Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Oct 2007 09:07 George Dishman skrev: > You have to realise that a laser is actually an > amplifier that increases the amplitude of the > wave passing through it and it acts as a source > because of the mirrors that create the cavity. > In the ring configuration, the waves going round > in both directions get boosted to compensate for > losses. It isn't even easy to see how to apply > ballistic theory because there isn't a discrete > emitter to act as a reference for the speed which > is why I have always left the ring gyro out of > the discussions, there is very little common ground > to start from. Any laser falsifies the emission theory. Let's consider a gas laser. A laser is a resonator. One factor determining the wavelength is that there must be a whole number of wavelengths between the two mirrors constituting the resonator. Another factor is of course that the wavelength must be equal to wavelength emitted by the atoms. If we analyse the light from a gas laser, it contains a number of closely spaced wavelengths. We will get a spectrum of wavelengths like this: ... L/(N-3) L/(N-2) L/(N-1) L/N L/(N+1) L/(N+2) L/(N+3) ... Why is that? It is because the gas atoms are moving. They have velocities with a Maxwellian distribution. That means (according to SR) that the wavelengths are Doppler shifted. Only those atoms with speeds such that the Doppler shifted wavelength is a whole fraction of the distance between the mirrors will take part in the lasing process. According to the emission theory, wavelengths are not Doppler shifted. So unless the distance between the mirrors were _exactly_ a whole number of the constant wavelength of the spectral line (which is very unlikely), the laser would never lase. And if it did, the light would contain but one single wavelength. Paul
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 20 Oct 2007 19:45 On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>> 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. The sagnac effect is now fully explained by BaTh. Accept it Paul.... >> 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? The emission point (in the non-rotating frame) of a particular photon it emitted some time ago could indeed be now in Australia. But Norwegians are not smart enough to realise that they are now where Alaska was 13 hours ago. >BTW, Henri. >I found someone who supports you. >http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm there are plenty who support me. I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him the simple facts.... > >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! The quality of the 'proofs' of SR are extremely astonishing.... >Paul Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Androcles on 20 Oct 2007 20:43 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:p94lh35gnm6gbmbku1eb7d47eh6i9k3atg(a)4ax.com... : On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: : : >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: : >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> : >> wrote: : : >>>> 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. : : The sagnac effect is now fully explained by BaTh. Accept it Paul.... I've yet to see it. BaTh has no Doppler. : >> 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? : : The emission point (in the non-rotating frame) of a particular photon it : emitted some time ago could indeed be now in Australia. It could. The other end of the line is moving, the line stretches. : But Norwegians are not smart enough to realise that they are now where Alaska : was 13 hours ago. But Ozzie morons are not smart enough to realise that the other end of the line is moving at c+v. : >BTW, Henri. : >I found someone who supports you. : > http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm : : there are plenty who support me. Name just one. : I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him : the simple facts.... He forgot you give you credit. I expect he wants it all for himself. What a terrible egotist he must be, eh, Dr. Wilson?
From: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Oct 2007 21:50 Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>>> 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. > > The sagnac effect is now fully explained by BaTh. Accept it Paul.... > >>> 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? > > The emission point (in the non-rotating frame) of a particular photon it > emitted some time ago could indeed be now in Australia. > But Norwegians are not smart enough to realise that they are now where Alaska > was 13 hours ago. Ah. Your sharp intelligence caught that one! Well done by an Aussie! So the number of wavelengths between me and the lamp is now 10000km/0.5um and ever increasing. Amazing, isn't it? > >> BTW, Henri. >> I found someone who supports you. >> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm > > there are plenty who support me. I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him > the simple facts.... > >> 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! > > The quality of the 'proofs' of SR are extremely astonishing.... There are no proofs of SR. But there are no falsifications either! The problem of the emission theory is not the absence of proofs. It is the presence of falsifications. Paul
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 20 Oct 2007 22:23
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:49:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:2o3lh3lgmqqnh0lk5p97vq409u91net1uv(a)4ax.com... >: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:31:20 +0100, "George Dishman" >: >You drew it yourself Henry, but it seems you are >: >so stupid you don't even know which frame you used. >: >: George, forget all that. > >Yeah, forget all that. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif what is it supposed to represent? >Explain, faux Dr. Wilson. (quack quack) >Hint: The tick fairy can't help you. > > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |