Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: George Dishman on 6 Oct 2007 08:44 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:5ahdg3pb0k65hp35n6ed85mas8f4hvhgha(a)4ax.com... .... > The number of cycles received per second at the detector is naturally the > same > as the number emitted by the source, except during an acceleration.... > that is > not a issue. > The number of 'wavelengths' around each path varies with rotation speed. > That > IS THE ISSUE. No, the issue is whether the waves arriving at the detector can be out of phase when the table is rotating at constant velocity. Your use of the number of waves around the circumference is only an intermediate step in answering that question. Jerry's animation gives both answers. George
From: George Dishman on 6 Oct 2007 09:07 On 5 Oct, 23:28, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:r5bdg3pbhpkb7ci3fe7opas6rhgg5qk58e(a)4ax.com... > : On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:47:25 GMT, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics>: wrote: > : >"George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > : >news:ermdnYwTBeXVyJvaRVnytQA(a)pipex.net... > : >: > : >: "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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/1c03f332f90... > : >: > > : >: > 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. Right, it is just the circumference divided by Henry's "absolute wavelength" of course. > The DISTANCES are NOT the same > in both frames. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JerrySagnac.GIF Also correct, but you forgot the detector is also on the table. Actually the beam splitter is the key point illustrated by Jerry's radial black line (but the paths are common before splitting and after recombination) so it is the phase of the waves when they meet back at the radial line that matters. > They are using them correctly, you are the one that is wrong. Thanks for doing Henry's check for him, he seems to be having some difficulty with this one. > : 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. No, we claim the time is the same, I proved that to Henry back in November 2005 and he plagiarised my proof for his page. As you say, he can't do the maths himslef. > 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. The comments are correct when you realise the detector is also on the table. If it were on the ground, you would get two different frequencies from Doppler shift and there would not be a static fringe pattern to be measured. > : >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. Yep, "stationary" meaning "inertial" in modern terminology. > : >Who was the idiot that said it was c in all frames of reference? Lot's of clueless newbie cranks make that mistake. George
From: John Kennaugh on 6 Oct 2007 12:48 George Dishman wrote: >On 4 Oct, 09:29, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:01:31 -0700, George Dishman >><geo...(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: >... >> >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 interference. >> >> 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. > >You don't even recognise science when you have >it thrust under your nose, your approach never >gets beyond seventeenth century philosophy. > >The science is simple in this case, a bright fringe >occurs where the waves on the two paths arrive "in >phase". That means a peak from one path arrives at >the same time as a peak on the other. That happens >if the time it takes that peak to reach the detector >from the beam splitter is the same for both paths >which is always the case for constant angular velocity >in ballistic theory. I have not been following this thread but disagree with your above statement. It is simplistic as was the arguments put forward by Sagnac who was convinced that his experiment invalidated relativity. Ballistic Theory A->v Inertial source A is moving in your FoR. Light emitted by A spreads out in a circle and in ballistic theory the centre of that circle remains with A. (in SR it remains at the fixed point in your FoR where A was when the light was emitted). OK now let us assume A is not inertial. Let us assume that just after the light is emitted something collides with A and knocks it off its track. That cannot possibly effect the light which has already been emitted and the centre of the circle of light will continue to be where A *would* have been *if* A had not been accelerated. In ballistic theory where the source is not inertial the speed of light is c in the *inertial* frame in which the light was emitted. A->v C | B | | | | | | | | | O Suppose A is travelling in a circle centre O and it emits light at the point shown. C--------A' | A | | B | | | | | | | O Suppose at time t later that light reaches B. While A is at the position shown the centre of the circle of light reaching B is at A' not A, which is the point A *would* have reached *if* it had been inertial. The light reaching B has effectively come from A' and not from A. If A is equidistant from B and C and the table is stationary A and A' are the same point and light will reach B and C simultaneously. If the table moves A' is not the same point as A and is not equidistant from B and C so the light does not reach then simultaneously. There is your mechanism for fringe shift with ballistic theory. My admittedly limited experience is that ballistic theory and relativity always give the same answer despite often widely different descriptions of what is going on. My assumption is that Ballistic theory and SR will give identical predictions. The assumption that if relativity gives the right answer ballistic theory won't is totally false. I of course am not the first to notice this. Reviewer: Walter G. Hecker Book 'The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light - A Critical Review', Author R A Waldron Published Frederick Muller Ltd., London 1977 "Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that A. Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. Waldron shows with mathematical accuracy and in excruciating detail, one by one, that all the so called proofs of Einsteinian relativity (approx. 20) aren't proof at all but that the experimental and observational results can be just as well explained with the more pedestrian Ritzian relativity. Unfortunately the books writing style is extremely dry and the back referencing to figures and what was said earlier is hard to follow (References are to sections, but the pages have no section headers). But he is so detailed and conscientious in his proofs, that its a book worth having for any 'dissenter' regarding Einsteinian Relativity, special or general." I do not claim to have the necessary knowledge nor mathematical expertise to properly evaluate ballistic theory and I seriously doubt that Henri is up to it either :o). Very few with that capability have ever looked at it objectively. One such was Fox. The following quote is of interest: "Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed- of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox says: '...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'" If you study the provenance of relativity without the sanitizing modern spin then quite simply Einstein ignored the fact that light was particulate and assumed that Maxwell's waves in aether theory was in no ways compromised by the discovery that light is not in fact waves. If you assume the validity of Maxwell's ET, as he did, then the MMX is a valid experiment measuring the speed of the observer relative to the aether and the result that it is always zero is a valid result i.e. the observer is always stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. What I did not realise for some time was that the reason Einstein justified in detail his first postulate in his 1905 paper but simply announces his second without justification was that at the time the second postulate simply put into words what everyone at the time accepted as being the case. To Einstein it was his first postulate which was controversial. I find it hard to believe that such thinking could possibly result in correct theory. There was an alternative which is a far better match with the particulate nature of light and far more in keeping with the 'no aether' doctrine of modern physics. One which gives a simpler explanation of the MMX, retains Euclidean geometry and the 2 axioms of physics which Einstein had to jettison in order to retain his waves in aether belief. If in 1905 one accepted the particulate nature of light as being more fundamental that its wavelike nature and if one decided that space was indeed empty then there is no conceivable reason why one would assume source independence and jettison two axioms of physics in order to keep the idea alive. With that as the absurd basis of relativity, the possibility, no matter how small that Ballistic theory might be made to work, cannot be ignored. -- John Kennaugh
From: Androcles on 6 Oct 2007 15:20 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:TAFS6zRBx7BHFw8p(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... : George Dishman wrote: : >On 4 Oct, 09:29, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: : >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:01:31 -0700, George Dishman : >><geo...(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: : >... : >> >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 interference. : >> : >> 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. : > : >You don't even recognise science when you have : >it thrust under your nose, your approach never : >gets beyond seventeenth century philosophy. : > : >The science is simple in this case, a bright fringe : >occurs where the waves on the two paths arrive "in : >phase". That means a peak from one path arrives at : >the same time as a peak on the other. That happens : >if the time it takes that peak to reach the detector : >from the beam splitter is the same for both paths : >which is always the case for constant angular velocity : >in ballistic theory. : : I have not been following this thread but disagree with your above : statement. It is simplistic as was the arguments put forward by Sagnac : who was convinced that his experiment invalidated relativity. : : Ballistic Theory : : : A->v : : : Inertial source A is moving in your FoR. Light emitted by A spreads out : in a circle and in ballistic theory the centre of that circle remains : with A. (in SR it remains at the fixed point in your FoR where A was : when the light was emitted). : : OK now let us assume A is not inertial. Let us assume that just after : the light is emitted something collides with A and knocks it off its : track. That cannot possibly effect the light which has already been : emitted and the centre of the circle of light will continue to be where : A *would* have been *if* A had not been accelerated. In ballistic theory : where the source is not inertial the speed of light is c in the : *inertial* frame in which the light was emitted. : : A->v : C | B : | : | : | : | : | : | : | : | : | : O : : Suppose A is travelling in a circle centre O and it emits light at the : point shown. : : C--------A' : | A : | : | B : | : | : | : | : | : | : | : O : : Suppose at time t later that light reaches B. While A is at the position : shown the centre of the circle of light reaching B is at A' not A, which : is the point A *would* have reached *if* it had been inertial. The light : reaching B has effectively come from A' and not from A. : If A is equidistant from B and C and the table is stationary A and A' : are the same point and light will reach B and C simultaneously. If the : table moves A' is not the same point as A and is not equidistant from B : and C so the light does not reach then simultaneously. There is your : mechanism for fringe shift with ballistic theory. : : My admittedly limited experience is that ballistic theory and relativity : always give the same answer despite often widely different descriptions : of what is going on. My assumption is that Ballistic theory and SR will : give identical predictions. The assumption that if relativity gives the : right answer ballistic theory won't is totally false. I of course am not : the first to notice this. : : Reviewer: Walter G. Hecker : Book 'The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light - A Critical Review', : Author R A Waldron Published Frederick Muller Ltd., London 1977 : : "Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before : learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that A. : Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. Waldron shows with : mathematical accuracy and in excruciating detail, one by one, that all : the so called proofs of Einsteinian relativity (approx. 20) aren't proof : at all but that the experimental and observational results can be just : as well explained with the more pedestrian Ritzian relativity. : Unfortunately the books writing style is extremely dry and the back : referencing to figures and what was said earlier is hard to follow : (References are to sections, but the pages have no section headers). But : he is so detailed and conscientious in his proofs, that its a book worth : having for any 'dissenter' regarding Einsteinian Relativity, special or : general." : : I do not claim to have the necessary knowledge nor mathematical : expertise to properly evaluate ballistic theory and I seriously doubt : that Henri is up to it either :o). Very few with that capability have : ever looked at it objectively. One such was Fox. The following quote is : of interest: : : "Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed- : of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have : been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave : a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to : suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox : says: : '...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's : theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and : Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity : of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'" : : If you study the provenance of relativity without the sanitizing modern : spin then quite simply Einstein ignored the fact that light was : particulate and assumed that Maxwell's waves in aether theory was in no : ways compromised by the discovery that light is not in fact waves. If : you assume the validity of Maxwell's ET, as he did, then the MMX is a : valid experiment measuring the speed of the observer relative to the : aether and the result that it is always zero is a valid result i.e. the : observer is always stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second postulate : simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would : experience. What I did not realise for some time was that the reason : Einstein justified in detail his first postulate in his 1905 paper but : simply announces his second without justification was that at the time : the second postulate simply put into words what everyone at the time : accepted as being the case. To Einstein it was his first postulate which : was controversial. : I find it hard to believe that such thinking could possibly : result in correct theory. There was an alternative which is a far better : match with the particulate nature of light and far more in keeping with : the 'no aether' doctrine of modern physics. One which gives a simpler : explanation of the MMX, retains Euclidean geometry and the 2 axioms of : physics which Einstein had to jettison in order to retain his waves in : aether belief. If in 1905 one accepted the particulate nature of light : as being more fundamental that its wavelike nature and if one decided : that space was indeed empty then there is no conceivable reason why one : would assume source independence and jettison two axioms of physics in : order to keep the idea alive. : : With that as the absurd basis of relativity, the possibility, no : matter how small that Ballistic theory might be made to work, cannot be : ignored. : -- : John Kennaugh The physical result is not disputed, the calculation is. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm In relativity, the faster blue ray meets the slower red ray before the slower red ray meets the faster blue ray (which we know happens in the twin paradox, Stella, the travelling twin, being younger meets Terence -- the older twin by several years -- before Terence meets Stella). Something to do with the relativity of simultaneity, I've heard. Jeery has failed to model Sagnac by relativity since most of us don't have a relativistic computer. Dishman accepts the time of the meeting of the rays as being the same for red ray as it is for the blue ray, Jeery doesn't. For some reason Jeery (aka Minor Crank aka Tom pretending to be his kid sister, Tom and Jerry, the famous cat and mouse team) doesn't accept my praise for his model and insists we are only to see it from the rotating frame. It takes a few seconds to download, but here it is: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm And here's the fringe shift: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JerrySagnac.GIF It's a very good model and accurately portrays reality.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 6 Oct 2007 18:21
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:07:23 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 5 Oct, 23:28, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: >> "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:r5bdg3pbhpkb7ci3fe7opas6rhgg5qk58e(a)4ax.com... >> : On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:47:25 GMT, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics>: wrote: >> : >"George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> : >news:ermdnYwTBeXVyJvaRVnytQA(a)pipex.net... >> : >: >> : >: "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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/1c03f332f90... >> : >: > >> : >: > 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. > >Right, it is just the circumference divided >by Henry's "absolute wavelength" of course. It is the circumference + vt. Incidentally, the path lengths are virtually the same in both the BaTh and SR analysis. SR says the travel times are different and calculates displacement accordingly. BaTh says travel times are the same but the number of wavelengths is different...because wavelength is absolute. ...and gets the same answer for pretty obvious reasons... >> The DISTANCES are NOT the same >> in both frames. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JerrySagnac.GIF > >Also correct, but you forgot the detector is >also on the table. that doesn't affec the path length.. >Actually the beam splitter >is the key point illustrated by Jerry's radial >black line (but the paths are common before >splitting and after recombination) so it is the >phase of the waves when they meet back at the >radial line that matters. The phase is determined solely by the difference in path lengths. >> They are using them correctly, you are the one that is wrong. > >Thanks for doing Henry's check for him, he seems >to be having some difficulty with this one. I am having NO difficulty. It is quite obvious how and why the Sagnac effect is entirely Ballistic. >> 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. > >No, we claim the time is the same, I proved >that to Henry back in November 2005 and he >plagiarised my proof for his page. As you say, >he can't do the maths himslef. > >> 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. > >The comments are correct when you realise >the detector is also on the table. If it >were on the ground, you would get two >different frequencies from Doppler shift >and there would not be a static fringe >pattern to be measured. > >> : >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. > >Yep, "stationary" meaning "inertial" in modern >terminology. > >> : >Who was the idiot that said it was c in all frames of reference? > >Lot's of clueless newbie cranks make that mistake. > >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |