Sagnac Revisited. Why Paul, Tom and Jerry are Hopelessly Wrong.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Flame photometry, gas discharge and absurdities of modern science
Next: Quantum jump rejected for a mirror
From: Jerry on 22 Feb 2010 19:42 On Feb 22, 5:58 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > That person was you. And, so far, I think you're the only one (Other > than Andro who thinks the result is due to a minor second order effect > that would only appear if the device was spinning with a tangential > velocity close to the speed of light). Mind you .. you make a fool of > yourself almost every time you post .. so its not a surprise. Androcles also has an alternate, totally incompatible explanation for Sagnac which you can see on the fourth row of images to the far right. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm I can never tell for sure which explanation Androcles adheres to at any moment in time. I think there's a bistable switch in his brain that clicks back and forth between Coriolis and this incompatible alternate explanation. Basically, Androcles in "thought mode 2" agrees that no phase differences accumulate IN THE RING. As soon as light EXITS the ring, the c+v and c-v light separates (note the separating red and green balls). In other words, the rotating ring imparts light speed differences to the rotating and counter-rotating beams, but it is only AFTER the beams exit the ring that phase differences accumulate. I presume that Androcles in "thought mode 2" believes that light circling the ring multiple times keeps getting kicked faster and faster (or slower and slower) otherwise there would be no point to having thousands of loops in a ring gyro, but the last time I argued with him on this point, he plonked me before I could get him to commit himself. Jerry
From: Jerry on 23 Feb 2010 03:30 On Feb 22, 10:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:00:05 -0800 (PST), Jerry > >You have a very poor memory of your own beliefs. Don't you > >remember how for MONTHS you argued that Sagnac's recording camera > >was not mounted on the turntable, but rather was mounted to the > >fixed base? Do you need me to embarrass you by looking up the > >multiple threads in which you vehemently insisted this to be > >the case? It's evident you no longer believe this idiocy, but > >you haven't discarded your animations illustrating differential > >speed of light in the emergent beams, so I presume this must > >still be part of your working hypothesis of how Sagnac works... > > >Jerry > > Andro is wrong of course but actually, early models were made with the detector > separate from the rotating apparatus. Which early models? How could such a STUPID arrangement work? http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f708.table http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f1410.table http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M Look at the diagram on page 1412 of the second reference. That's pretty much as early as you can get. My translation: ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The interferometer, already described briefly, is schematically illustrated in the figure: a horizontal rotary table (50 cm in diameter) carries, firmly screwed on it (the adjustment screws being secured by lock screws), all the optical parts as well as the source of light O, a small flashlight with a horizontal metal filament. A microscope objective C0 projects the image of this filament through a Nicol prism N onto the horizontal slit F in the focal plane of the collimating objective C; m is a reference mirror. The vertically (per Fresnel's convention) polarized parallel beam is divided by an air gap* beam splitter J, as in the usual interferometer of my research (Comptes rendus, v. 150, p. 1676 (1910)), which I applied to the optical study of the movements of the Earth (Congress of Brussels, Sept. 1910, v. I, p. 207; Comptes rendus, v. 152, p. 310 (1911); Le Radium, 1911, p. 1): the beam T transmitted through the air gap J reflects successively on four mirrors M and traverses the closed loop Ja1a2a3a4J of area S. The beam R which the same air gap reflects traverses the same circuit in the opposite direction. Returning to J, the beam T, again transmitted, and the beam R, again reflected, are superimposed in the same direction along T2 and R2, and form interference fringes at the principal focus of the lens L on the fine-grained photographic plate pp'." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 23 Feb 2010 05:50 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:30:15 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 22, 10:48�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:00:05 -0800 (PST), Jerry > >> >You have a very poor memory of your own beliefs. Don't you >> >remember how for MONTHS you argued that Sagnac's recording camera >> >was not mounted on the turntable, but rather was mounted to the >> >fixed base? Do you need me to embarrass you by looking up the >> >multiple threads in which you vehemently insisted this to be >> >the case? It's evident you no longer believe this idiocy, but >> >you haven't discarded your animations illustrating differential >> >speed of light in the emergent beams, so I presume this must >> >still be part of your working hypothesis of how Sagnac works... >> >> >Jerry >> >> Andro is wrong of course but actually, early models were made with the detector >> separate from the rotating apparatus. > >Which early models? How could such a STUPID arrangement work? I don't know where I read it but I did read that such a system was tried originally. It could easily work for very small rotational speeds...or as Andro says, with the 45 mirror pointing vertically. >http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f708.table >http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f1410.table >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M > >Look at the diagram on page 1412 of the second reference. That's >pretty much as early as you can get. > >My translation: >----------------------------------------------------------------- >"The interferometer, already described briefly, is schematically >illustrated in the figure: a horizontal rotary table (50 cm in >diameter) carries, firmly screwed on it (the adjustment screws >being secured by lock screws), all the optical parts as well as >the source of light O, a small flashlight with a horizontal metal >filament. A microscope objective C0 projects the image of this >filament through a Nicol prism N onto the horizontal slit F in >the focal plane of the collimating objective C; m is a reference >mirror. The vertically (per Fresnel's convention) polarized >parallel beam is divided by an air gap* beam splitter J, as in >the usual interferometer of my research (Comptes rendus, v. 150, >p. 1676 (1910)), which I applied to the optical study of the >movements of the Earth (Congress of Brussels, Sept. 1910, v. I, >p. 207; Comptes rendus, v. 152, p. 310 (1911); Le Radium, 1911, >p. 1): the beam T transmitted through the air gap J reflects >successively on four mirrors M and traverses the closed loop >Ja1a2a3a4J of area S. The beam R which the same air gap reflects >traverses the same circuit in the opposite direction. Returning >to J, the beam T, again transmitted, and the beam R, again >reflected, are superimposed in the same direction along T2 and >R2, and form interference fringes at the principal focus of the >lens L on the fine-grained photographic plate pp'." >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Jerry on 23 Feb 2010 06:59 On Feb 22, 10:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > You have a very poor memory > =========================================== > You have a very poor intellect. > Animate B meeting A slightly earlier than A meeting B as mathpages claims, > dumbfuck. When you mess up the quote chain by not using proper indentation, I have no choice but to snip. I'm not going to waste my time manually inserting missing ">" symbols. And I'm not interested in your misconceptions of what Kevin Brown says on his mathpages. At this moment, I'm interested in your misconceptions of what you yourself say. In your green animation 2/3 way down your Sagnac page, you write: In this animation of a four mirror Sagnac ring the phase is shown. Initially the phase of the two beams is necessarily locked but when the final beam-splitter is reached and the two beams combined, still in phase, one departs with velocity c+v and the other with velocity c-v. Upon reaching the detector the two beams are necessarily out of phase. The above is your second, incompatible explanation for the Sagnac effect. Far from being a Coriolis effect, you attribute Sagnac to differential velocities being imparted to the emergent beams. Phase differences accumulate -only- between the final beam splitter and the detector. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 23 Feb 2010 22:28
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:25:47 -0800 (PST), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 24, 10:38�am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> >wrote: >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:gje8o5103er0ujsidv54in2ujguh9uq4ub(a)4ax.com... >> >> > How many times per day does a spinning wheeled gyroscope rotate while it >> > is >> > sitting on your desk? >> >> "In future, when and only when you decide to say something intelligent will >> �I reply." -- Wilson >> �news:qp5mc5phvv2s02rtot41h3jpi25qbpo6pb(a)4ax.com > >Of course .. unlike Henry .. I always have something intelligent to >say. Obviously Henry somehow recognizes this .. and his utter hatred >of logic and honesty means he has to reply with more lies and >nonsense. Of course .. that just makes him look like a bigger fool >with every post. Answer the question then if you're so bloody smart...and give me a rough answer then a more accurate one. How many times per day does a mechanical gyroscope rotate around an axis parallel to the polar axis while it is sitting on your desk? Assume the spinning wheel axis is aligned with the equator. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |