Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Androcles on 9 Oct 2007 18:48 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:14vng3t26or3tas4jgl0825l5i0vg3q1aa(a)4ax.com... : 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. Now you are bringing time into it. The Wilson tick fairy added 7 of them, 19 altogether, 13 went one way and 6 the other. Or is she a tick nurse now that you are a dockture? : : >: >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. The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, fuckheaded senile old goat. : >: >: 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 distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, fuckheaded senile old sheep-shagger. : : >: >: 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... : The distance travelled in the stationary frame is different for both rays, (c+v)t and (c-v)t. The distance travelled in the rotating frame is the same for both rays, fuckheaded senile old sheep-shagger.
From: Androcles on 9 Oct 2007 19:27 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:auung3p5u9906o8047tquucgce2gd2q6bg(a)4ax.com... : 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.. As seen by Grandpa but not as seen by the kids on the carousel. You are 49% right and 51% wrong. So far George is 99% right, 1% wrong. The rays are never "in phase", they go in opposite directions. They can only be in phase when they go in the same direction. : : >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. (or would be if the rays went in the same direction with different speeds) : : For what it's worth, (very little) Jerry's completely inadequate program fully : supports the BaTh. The BaTh has fixed wavelength in all frames of reference and supports SR.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 10 Oct 2007 04:45 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:27:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:auung3p5u9906o8047tquucgce2gd2q6bg(a)4ax.com... >: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:30:03 -0700, George Dishman ><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >: >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.. > >As seen by Grandpa but not as seen by the kids on the carousel. >You are 49% right and 51% wrong. > So far George is 99% right, 1% wrong. The rays are never "in phase", >they go in opposite directions. They can only be in phase when they >go in the same direction. you can argue that one with George... >: >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. > >(or would be if the rays went in the same direction with different speeds) > >: >: For what it's worth, (very little) Jerry's completely inadequate program >fully >: supports the BaTh. > >The BaTh has fixed wavelength in all frames of reference and supports SR. The SR Sagnac explanation is nonsense....just a corruption of the BaTh one. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 12 Oct 2007 10:57 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:auung3p5u9906o8047tquucgce2gd2q6bg(a)4ax.com... > 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.. <sigh> Only the arriving waves arrive (!) at the detector so it is only influenced by the arrival phase. They always have they same relationship, they are always in phase, therefore the fringes are always in the same location - no displacement. Oh well, at least you now understand that ballistic theory says they arrive in phase, that's one step in the right direction. >>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. That's what SR predicts, ballistic theory says no displacement. > For what it's worth, (very little) Jerry's completely inadequate program > fully > supports the BaTh. For what it is worth, you have yet again had to admit that all your criticisms of Jerry's program have been wrong, and the fact that you have been forced to do so amply demonstrates that it is adequate for the purpose. It's taken you a week to grasp what she wrote from scratch in a matter of hours, no wonder your own program has taken a decade. Maybe you should hire her to do your coding for you. George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 13 Oct 2007 20:01
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:auung3p5u9906o8047tquucgce2gd2q6bg(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:30:03 -0700, George Dishman >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>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.. > ><sigh> > >Only the arriving waves arrive (!) at the detector >so it is only influenced by the arrival phase. > >They always have they same relationship, they are >always in phase, therefore the fringes are always >in the same location - no displacement. I don't think you understand what 'displacement' implies. A CHANGE in displacement occurs during an acceleration. The total displacement is the number of fringes moved since zero rotation speed. Displacement is integrated with TIME to give ritation angle away from zero. laser gyros use complicated beating and other elecronic methods to improve the accuracy of the integration. >Oh well, at least you now understand that ballistic >theory says they arrive in phase, that's one step >in the right direction. Until Jerry arranges for the animation to stop when the leading edge of the wave reaches the detector, that has not been demonstrated and I don't agree at all. Jerry's animation is stupid. >> And this is exactly what happens at constant speed. There is fringe >> DISPLACEMET >> but no fringe MOVEMENT. > >That's what SR predicts, ballistic theory says no >displacement. SR and BaTh predict the same displacement. Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. >> For what it's worth, (very little) Jerry's completely inadequate program >> fully >> supports the BaTh. > >For what it is worth, you have yet again had to >admit that all your criticisms of Jerry's program >have been wrong, and the fact that you have been >forced to do so amply demonstrates that it is >adequate for the purpose. It's taken you a week >to grasp what she wrote from scratch in a matter >of hours, no wonder your own program has taken a >decade. Maybe you should hire her to do your coding >for you. Jerry's program should stop when the leading edges reach the detector. (At the same instant). It doesn't. Why not? Jerry's animation is nonsense. > >George > > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |