); offscreen = createImage(dim.width,dim.height); xCenter = dim.width/2; yCenter = dim.height/2; // by doing this everything that is drawn by bufferGraphics // will be written on the offscreen image. bufferGraphics = offscreen.getGraphics(); timer.schedule(animate, 0, timerPeriod); } public void paint(Graphics g) { // Wipe off everything that has been drawn before // Otherwise previous drawings would also be displayed. bufferGraphics.setColor(Color.lightGray); bufferGraphics.fillRect(0,0,dim.width,dim.width); // draw the circle on the offscreen image bufferGraphics.setColor(Color.black); bufferGraphics.drawOval(xCenter-diameter/2,yCenter-diameter/2, diameter, diameter); // draw the line representing the source/screen int radius = diameter/2; double arcLength = currentStep * speedOfFrame; double angle = arcLength/radius; int beginX = (int)Math.round(xCenter + 0.90*radius*Math.cos(angle)); int beginY = (int)Math.round(yCenter - 0.90*radius*Math.sin(angle)); int endX = (int)Math.round(xCenter + 1.10*radius*Math.cos(angle)); int endY = (int)Math.round(yCenter - 1.10*radius*Math.sin(angle)); bufferGraphics.drawLine(beginX, beginY, endX, endY); int[] xArray; double[] yArray; int length; int[] cxArray; int[] cyArray; // draw the forwards light ray bufferGraphics.setColor(Color.blue); xArray = lightRays.getForwardsX(); yArray = lightRays.getForwardsY(); length = xArray.length; cxArray = new int[length]; cyArray = new int[length]; Transforms.arrayToCircular(xArray, yArray, currentStep*speedOfFrame, diameter, xCenter, yCenter, cxArray, cyArray); bufferGraphics.drawPolyline(cxArray, cyArray, length); // draw the reverse light ray bufferGraphics.setColor(Color.red); xArray = lightRays.getReverseX(); yArray = lightRays.getReverseY(); length = xArray.length; Transforms.arrayToCircular(xArray, yArray, currentStep*speedOfFrame, diameter, xCenter, yCenter, cxArray, cyArray); bufferGraphics.drawPolyline(cxArray, cyArray, length); // transfer the offscreen image to the screen. g.drawImage(offscreen,0,0,this); } // Required for double-buffering. The applet will not first wipe off // previous drawings (causing flickering) but will immediately repaint. // Update is called automatically when repaint() is called. public void update(Graphics g) { paint(g); } }
From: Androcles on 5 Oct 2007 18:28 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:r5bdg3pbhpkb7ci3fe7opas6rhgg5qk58e(a)4ax.com... : On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:47:25 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message : >news:ermdnYwTBeXVyJvaRVnytQA(a)pipex.net... : >: : >: "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 : >: : >: Perfect! that's _exactly_ what I had in mind. : >: : >: If that's your first attempt, you might be interested : >: in this: : >: : >: http://www.um.es/fem/Ejs/ : >: : >: I'll have a look at your code when I get time. : >: : >: > ... In all probability, Henri will misunderstand : >: > as well. : >: : >: All he needs to do is confirm for himself that the : >: speed of the waves is correct : > : > : >It is: : > In Jeery's model the speeds are: : >144 degrees in 27 seconds for the rotating frame (5.3 degrees/sec) : >720 + 144 in 27 seconds for the blue ray (32 degrees/sec) : >720 - 144 in 27 seconds for the red ray ( 21.3 degrees/sec) : >21.3 + 2 * 5.3 = 31.9, close enough to 32 with my rounding error. : > : >Excellent model, two speeds of light in the frame of the screen, : >one in the rotating frame, 720 degrees in 27 seconds or 26.7 degrees/sec : : They are trying to use rotating frames..... and using them wrongly... The time is the same in both frames. The NUMBER of wavelengths is the same in both frames. The DISTANCES are NOT the same in both frames. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JerrySagnac.GIF They are using them correctly, you are the one that is wrong. : Why are relativists incapable of seeing beyond first impressions? Ah well, maybe you confused them, you are confused yourself. : I reckon one of the easiest things to do in this world would be to sell a used : car to a relativist....just tell him it's really new but shopsoiled..... Go ahead and be a used car salesman, simple mathematics is beyond you. The point is the relativists claim the TIME is different between frames, when it is the DISTANCE that is not the same. Changing the distance means changing the speed and the wavelength. lambda = (c+v)t = (c+v)/nu. It's that fuckin' simple. Jeery's model is good. The idiot's comments are drool. : >Sanity check: : > 26.7 + 5.3 = 32 degrees/sec : > 26.7 - 5.3 = 21.4 degrees/sec : > : >"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in : >the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Einstein. : >What do you know, he was right. : >Who was the idiot that said it was c in all frames of reference?
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 5 Oct 2007 18:46 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:11:09 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:3fadg3tt0i775n0clhtijr4kilsffast9o(a)4ax.com... >: On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:10:21 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> >: wrote: >: >: >On Oct 5, 8:03 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >: >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm >: >: You have made the same mistake as George. You have used the rotating frame >to >: wrongly conclude that the number of wavelengths around the ring is the >same in >: both directions. > > >It is, idiot, from start point to moved end point, the number of cycles >is the same. You gonna invent tick fairies now? No it isn't. In ballistic theory, wavelength is absolute, fixed, invariant,...like a rigid rod. It is th same in both paths. One path is longer than the other. It contains MORE wavelengths. > >Jeery didn't use an exact fraction of the circumference as I >would have but that's ok for a first attempt. The code is good. Jerry used a rotating frame wrongly. according to Jerry and George, not only are the path lengths the same in both direction but so is the travel times. Since Enstein's expanation relies on the travel times being different, they have unwittingly proved their own theory wrong.... again. > >: In fact, wavelength is NOT absolute and constant in the rotating frame. > >But the NUMBER of waves is or else you have tick fairies. The number of waves is constant at constant speed..but the number at each speed varies because of the path length change...an amount that is the same, incidentally, in both the BaTh and Einsteinian explanations. >The simplest way to see it to have just one wavelength around the entire >circumference. The 'circumference' you refer to increases with speed. .....can't any of you see that simple fact? > >Jeery's program is short and excellent, far better than any of yours >(although it does have the constants 1.1 and 0.9 imbedded). >It takes experience to know not to do that. It is far from 'excellent' It is plainly wrong. Wavelength is speed dependent in the rotating frame. >} > > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 6 Oct 2007 08:37 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:2padg3teh43srqo1s7u7m1quh0943nfpvl(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:22:40 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:1191593421.613830.159110(a)50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1c03f332f90d65b5 >>> >>> which links to >>> >>> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm >> >>Perfect! that's _exactly_ what I had in mind. > > It seems two minds are better than one....EXCEPT when they belong to > relativists. > You have both fallen into the same trap of trying to use the rotating > frame. Clueless, it is drawn in the inertial frame, that's why the short black radial line representing the beam splitter moves anti-clockwise as the waves are emitted. .... > You are not accommodating the different number of wavelengths kin your > paths. The blue and red lines are in phase at the source as you can see most easily during the early part of the animation. The waves move at c+v one way and c-v the other as ballistic theory requires. There are 9.5 waves in each direction as you can count when the animation completes. Your conclusion that the number of wavelengths would be different is wrong (because you divided the path lengths by the wrong number). The bottom line is that when the waves get back to the splitter, they arrive in phase, the same as if the table was static, and hence there is NO fringe DISPLACEMENT. George
From: George Dishman on 6 Oct 2007 08:40
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:3fadg3tt0i775n0clhtijr4kilsffast9o(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:10:21 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > wrote: >>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 > > You have made the same mistake as George. You have used the rotating frame > ... The source of the waves moves anti-clockwise, it is obviously drawn in the _inertial_ frame. George |