Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 30 Sep 2007 17:24 On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:58:08 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 30, 9:14 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > Henri believes that a Sagnac apparatus needs to be >> > accelerated from zero rotational velocity in order to >> > yield an integrated current rotational velocity. He >> > believes that if a Sagnac apparatus is turned on while >> > it is in a constant state of rotation, it will measure >> > no fringe shift. >> >> Oh good grief, he's not back to that again. I >> straightened him out on that during the thread >> in late 2005 referenced above. If you look at >> the rest of the post beside the bit on constant >> velocity, it was discussing the effect of angular >> acceleration. > >It's quite amazing, actually. Henri has been forced to admit >that the conventional analysis is correct in stating that BaTh >predicts no fringe displacement during constant rotation... >so obviously, thinks he, Sagnac works by measurin We already know you are the village idiot....you don't have to remind us.. I said, the path lengths are constant during constant rotation....in which case there is NO fringe MOVEMENT. For your information 'fringe displacement' is NOT the same as 'fringe movement'. The fringe DISPLACEMENT IS indeed proportional to angular velocity. It is continuously monitored. Integrating the current displacement wrt time gives the total angle of rotation since the arbitrary zero. > "Fringes don't move during a period of CONSTANT angular > velocity. Both path lengths change during - and only during - > an acceleration and that's when the number of wavelengths in > each beam changes. In other words, fringe movement occurs. A > simple gyro counts the number moved and converts that into > angle." That is correct...would you like to point out the error....make sure you learn the difference between 'displacement' and 'movement' before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.. >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8f2bb996a5941d6d > >> > Arguing along these lines, Henri falsely asserts that >> > the Michelson-Gale experiment must have yielded a null >> > result since Michelson had no means of stopping and >> > starting the Earth's rotation: >> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c79776b55d... >> >> Clueless. Henry, the Sagnac experiment gives a >> fringe displacement (remember the discussion of >> terminology with Jim Greenfield?) which is >> proportional to the angular velocity when that >> velocity is constant. > >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 30 Sep 2007 19:27 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:b440g31r97uh176ao5gjn0f28elsohhva8(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:14:15 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:1191157470.402734.247630(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>... >>> Henri believes that a Sagnac apparatus needs to be >>> accelerated from zero rotational velocity in order to >>> yield an integrated current rotational velocity. He >>> believes that if a Sagnac apparatus is turned on while >>> it is in a constant state of rotation, it will measure >>> no fringe shift. >> >>Oh good grief, he's not back to that again. I >>straightened him out on that during the thread >>in late 2005 referenced above. If you look at >>the rest of the post beside the bit on constant >>velocity, it was discussing the effect of angular >>acceleration. >> >>> Arguing along these lines, Henri falsely asserts that >>> the Michelson-Gale experiment must have yielded a null >>> result since Michelson had no means of stopping and >>> starting the Earth's rotation: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c79776b55d76427 >> >>Clueless. Henry, the Sagnac experiment gives a >>fringe displacement (remember the discussion of >>terminology with Jim Greenfield?) which is >>proportional to the angular velocity when that >>velocity is constant. > > That's what I said dummy. Can't you people even read now. > > At constant angular velocity there is A CONSTANT DISPLACEMENT NOT A > CONSTANT > MOVEMENT of fringes. > > How dumb can you people get? It's the same problem as last time, "movement" is ambiguous. You continued by saying to Jerry: > >> >How about Michelson-Gale? The Earth was ALWAYS rotating > >> >at constant angular velocity throughout the course of the > >> >experiment. > > >> Naturally it returned a null result...pure ballistic stuff > >> also.. > > >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! > > No it didn't. A well known fact... A constant DISPLACEMENT is NOT a null result, it is a positive result so of course we all read the previous use of "movement" as meaning "displacement". George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 30 Sep 2007 19:45 On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:27:48 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:b440g31r97uh176ao5gjn0f28elsohhva8(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:14:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>news:1191157470.402734.247630(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>... >>>> Henri believes that a Sagnac apparatus needs to be >>>> accelerated from zero rotational velocity in order to >>>> yield an integrated current rotational velocity. He >>>> believes that if a Sagnac apparatus is turned on while >>>> it is in a constant state of rotation, it will measure >>>> no fringe shift. >>> >>>Oh good grief, he's not back to that again. I >>>straightened him out on that during the thread >>>in late 2005 referenced above. If you look at >>>the rest of the post beside the bit on constant >>>velocity, it was discussing the effect of angular >>>acceleration. >>> >>>> Arguing along these lines, Henri falsely asserts that >>>> the Michelson-Gale experiment must have yielded a null >>>> result since Michelson had no means of stopping and >>>> starting the Earth's rotation: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c79776b55d76427 >>> >>>Clueless. Henry, the Sagnac experiment gives a >>>fringe displacement (remember the discussion of >>>terminology with Jim Greenfield?) which is >>>proportional to the angular velocity when that >>>velocity is constant. >> >> That's what I said dummy. Can't you people even read now. >> >> At constant angular velocity there is A CONSTANT DISPLACEMENT NOT A >> CONSTANT >> MOVEMENT of fringes. >> >> How dumb can you people get? > >It's the same problem as last time, "movement" is >ambiguous. You continued by saying to Jerry: > >> >> >How about Michelson-Gale? The Earth was ALWAYS rotating >> >> >at constant angular velocity throughout the course of the >> >> >experiment. >> >> >> Naturally it returned a null result...pure ballistic stuff >> >> also.. >> >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >> >> No it didn't. A well known fact... > >A constant DISPLACEMENT is NOT a null result, it >is a positive result so of course we all read the >previous use of "movement" as meaning "displacement". Quote: "It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned what appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the same time they were not statistically significant." """""" George, the anticipated result was a cyclical variation in fringe displacement as the side of the earth changed speed through the aether. The result was NULL. .....and don't change the subject... My Sagnac diagram is correct.... and YOU probably realise that now even if the others are incapable. It doesn't agree with anything you said before.... which was all about travel time instead of path length differences. > >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: JM Albuquerque on 30 Sep 2007 19:58 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> escreveu na mensagem news:qsc0g3hb4qo6d2svjv3jdhr16bjqpna8mg(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:27:48 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:b440g31r97uh176ao5gjn0f28elsohhva8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:14:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>news:1191157470.402734.247630(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>... >>>>> Henri believes that a Sagnac apparatus needs to be >>>>> accelerated from zero rotational velocity in order to >>>>> yield an integrated current rotational velocity. He >>>>> believes that if a Sagnac apparatus is turned on while >>>>> it is in a constant state of rotation, it will measure >>>>> no fringe shift. >>>> >>>>Oh good grief, he's not back to that again. I >>>>straightened him out on that during the thread >>>>in late 2005 referenced above. If you look at >>>>the rest of the post beside the bit on constant >>>>velocity, it was discussing the effect of angular >>>>acceleration. >>>> >>>>> Arguing along these lines, Henri falsely asserts that >>>>> the Michelson-Gale experiment must have yielded a null >>>>> result since Michelson had no means of stopping and >>>>> starting the Earth's rotation: >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c79776b55d76427 >>>> >>>>Clueless. Henry, the Sagnac experiment gives a >>>>fringe displacement (remember the discussion of >>>>terminology with Jim Greenfield?) which is >>>>proportional to the angular velocity when that >>>>velocity is constant. >>> >>> That's what I said dummy. Can't you people even read now. >>> >>> At constant angular velocity there is A CONSTANT DISPLACEMENT NOT A >>> CONSTANT >>> MOVEMENT of fringes. >>> >>> How dumb can you people get? >> >>It's the same problem as last time, "movement" is >>ambiguous. You continued by saying to Jerry: >> >>> >> >How about Michelson-Gale? The Earth was ALWAYS rotating >>> >> >at constant angular velocity throughout the course of the >>> >> >experiment. >>> >>> >> Naturally it returned a null result...pure ballistic stuff >>> >> also.. >>> >>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>> >>> No it didn't. A well known fact... >> >>A constant DISPLACEMENT is NOT a null result, it >>is a positive result so of course we all read the >>previous use of "movement" as meaning "displacement". > > Quote: > > "It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned > what > appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The > results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to > +0.55 > fringes, which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at > the > same time they were not statistically significant." > """""" > > George, the anticipated result was a cyclical variation in fringe > displacement > as the side of the earth changed speed through the aether. The result was > NULL. The fringe displacement is per turn. The light path from the source to the target is only one turn. The fringes turn after turn don't add up. If it did, was because the experiment is not good performed. It's a constant DISPLACEMENT per turn and cannot be other wise. > > ....and don't change the subject... > > My Sagnac diagram is correct.... and YOU probably realise that now even if > the > others are incapable. It doesn't agree with anything you said before.... > which > was all about travel time instead of path length differences. > >> >>George >> > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 30 Sep 2007 20:11
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:58:15 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> escreveu na mensagem >news:qsc0g3hb4qo6d2svjv3jdhr16bjqpna8mg(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:27:48 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:b440g31r97uh176ao5gjn0f28elsohhva8(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:14:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:1191157470.402734.247630(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>... >>>>>> Henri believes that a Sagnac apparatus needs to be >>>>>> accelerated from zero rotational velocity in order to >>>>>> yield an integrated current rotational velocity. He >>>>>> believes that if a Sagnac apparatus is turned on while >>>>>> it is in a constant state of rotation, it will measure >>>>>> no fringe shift. >>>>> >>>>>Oh good grief, he's not back to that again. I >>>>>straightened him out on that during the thread >>>>>in late 2005 referenced above. If you look at >>>>>the rest of the post beside the bit on constant >>>>>velocity, it was discussing the effect of angular >>>>>acceleration. >>>>> >>>>>> Arguing along these lines, Henri falsely asserts that >>>>>> the Michelson-Gale experiment must have yielded a null >>>>>> result since Michelson had no means of stopping and >>>>>> starting the Earth's rotation: >>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c79776b55d76427 >>>>> >>>>>Clueless. Henry, the Sagnac experiment gives a >>>>>fringe displacement (remember the discussion of >>>>>terminology with Jim Greenfield?) which is >>>>>proportional to the angular velocity when that >>>>>velocity is constant. >>>> >>>> That's what I said dummy. Can't you people even read now. >>>> >>>> At constant angular velocity there is A CONSTANT DISPLACEMENT NOT A >>>> CONSTANT >>>> MOVEMENT of fringes. >>>> >>>> How dumb can you people get? >>> >>>It's the same problem as last time, "movement" is >>>ambiguous. You continued by saying to Jerry: >>> >>>> >> >How about Michelson-Gale? The Earth was ALWAYS rotating >>>> >> >at constant angular velocity throughout the course of the >>>> >> >experiment. >>>> >>>> >> Naturally it returned a null result...pure ballistic stuff >>>> >> also.. >>>> >>>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>>> >MICHELSON-GALE RETURNED A POSITIVE RESULT!!!! >>>> >>>> No it didn't. A well known fact... >>> >>>A constant DISPLACEMENT is NOT a null result, it >>>is a positive result so of course we all read the >>>previous use of "movement" as meaning "displacement". >> >> Quote: >> >> "It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned >> what >> appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The >> results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to >> +0.55 >> fringes, which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at >> the >> same time they were not statistically significant." >> """""" >> >> George, the anticipated result was a cyclical variation in fringe >> displacement >> as the side of the earth changed speed through the aether. The result was >> NULL. > >The fringe displacement is per turn. >The light path from the source to the target is only one turn. > >The fringes turn after turn don't add up. >If it did, was because the experiment is not good performed. > >It's a constant DISPLACEMENT per turn and cannot be >other wise. According to BaTh, yes... So the MGX fully supports BaTh. >> >> ....and don't change the subject... >> >> My Sagnac diagram is correct.... and YOU probably realise that now even if >> the >> others are incapable. It doesn't agree with anything you said before.... >> which >> was all about travel time instead of path length differences. >> >>> >>>George >>> >> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |