Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Oct 2007 16:55 On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:01:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> : Quite the contrary, Henri. >> : It is easy to see that your links will pass the detector >> : at the same phase. Since the detector is moving at v, >> : both chains will pass the detector at c. > >> OK, I explained that wrongly. The links DO end up in phase at the detedtion >> point. This illustrates the classical wave equation and is essentially the same >> as Jerry's 'moving sine wave' animation. > >Indeed. >And your very good analogy of a Sagnac ring according to the emission theory >illustrates that whatever the v might be, the two rays will always be >in phase at the detector. No they don't. >And that's all what the discussion is about isn't it? >So it's settled. >The emission theory predict no phase difference between >the contra moing rays. wrong >> Whthe chain shows however is that the number of links (wavelengths) iin each >> path is different.....AND IT IS THIS FACT RATHER THAN THE CLASSICAL WAVE >> APPROACH THAT CORRECTLY EXPLAINS SAGNAC. > >What ARE you talking about, Henri? >We have two chains (rays), moving in opposite directions. >The number of links (wavelengths) is constant, so how would >you count them to get a different number of links (wavelengths) >in the two chains (rays)? >Would you count some of them twice, and others not at all? >And even if you do count them in such an idiotic way, >how do you imagine that your inventive way of counting >the links can change the only fact that matters, namely >that BOTH RAYS ARE AWAYS IN PHASE AT THE DETECTOR? > >> The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. > >You are indeed right. >The fact that there IS a phase difference between >the rays, prove that light does not behave as predicted >by the emission theory. Paul I have an excellet program that shows what happens but I can't upload it because my server has stuffed up again. I'm in the process of setting up a new website...but they can't even get that right.... >That's why the Sagnac experiment falsifies the emission theory. Paul, let me explain. Both SR and BaTh accept that each element of the rays is emitted from a point that is stationary in the non-otating frame. That is legitimate physics. (neither you nor George will acknowledge that this emission point MOVES in the rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating frame' argument) SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that static emission point. SR calculates the travel times of the rays around the ring and finds those times to be diffferent because of the different path lengths. SR says that this indicates a phase difference at the detector. (Note, SR ignores the fact that the elements emitted simutaneously do not arrive simultaneously) BaTh says that the rays move at c wrt the moving source from the (static) emission point. They move at c+v and c-v (wrt the no-rotating frame) around the ring. BaTh says the travel times are the same and elements emitted simultaneously arrive at the detector simltaneously. BaTh says that the phase of arrival of each ray is simply [pathlength mod (absolute wavelength)]. If the phase of one is x degrees, that of the other is 360-x. Both approaches produce the same answer. Androcles wants to use frequency instead of wavelength and is yet to come up with a prediction of fringe shift in spite of all his raving. So which is more likely. SR relies on an unproven postulate ie., MAGIC to adjust both light speeds to be 'c'. It requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. BaTh uses logical physics, in assuming that wavelength' is constant in all frames....since ALL lengths are absolute and contant in all frames. >SR, OTOH, predicts what is observed. > >Which you can see in these correct analyses: >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf all wrong... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Oct 2007 17:01 On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:32:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:iqssh31l1kolm3crg22bvkrpr5ief15h42(a)4ax.com... >: On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:26:09 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> >: wrote: >: > >So you should be. This is what two photons are like: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif silly >Androcles' third law: > For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton. >(They just happen to be coloured magenta and yellow so that >you can see them.) They are very much like waves, but have >direction. That's because atoms or molecules have two electrons. >It all comes down to wave superposition, photons have two sources, >not one, and momentum must be conserved. ...atoms or molecules have two electrons......??????????????? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Oct 2007 18:30 On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:28:59 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:tgcvh3tegj6m80dhv0998ml89cak893t0t(a)4ax.com... >: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:32:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> >: wrote: >: >Androcles' third law: >: > For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton. >: >(They just happen to be coloured magenta and yellow so that >: >you can see them.) They are very much like waves, but have >: >direction. That's because atoms or molecules have two electrons. >: >It all comes down to wave superposition, photons have two sources, >: >not one, and momentum must be conserved. >: >: ..atoms or molecules have two electrons......??????????????? > >Two or more, yes. You have difficulty counting, of course. What about H? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Androcles on 24 Oct 2007 19:31 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:qphvh3t9srkihdl1pps5ses29sj3ndffla(a)4ax.com... : On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:28:59 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:tgcvh3tegj6m80dhv0998ml89cak893t0t(a)4ax.com... : >: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:32:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : >: wrote: : : >: >Androcles' third law: : >: > For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton. : >: >(They just happen to be coloured magenta and yellow so that : >: >you can see them.) They are very much like waves, but have : >: >direction. That's because atoms or molecules have two electrons. : >: >It all comes down to wave superposition, photons have two sources, : >: >not one, and momentum must be conserved. : >: : >: ..atoms or molecules have two electrons......??????????????? : > : >Two or more, yes. You have difficulty counting, of course. : : What about H? You've never seen a photon from a single hydrogen atom and never will. This is from a molecule, H2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/modpic/hydtube.jpg You have difficulty counting and with basic chemistry as well as basics physics, of course.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 Oct 2007 10:28
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > Paul, let me explain. > > Both SR and BaTh accept that each element of the rays is emitted from a point > that is stationary in the non-otating frame. That is legitimate physics. > (neither you nor George will acknowledge that this emission point MOVES in the > rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating frame' argument) > > SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that static > emission point. SR calculates the travel times of the rays around the ring and > finds those times to be diffferent because of the different path lengths. SR > says that this indicates a phase difference at the detector. According to SR, the travel time of a plane of equal phase is different for the two rays. > (Note, SR ignores > the fact that the elements emitted simutaneously do not arrive simultaneously) Ignored? :-) The fact that the planes of equal phase do not arrive simultaneously is the very reason why the phases are not equal. Look at page 2: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf Is the fact that delta_t <> 0 ignored? :-) > > BaTh says that the rays move at c wrt the moving source from the (static) > emission point. They move at c+v and c-v (wrt the no-rotating frame) around the > ring. BaTh says the travel times are the same and elements emitted > simultaneously arrive at the detector simltaneously. And since the "elemens" of a ray which travel with the phase velocity c+/-v are planes of equal phase, the phases blatantly obviously have to be equal if they meet _simultaneously_ at the detector. > BaTh says that the phase > of arrival of each ray is simply [pathlength mod (absolute wavelength)]. If the > phase of one is x degrees, that of the other is 360-x. No consistent theory says that because it is a giant self contradiction. You are inventing nonsense because you do not understand what you are claiming. > Both approaches produce the same answer. Read "There are two ways of .." on page 2. http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf The two methods must necessarily produce the same answer. You claim they don't. Confused nonsense. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |