Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Androcles on 16 Oct 2007 20:23 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:qmdah3h0iq4ekh4qcvtrk2bj4puoc2lc6d(a)4ax.com... : On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:07:28 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:m6r7h3dr1gk5m71q5hnp02med8cid4hel7(a)4ax.com... : >: On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:25:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : >: wrote: : >: : >: > : >: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >: >news:sp45h3hieob81suq17rici1mh68n2r5rj0(a)4ax.com... : >: >: On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:29:58 -0700, Jerry : ><Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> : >: : >: >: 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. : >: > : >: >BWahahahahaha! : >: > : >: >| How many teeth between the emision point and the detection point. : >: > : >: >Einstein Dingleberries like Jeery, you, Dishpan and Tusseladd cannot : >count. : >: > : >: >Just count: : >: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tickfairy.gif : >: >Just count: : >: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif : >: >Hint: the larger wheels have 60 teeth : >: : >: You need to count the number between the emission point and the detector. : > : >Hint: I made both gifs, I know how many teeth I put on them. : >All I'm PROVING is Einstein Dingleberries like Jeery, you, Dishpan : >and Tusseladd cannot count. : : You have diffrent wavelengths in each path. In BaTh, wavelength is : absolute....as you should know. : : >: >The path lengths are R(2pi +/- alpha) (no t involved in length). : >: : >: what's alpha, fool? : > : >An angle, Einstein dingleberry. You can find it here: : > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm : > : > : >Is it vt/R, fool? : > : >No, there is no t, R or v involved in angles, Einstein dingleberry. : >A mathematician would recognise the curve in vt. : >You are oh-so-easy to fool because you ARE an Einstein dingleberry. : : get off the whisky.... : "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
From: George Dishman on 19 Oct 2007 09:35 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:nfm2h3d0lj5fcaq25tmvat9olm04hahigf(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:25 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Clueless 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. In reality yes but not according to ballistic theory, it says the displacement is constant and non-zero during 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. Yes for Sagnac and iFOGs since displacement is actually proportional to speed. > laser gyros use complicated beating and other elecronic methods to improve > the > accuracy of the integration. No they don't they work on a completely different principle although they are closely connected. What they do is set up a standing wave and maintain it with a laser. Because the speed is the same for both waves in the inertial frame, the standing wave pattern doesn't rotate if the equipment is rotated. A simpler counter can then measure the nodes of the standing wave as the detector passes them so the counter output is then the angle turned. >>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. Jerry's animation has a "pause" button, you are the one that is stupid if you cannot figure out how to use it. >>> 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. Impossible, they use different speeds > Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. Nobody said it was clueless, Sagnac falsifies Ritz's theory but not 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? Because the light doesn't stop moving clueless, the animation should continue forever. You were supposed to realise you can use the pause button to stop it whenever you like! > Jerry's animation is nonsense. Your complaints are nonsense, learn how to use a pause button! George
From: Dono on 19 Oct 2007 11:07 On Oct 19, 6:35 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:nfm2h3d0lj5fcaq25tmvat9olm04hahigf(a)4ax.com... > > > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:25 +0100, "George Dishman" > > <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >>news:auung3p5u9906o8047tquucgce2gd2q6bg(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:30:03 -0700, George Dishman > >>> <geo...(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. > > In reality yes but not according to ballistic theory, > it says the displacement is constant and non-zero > during 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. > > Yes for Sagnac and iFOGs since displacement is actually > proportional to speed. > > > laser gyros use complicated beating and other elecronic methods to improve > > the > > accuracy of the integration. > > No they don't they work on a completely different > principle although they are closely connected. > > What they do is set up a standing wave and maintain > it with a laser. Because the speed is the same for > both waves in the inertial frame, the standing wave > pattern doesn't rotate if the equipment is rotated. > A simpler counter can then measure the nodes of the > standing wave as the detector passes them so the > counter output is then the angle turned. > > >>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. > > Jerry's animation has a "pause" button, you are > the one that is stupid if you cannot figure out > how to use it. > > >>> 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. > > Impossible, they use different speeds > > > Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. > > Nobody said it was clueless, Sagnac falsifies > Ritz's theory but not 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? > > Because the light doesn't stop moving clueless, the > animation should continue forever. You were supposed > to realise you can use the pause button to stop it > whenever you like! > > > Jerry's animation is nonsense. > > Your complaints are nonsense, learn how to use a > pause button! > > George Very nice. I don't think it will work on the freshly minted "dr" Ralphie/Henri :-)
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 19 Oct 2007 17:50 On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:nfm2h3d0lj5fcaq25tmvat9olm04hahigf(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >> I don't think you understand what 'displacement' implies. A CHANGE in >> displacement occurs during an acceleration. > >In reality yes but not according to ballistic theory, >it says the displacement is constant and non-zero >during acceleration. Have you always been a slow learner, George. >> 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. > >Yes for Sagnac and iFOGs since displacement is actually >proportional to speed. Hooray, you finally got something right. >> laser gyros use complicated beating and other elecronic methods to improve >> the >> accuracy of the integration. > >No they don't they work on a completely different >principle although they are closely connected. > >What they do is set up a standing wave and maintain >it with a laser. Because the speed is the same for >both waves in the inertial frame, the standing wave >pattern doesn't rotate if the equipment is rotated. >A simpler counter can then measure the nodes of the >standing wave as the detector passes them so the >counter output is then the angle turned. During constant speed, the outgoing path is not equal to the incoming one so the lasing mechanism is 'confused'. I gather it puts out a beat frequency at constant speed. Let's not get into that. >>>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. > >Jerry's animation has a "pause" button, you are >the one that is stupid if you cannot figure out >how to use it. What's the point? Jerry's animation does not simulate a ring gyro. >>>That's what SR predicts, ballistic theory says no >>>displacement. >> >> SR and BaTh predict the same displacement. > >Impossible, they use different speeds Not imposible. SR (supposedly) uses constant light speed. BaTh uses constant wavelength. >> Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. > >Nobody said it was clueless, Sagnac falsifies >Ritz's theory but not SR. George, for years both you and Andersen have been preaching that the analysis of Sagnac in the rotating frame immediately falsifies BaTh. It has taken me some time to find the flaw....but it is now quite obvious. The emission point moves around the ring in the rotating frame. >> >> Jerry's program should stop when the leading edges reach the detector. (At >> the >> same instant). It doesn't. Why not? > >Because the light doesn't stop moving clueless, the >animation should continue forever. You were supposed >to realise you can use the pause button to stop it >whenever you like! > >> Jerry's animation is nonsense. > >Your complaints are nonsense, learn how to use a >pause button! All the pause buttons in the world wont save Einstein now, George. you have stuffed up...admit it... >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Oct 2007 08:15
Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> news:nfm2h3d0lj5fcaq25tmvat9olm04hahigf(a)4ax.com... >>> laser gyros use complicated beating and other elecronic methods to improve >>> the >>> accuracy of the integration. >> No they don't they work on a completely different >> principle although they are closely connected. >> >> What they do is set up a standing wave and maintain >> it with a laser. Because the speed is the same for >> both waves in the inertial frame, the standing wave >> pattern doesn't rotate if the equipment is rotated. >> A simpler counter can then measure the nodes of the >> standing wave as the detector passes them so the >> counter output is then the angle turned. > > During constant speed, the outgoing path is not equal to the incoming one so > the lasing mechanism is 'confused'. It's you that are confused. "outgoing path" - path of what going out from where? "incoming path" - path of what coming in from where? As George just stated, it's quite simple. In the laser ring there is a standing wave that doesn't rotate. If the ring rotates around it, you can count the nodes as they passes by a detector fixed to the ring. > I gather it puts out a beat frequency at > constant speed. Let's not get into that. Sure you get "a frequency of passing nodes" proportional to the angular velocity. Usually the detector has two small 45 degree mirrors stealing some of the light from the standing wave, leading them into a small interferometer. When the detector move along the standing wave, fringes are moving past a photo detector which counts them. [..] >>> Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. >> Nobody said it was clueless, Sagnac falsifies >> Ritz's theory but not SR. > > George, for years both you and Andersen have been preaching that the analysis > of Sagnac in the rotating frame immediately falsifies BaTh. Quite. That is because the Sagnac experiment falsifies the emission theory. And it's no invention of George's or mine. It's how it is. > It has taken me some time to find the flaw....but it is now quite obvious. > > The emission point moves around the ring in the rotating frame. That is of course a splendid idea, solving all problems. I have a lamp on my desk. It is stationary in a rotating frame. It is emitting a continuous wave, just like the source in the Sagnac ring. Where is the moving emission point right now, Henri? In Australia? BTW, Henri. I found someone who supports you. http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm Isn't this a fine proof that the Sagnac experiment confirms the emission theory and falsifies SR? The quality of those proofs are always astonishing! Paul |