Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: JM Albuquerque on 19 Sep 2007 19:17 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem news:13f12l91s4e1aee(a)corp.supernews.com... > "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message > news:5lbd6nF7f5h6U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem >> news:13f0svdqujd9m58(a)corp.supernews.com... >>> >>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message >>> news:5la4a4F788h1U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >>>> Classical stationary ether was never rulled out. >>>> We simply don't need it, because it's assumed to be stationary >>>> locally and everywhere stationary (no wind, never). >>> >>> Aha .. you have a different idea of what is meant by a stationary ether >>> .. you mean an ether that moves so it appears stationary on earth .. >>> yes? >> >> Yes. >> I guess we agree quite fine, thanks. > > Yeup .. so between MMX and Sagnac, we refute ballistic theory and theories > with an ether relative to which the earth is moving .. we're left with > theories mathematically equivalent to SR, or theories where the ether > moves with the earth. But theories of an ether that moves with the earth > (an ether drag) have been separately refuted. > > That sounds a fair summary then? Yes, I'm confortable with that summary.
From: Eric Gisse on 23 Sep 2007 22:42 On Sep 23, 4:23 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: [...] Oh, is it "Dr." Henri Wilson now, Ralph? Did you forge a doctorate to go with your forged diplomas?
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Sep 2007 08:46 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > ...and by the way...if mirror and source are mutually at rest, then tAB = tBA. > according to BaTh. The Doctor has got it, as a D.Sc would. The BaTh predicts no fringe shifts in the Sagnac X. Would Doctor Henri Wilson please inform Crank Henri Wilson about this? Paul
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Sep 2007 18:42 On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:46:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> ...and by the way...if mirror and source are mutually at rest, then tAB = tBA. >> according to BaTh. > >The Doctor has got it, as a D.Sc would. >The BaTh predicts no fringe shifts in the Sagnac X. > >Would Doctor Henri Wilson please inform Crank Henri Wilson about this? Referring to this Sagnac analysis: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm the same reasoning applies if the ring rotates at any speed...or doesn't move at all. You can take the ring away altogether if you like... The standard SR analysis is plain bullshit. The real reason for the sagnac effect is that when the thing rotates, the axes of the individual photons are not aligned with the direction of their travel. This causes not only an overall path length difference in the two rays but also a divergence due to the fact that the rays do not reflect from the moving mirrors at their incident angles and speeds. If you don't understand what I'm saying, try drawing the path of an arrow fired from a moving car at a laterally moving target 45 degrees to one side. Pay particular attention to the angle between the arrow shaft and its velocity vector (in the ground frame). >Paul Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 28 Sep 2007 19:18
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:09:49 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 27 Sep, 23:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:45:35 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >On 16 Sep, 23:18, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: >> >> >The light source, mirrors and screen are _all_ >> >rigidly mounted on the turntable, grandad _is_ >> >on the roundabout. >> >> Interestingly, in the standard ring gyro diagram, eg., >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm >> the rotation speed of the 'carousel' is irrelevant. > >The whole operation is different. In Sagnac's >experiment the fringe shift depends on the speed >of rotation, in a ring gyro it depends on the >angle through which the table has turned. > >> How does SR explain that George?...aren't the fibres solid? > >The ring gyro analysis is more complex but the >easy way to understand it is that the two >counter-rotating signals create a standing wave. >When the apparatus rotates, the nulls in the >standing wave stays where they are because the >speed of both beams is c in the inertial frame >and the detector moves past them. If you imagine >a setup with 360 cycles of the wave round the >ring, each cycle counted represents 1 degree of >rotation. > >> >According to ballistic theory, in the co-rotating >> >(roundabout) frame, the kids both run the length >> >of the circumference at the same speed so take the >> >same time. In the playground frame, they run at c+v >> >and c-v but the kid running with the roundabout >> >has to go farther to catch up to grandad while the >> >other kid has grandad moving towards him and again >> >the times are equal. That means no fringe shift. >> >> It would according to the above ...but that's not what happens.... > >Right, ballistic theory gives the wrong answer, >but if you calculate the time difference based >on the kids speed relative to the grass being >the same regardless of the speed of the >roundabout then you get the right answer, and >it doesn't matter how many mirrors are used or >whether they are all at the same radius or not, >nor what angles the beams hit the mirrors. That >is the SR explanation of course, the speed of >the light is independent of the speed of the >source (grandad). :) have a look at my latest Sagnac revelation George. ...then hide your head with embarrassment.... >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |