Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Androcles on 13 Oct 2007 20:21 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:4ji2h31kv6hk7sjsieobo5nibvpc09g0e4(a)4ax.com... : On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:21:18 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:jsovg319raplhju4au4mvlciqaul9l2vc1(a)4ax.com... : >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:32:45 -0700, George Dishman : >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> : >> wrote: : >> : >>>On 9 Oct, 22:39, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: : >>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:22:06 -0700, George Dishman : >>>> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: : >>>> >On 9 Oct, 01:08, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: : >> : >>>> >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. : >>> : >>>Oh but it DOES matter, in fact it is critical. : >>>You see your attempt at working out the phase : >>>by counting the numbers of waves from the : >>>EMISSION point doesn't work specifically because : >>>the waves are always in phase AT THE SOURCE, so : >>>when the emission point is some distance away, : >>>they are no longer in phase at that point. That's : >>>why your maths gve you the wrong answer, the waves : >>>actually ARE in phase at the detector. : >> : >> My server has been down so I couldn't reply to your posts. I may have : >> missed : >> some messages.... : > : >Not a problem, most of your posts are just repetition : >of the same two or three basic errors. We will probably : >cover them all here again. : > : >>>> 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. : >>> : >>>Wrong, the emulsion on the plate can only be : >>>affected by what hits it, not what the phase : >>>was far away at the detector and some time : >>>previously when the light left the source. : >>> : >>>There is no fringe DISPLACEMENT because there : >>>is no phase difference between the waves when : >>>they hit the detector. : >> : >> George, the initial phase used in Jerry's animation is arbitrary. : > : >You can define the source as V=A*sin(w*t+phi) where : >phi is an arbitrary constant as you say, but you : >can also write V=A*sin(theta) where theta=w*t+phi : >so the "phase" in this style is a linear function : >of time. It's a different use of the word phase : >that you might come across in RF circles and you : >might find it useful some times. : > : >> There is a phase difference between the common one at the emission point : >> and : >> the common one at the plate. : > : >That is of no relevance, what affects the photographic : >emulsion is the amplitude of the signal at the grain. : >That is the amplitude of the sum of the red and blue : >waves so for a given source intensity, the emulsion : >response depends on the phase difference between the : >red and blue, inphase given the maximum sum and out : >of phase giving perfect cancellation hence no effect : >on the emulsion, a "dark fringe". : : That is correct. : You are simply agreeing that BaTh predicts no change in fringe pattern during : constant rotation. Thank you George. But Emission Fact predicts a change, idiot. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 14 Oct 2007 18:13 On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:29:58 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Oct 13, 4:21 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:jsovg319raplhju4au4mvlciqaul9l2vc1(a)4ax.com... > >To judge from well how I did on several of last year's exams, >I am much better prepared for my coming tests than I thought, >so I took a few hours this morning to update the applet to >version 4. >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm It is still wrong. You must stop the movement when the leading edge arrives at the detector. Then you can count the number of wavelengths in each path....the number differs. >The extra features are purely for Henri's benefit, since he >obviously has no idea what causes fringe displacement. > >Back to studying... and NO MORE LURKING!!!! The path lengths are 2piR+/-vt. The difference in number of wavelengths is 4Aw/cLambda. This is the correct answer....backed by experiment. Nature doesn't care what you and George think. It just works this way. Nor do I care that you cannot understand BaTh. >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 14 Oct 2007 18:17 On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:34:10 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:1192310998.120221.151880(a)e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >: >: The extra features are purely for Henri's benefit, since he >: obviously has no idea what causes fringe displacement. >: >: Back to studying... and NO MORE LURKING!!!! >: >What you are missing: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif Aha! A demonstration of my 'arrow shaft' photon theory. Very good. That is how more wavelengths fit into the a shorter distance. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 14 Oct 2007 18:19 On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:21:04 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:4ji2h31kv6hk7sjsieobo5nibvpc09g0e4(a)4ax.com... >: On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:21:18 +0100, "George Dishman" ><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >: That is correct. >: You are simply agreeing that BaTh predicts no change in fringe pattern >during >: constant rotation. Thank you George. > >But Emission Fact predicts a change, idiot. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif Fringes don't move during constant rotation. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 14 Oct 2007 18:20
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:21:04 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:nfm2h3d0lj5fcaq25tmvat9olm04hahigf(a)4ax.com... >: On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >: > >: >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. > >Technically true, a constant rotating frame is a constantly >accelerating frame. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |