Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Androcles on 9 Oct 2007 14:56 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:2kimg355fv212o3vpljq1ruloog80o018c(a)4ax.com... : On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:54:32 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:9silg3llas6clon1j6alnblu68nl4mn1mb(a)4ax.com... : : >: >> Jerry's animation is a joke... : >: > : >: >Then why can't you find a flaw in it? : >: : >: I have. The waves are not in phase at the emission point....simple! : > : >Not showing the correct wavelength from emission point to reception : >point either. : : There are 6 waves in one path and 13 in the other. : count them yourself if you don't believe me. Yeah, the Wilson tick fairy added 7of them. Or is she a tick nurse now that you are a dockture? : : >>The distance they move is from the yellow line to the : >: >>>black line at the time the start of the wave reaches it. : >: >> : >: >> which is as I said above. : >: > : >: >Exactly, the animation already shows what : >: >you complained about. : >: : >: It doesn't include ring rotation speed. : > : >Aww, c'mon, it does. That's unfair. : : Where does Jerry mention ring speed? : He/she/it doesn't even appreciate that it is the most important factor in : Sagnac. Maybe it's here: http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg : > : >: determines phase. : >: Jerry's animation uses rays that BEGIN out of phase. : >: Jerry doesn't include ring rotation speed and how it affects the umber of : >: wavelengths in each path. : >: : > You are both wrong. : >The travel time is the same for both rays in both rotating and : >stationary frames . : : The travel times are indeed the same. : : >The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays. : : Nah. I already corrected Dishman on this. : In the rotating frame, the emission point moves backwards. : >The distances travelled in the stationary frame are different. : >The wavelength in the rotating frame is the same for both rays. : >The wavelengths in the stationary frame are different. : : Wavelength is absolute and invariant in all inertial frames. : : I would rather not use rotating frames because they lead to silly : errors....like Dishman's.. : The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, fuckhead. : : >: >Why not just look at the maths above. : >: > : >: >> : >..........................................................................................................->c : >: >> A_____________________B : >: >> : >: >> The line of dots represents the wavecrests of a light ray moving at c. : >: >> A and B are the end points of a rigid rod. : >: >> : >: >> There are N dots between points A nd B, NO MATTER HOW fast the rod : >moves : >: >> past : >: >> them...or no matter how fast the light ray moves past the rod.. : >: >> : >: >> Next, let the position of B move by vt, where v is the speed of the rod : >: >> and t : >: >> is the time taken for a wavecrest to travel from A to B. Note, A, : >: >> representing : >: >> the source, does not move. : >: > : >: >Wrong, the source _does_ move, there is your error. : >: >You are as bad as Androcles only you want the : >: >source to be off the table. : >: : >: George, sorry if I said the wrong thing there. A is the emission pit : >rather : >: than the 'source'. The splitting mirror, ie., source, DOES move but the : >: emission point, A, does not. : > : >Correct. : : That's a surprise...you agreeing.... The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, tick fairy cretin. : : >: >Just look at Jerry's simulation and try to find an : >: >error, there isn't one. : >: : >: the rays that end up in phase did not BEGIN in phase as required. : > : >Sematics. : : Very important... The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, tick fairy imbecile and senile old goat. : : >: Jerry is stupid... : > : >Correct. : >
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2007 17:39 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:22:06 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 9 Oct, 01:08, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:52:16 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >news:voalg3dlnsb0odv14rh9juo0ifhm82qu3d(a)4ax.com... > >Of couse not, it was the same at the moment the light was >emitted but what is shown is the _current_ situation, it >is not a hostorical trace. > >> ..AS REQUIRED. > >What is required is that the wave emanating from the >splitter has the same value in both directions at any >time since it is a single beam being split. All right...that doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that the common emission phase is not the common detection phase. ...showing fringe DISPLACEMENT BUT NO FRINGE MOVEMENT. THe displacement is around 7 wavelengths in Jerry's program. >> >> You should know your mistake by now. >> >> >The mistake is unchanged, your maths is wrong >> >and Jerry's simulation is accurate. >> >> You forgot that the emission point moves backwards in the rotating frame. > >You are too clueless to realise the source doesn't >drag the waves with it and the simulation is drawn >in the inertial frame anyway. So far you haven't >found a single flaw in what she has drawn. Forget it George...you almost had me fooled for a while. Jerry's simulation is now correct, even if entirely inadequate. It shows fringe DIPLACEMENT but NO fringe MOVEMENT during constant rotation speed according to BaTh. That is what is observed. >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2007 18:06 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:46:31 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:bkhmg3ln4unk3shemnvfirlq261o62b0oe(a)4ax.com... >: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:49:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> >: >I was afraid that was what you meant. I'm not getting into an >: >argument over it, diffraction gratings have a greater angle >: >with longer wavelengths and greater speeds, that's it. >: >: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg > >I see no speed there, the picture is static. c+v >: >: yes...that's two things you got right this week... > >Jeery's model shows a fixed wavelength for the rotating >observer. It does not show a varying wavelength for the >stationary observer. It is incomplete. >In this simple cross the diameter model, the wavelength is >shorter near the centre. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/VarLength.png Wavelenght is absolute and invariant. Jerry's program is now correct. It shows that the BaTh predicts what is observed. >: >Roller skate wheels have a shorter wavelength and a higher frequency >: >than tractor tyres. Wavelength is the distance travelled for one turn of >the >: >wheel. c+v is when the roller skate is in a moving pavement or walkway. >: >: Aha! No A. >: that's not a good example. >: >: A 1 metre rod is a 1 metre rod no matter how fast you move past it. > >The distance between the yellow balls in this simple cross-the-diameter >model is shorter near the centre: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/VarLength.png > >The model rotates: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif > >You can see this happen in the movie > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > > > >: >It takes 50 strides to walk the length of a plane. If you fly from >: >Sydney to London while walking the length of the plane you've >: >taken some very long strides, 200 miles long. Wavelength and strides >: >are relative. >: >: You are introducing time... that is not allowed. > >I'm sorry, I didn't realise nothing was moving in BaTh. > >: The plane is the same length no matter where it goes. > >The strides as seen from a passenger are 1 yard long. >The strides as seen from the ground are 200 miles long. >The is true whether you take 20 hours for fly or a 5000 hours >by ship. The ship is the same length no matter where it goes, >you are stupid wherever you go. Each end of the 'stride' is created at a different time instant. Naturally the distance between ends is speed dependnt. The lenght is the plane is the same no matter what happens to it. You are an aetherist. >: >: In Jerry's diagram, there are 13 wavelengths in one path and 6 in the >other. > >Yes, the Wilson tick fairy waved her magic wand 7 times. >I learnt to count when I was five-years old, Dr. Wilson, and whether I count >short toes or long fingers I still count up to 5 on the extremity of the >limb. >In BaTh, fingers and toes are the same length and you have 15 fingers >on each hand. try counting Jerys's waves then. 13 one path, 6 the other. >: >The model has a pause on the same button as the start so you can halt >: >it when the the two rays meet. 180 degrees in the rotating frame, speed >: >dependent in the stationary frame. Draw 4.5 waves from 3 o'clock >: >to the end point and that shows a change in wavelength. >: >: The program is ridiculous. It doesn't model anything like a ring gyro.. > >Whether it does or doesn't, the model has a pause on the same button >as the start so you can halt it when the the two rays meet. 180 degrees >in the rotating frame, speed dependent in the stationary frame. >Draw 4.5 waves from 3 o'clock to the end point and that shows a >change in wavelength. > >In BaTh you have 15 fingers on each hand, each the same length as >a toe, while you want to talk about ridiculous. Jerry's program is now correct...but still a primative joke. It fully supports the BaTh inits present form. >: > >: >Yeah, you said that. In Emission Fact wavelength is just the trace >: >of the path the photon took and is proportional to c+v. Wavelengths >: >don't even wave in Emission Fact. Kinda like this: >: > http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html >: >No waving, you see, just a sinusoidal trace. >: >: irrelevant.... > >No, in BaTh, toe length is absolute and identical on all limbs, unless >the Wilson toe fairy waves her magic wand to create extra toes. >Three toes per finger, because fingers are three time longer than toes >which is why we have 15 fingers on each hand. you haven't improved... >: Sorry, A. Wavelength is absolute in all emission theories. >Yes, but not in Emission Fact. > >: There is NO doppler shift at the source end. >: The source effectively fires little serated bullets...the serations >signifying >: absolute wavelength. > >Yes, I've seen your model of a senile photon. > >: >: >: It is not invariant in aether theory or SR. >: >: Which side are you on? >: > >: >I'm on the side of science. I'm not a BaThist, I'm an Emission Factist, >: >I have no crank theory of my own as you do. >: >: You are an aetherist in disguise. you don't even know you're an aetherist. > >You are fuckhead without any disguise. You don't even know you're >a fuckhead. it takes a 'fuckhead like me' to prove the fuckhead Eistein wrong.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2007 18:11 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:30:03 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 9 Oct, 10:39, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:54:32 GMT, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:9silg3llas6clon1j6alnblu68nl4mn1mb(a)4ax.com... > >Here is the link again for convenience: > > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm > >There are a lot of extraneous points being made >that are eqivalent ways of looking at the same >thing so I'll trim down to just the key aspects. > >Androcles, I know you disagree with our description >of the equipment but to help Henry can you treat >this as a hypothetical question - what if the >structure was as we said. You understand why there >would be no fringe displacement but Henry cannot yet >see it and he needs your help. > >> >: >Exactly, the animation already shows what >> >: >you complained about. >> >: >> >: It doesn't include ring rotation speed. >> >> >Aww, c'mon, it does. That's unfair. >> >> Where does Jerry mention ring speed? >> He/she/it doesn't even appreciate that it is the most important factor in >> Sagnac. > >The ring speed applies to the line indicating the >splitter. It is obvious that this moves, call that >speed v. If you measure the speed of the two waves >you will find they differ, the one going clockwise >moves at c-v while that going anti-clockwise moves >at c+v. Note that we are talking about the speed >of any part of the wave and the magenta dots marking >an arbitrary positive peak are typical. > >That means the speeds of the splitter and waves are >all correct in accordance with Ritz's theory. > >> >: >Just look at Jerry's simulation and try to find an >> >: >error, there isn't one. >> >: >> >: the rays that end up in phase did not BEGIN in phase as required. >> >> >Sematics. >> >> Very important... > >Yes, very, so let's clear it up. A single light >source illuminates the splitter so the two beams >are conceptually emitted in phase. In practice >there may be a polarity reversal (equivalent to >a 180 degree phase shift) on reflection but if >you follow the paths, one is reflected twice >while the other is transmitted twice so any >polarity reversals cancel and we can ignore the >effect for simplicity. > >That means the simulation should show the light >leaving the splitter in phase. The arbitrary point >chosen is a positive peak and at the instant it >passes through the splitter, it merges as the two >magenta dots, the ocation where they were emitted >being noted for reference by the yellow dot. The >waves are therefore emitted in phase as required. > >When the dots have both completed one circuit, they >arrive back at the splitter. I think we have all >agreed that they take the same time because the >longer path is traversed by the faster light. > >If they arrive at the same time and they both mark >the positive peak then obviously one peak coincides >with the other - the signals are in phase and they >produce constructive interference. THe common arrival phase is different from the common emission phase, indicating fringe displacement.. >The same argument would apply if the dots marked a >negative peak or any other part of the wave so the >signals are _always_ in phase. That can be seen >directly by just watching the splitter line and >seeing the two waves arriving, they always hit the >radial line at the same radius even though that >point moves in and out at the emitted frequency. > >If either of you thinks any of the points above >is incorrect, please say so but do that before >introducing any other arguments. Given the above >points alone, the arrival phase is fully determined >and any other conclusions can also be derived and >either confirmed or refuted from them. And this is exactly what happens at constant speed. There is fringe DISPLACEMET but no fringe MOVEMENT. For what it's worth, (very little) Jerry's completely inadequate program fully supports the BaTh. >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2007 18:15
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:56:31 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:2kimg355fv212o3vpljq1ruloog80o018c(a)4ax.com... >: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:54:32 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> >: wrote: >: >: > >: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >: >news:9silg3llas6clon1j6alnblu68nl4mn1mb(a)4ax.com... >: >: >: >> Jerry's animation is a joke... >: >: > >: >: >Then why can't you find a flaw in it? >: >: >: >: I have. The waves are not in phase at the emission point....simple! >: > >: >Not showing the correct wavelength from emission point to reception >: >point either. >: >: There are 6 waves in one path and 13 in the other. >: count them yourself if you don't believe me. > >Yeah, the Wilson tick fairy added 7of them. Or is she a tick nurse >now that you are a dockture? No fairies needed. the number of wavecrests emitted per second at the source equals the number received per second at the detector. >: >Aww, c'mon, it does. That's unfair. >: >: Where does Jerry mention ring speed? >: He/she/it doesn't even appreciate that it is the most important factor in >: Sagnac. > >Maybe it's here: > http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg > > >: > >: >: determines phase. >: >: Jerry's animation uses rays that BEGIN out of phase. >: >: Jerry doesn't include ring rotation speed and how it affects the umber >of >: >: wavelengths in each path. >: >: >: > You are both wrong. >: >The travel time is the same for both rays in both rotating and >: >stationary frames . >: >: The travel times are indeed the same. >: >: >The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays. >: >: Nah. I already corrected Dishman on this. >: In the rotating frame, the emission point moves backwards. >: >The distances travelled in the stationary frame are different. >: >The wavelength in the rotating frame is the same for both rays. >: >The wavelengths in the stationary frame are different. >: >: Wavelength is absolute and invariant in all inertial frames. >: >: I would rather not use rotating frames because they lead to silly >: errors....like Dishman's.. >: > >The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, >fuckhead. No it isn't. The starting point moves backwards in the rotating frame. That was George's mistake too. >: >: George, sorry if I said the wrong thing there. A is the emission pit >: >rather >: >: than the 'source'. The splitting mirror, ie., source, DOES move but the >: >: emission point, A, does not. >: > >: >Correct. >: >: That's a surprise...you agreeing.... > >The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, >tick fairy cretin. No it isn't. The starting point, which is static in the nonrotating frame, MOVES BACKWARDS in the rotating frame.. >: >: the rays that end up in phase did not BEGIN in phase as required. >: > >: >Sematics. >: >: Very important... >The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, tick >fairy imbecile and senile old goat. > >: >: >: Jerry is stupid... >: > >: >Correct. But you haven't discovered why...because you are basically an aetherist... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |