Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Apr 2005 18:22 On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:16:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:30:42 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:s03r51d3gmd6qick1ffuuiebr31gljr9lk(a)4ax.com... >>>>What I have realised is that the standard SR explanation doesn't work!! >>>> >>>>FOR A CONSTANT RATE OF ROTATION, THERE WOULD BE NO FRINGE MOVEMENT. >>>> >>>>The pattern would remain fixed. And that is not what happens, surely. >>>>Your version of Sagnac would be sensitive to angular acceleration only. >>> >>>Why? The animation shows that there is a >>>clear time difference produced in the SR >>>version. What you say is inconflict with >>>what it shows yet you just make that bald >>>statement without giving any reason. >> >> >> Think about it George. >> For constant rotation (incuding zero), there is a constant relationship between >> the two path lengths. The fringes should remain static. >> That is not what happens. > >Of course that's what happens, and of course that's >what SR say should happen. > >The term "fringe shift" refers to the shift of the fringes >when the interferometer is rotating compared to when it is not. > >What did YOU think "fringe shift" meant? >That the fringes are moving? >They are not in a Sagnac interferometer rotating >at a constant rate. > >Ring lasers are quite different, though. >That's why ring lasers rather than Sagnac rings >are used in inertial navigational systems. > >Sagnac rings and ring lasers both falsifies the ballistic theory. >Obviously. > >Paul You are not being at all helpful for the purpose of this discussion. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 18 Apr 2005 18:29 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ep9861dp7ghqsoldq7bhajko5okj3t53ul(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:33:08 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: <snip> >>Some of the more advanced stuff perhaps but the >>fundamentals are well known. Probably the only >>significant refinement is the use of modulation >>as outlined here: >> >> http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html > > I assume the modulating increases the sensitivity. Since the non-rotating state has both path lengths and speeds equal, you get constructive interference a maximum intensity. It falls off symmetrically either side and the general form is I_0 * cos(phase). The modulation breaks the symmetry. >>That's the technique KVH use and I have seen a >>number of other sites discussing it. However, >>this isn't really too important from the point >>of view of your animation. > > One of my main concerns is that in steady rotation, there can be no change > in > the output pattern, whatever that may be. So to obtain a reading for > actual > rotation from the starting zero, a continuous integration must be carried > out. That's why I pointed out the choice of formats in the spec. The primary output from all these devices is rotation rate, not orientation. Yes, you are right that integration is needed in inertial navigation applications (and the box does that too) but for fly-by-wire applications the rate information is adequate to stabilise the control system. GPS will take care of longer term guidance. > That applies to my ballistic concept as well as your standard treatment. That's right, I am not disagreeing with that, but first you need an output. The conventional analysis of the ballistic model says there will be none. That's the challenge. George
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Apr 2005 18:42 On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:08 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:sar561ta9rd06mgdj1eo8rgv4edkbfj0pn(a)4ax.com... >> >> I think we now both agree on the basic problem. The ballistic argument >> goes >> like this: >> >> ____________M->v >> /\ >> / \ >> s >> >> With mirror at rest in the source frame, light is reflected at 45deg from >> a >> plane mirror. >> Q) If the mirror is subsequently moved in the direction indicated, what is >> the >> effect on the reflected angle and the outgoing velocity, relative to the >> source >> frame? >> In the case of a perfectly elastic ball bouncing off a rigid 'frictionles' >> wall, the reflection should not be affected at all by wall movement. >> >> However, in real situations there will always be some kind of interaction >> between the ball and the wall. The normal velocity component should not be >> affected but the parallel one will be, as will the apparent angle of >> incidence. >> >> It is possible that the reflected angle may not be the same as the >> incident >> one. In the extreme case, the ball could leave the wall with a parallel >> speed >> equal to that of the wall. in fact we cannot really be certain that the >> normal >> velocity is not also altered in the process. >> >> Does that sum it up adequately? > >It is pretty good. What you have said is that you >will not rule out changes to both the normal and >parallel components. I won't object to that but I >would suggest some extra constraints: > >1) There are no "tick fairies". That means > that wavefronts are conserved, neither > created nor destroyed by reflection. The number of 'wavecrests' must be conserved...but that doesn't imply that the reflection angle will be the same as the incident angle. > >2) The process cannot have a preferred > direction of the mirror therefore your > formula should be symmetrical about the > normal. In other words, the angles > should be reversed if I swap the source > like this: > >> ____________M->v >> /\ >> / \ >> s I'm not sure if I agree entirely on that either. Remember I am discussing the ballistic model based on an elastic ball bouncing off a moving 45 degree wall. The surface of that wall could be designed with all kinds of cavities and protrusions that might affect the reflected angle. We can assume that the surface of a mirror AT REST is symmetrical at all angles but not necessarily when it is moving at high speeds. However I suppose at the speeds associated with the sagnac, what you say is correct. > >3) The direction of propagation is normal > to the wavefronts. See, George, you keep insisting on wave theory, not particle. If individual photons exist, you cannot make such statements about their behavior. > >4) The angle of the wavefront can be > determined by Huygens method (this > follows from point 1). Assuming 3 is also correct, that is probably right. > >5) Your formula should be able to be applied > to all reflection phenomena. For example > it must apply to long range fibres so must > not predict the destruction of a signal at > extreme grazing angles. There we have a different and difficult situation. > >> I will try to incorporate all these possibilities into my simulation. > >I think if you work out your formula based on the >limitations above, it may reduce the number of >variables you have to consider and make the work >easier. The more that can be done analytically >before animating, the better. I will use the symmetrical approach initially. > >Rather than cover this ground again some months >down the line, I would like to just note that >the standard law of reflection together with >either of the two simple ballistic models I >mentioned both predict no phase shift in the >Sagnac setup. We discussed this earlier but >never really reached agreement. I think now we >have covered many all the areas where you had >doubts so do you realise that what I said is >correct and that a more complex model for >reflection is necessary if ballistic theory is >to give a non-null prediction? No George, I still think you are missing the point. At each reflection, the beams strike the mirrors at approximately 45 deg and get a velocity 'kick'...but in opposite directions. There is also a progressive change in angle, also in opposite directions, due to the fact that the mirrors move ever so slightly during the light travel time between them. You say neither effect results on a phase change. I say they do and the result is virtually independent of source speed. I will work on the program today now that I have a better idea about what is involved. .. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Apr 2005 19:00 On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:49:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ufs561tv60fjfc0mgintr78kn6omfr591d(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:54:52 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >BaT explains the double-slit experiment. >> >> >> >> Photon fields extend to infinity. >> >> Photons have 'size, cross-section and volume'. >> > >> >So according to BaT what is the "size, cross-section and volume" of a >> >photon? Also why is that enables the photons to interfere with each >other? >> >> Infinite in all directions. ..but the fields of a photon die off very >rapidly >> in all directions too. > >So a photon is not a light bullet as the BaT asserts?? It is a wave front >that die off raipdly? How does it know how much to die off? I ask this >question because a photon seems to have an infinite life time. All fields die off according to at least an inverse square law. The fact that the effects of a field 'die off' doesn't mean the field itself becomes weaker with time. If a photon encounters no 'material', its fields should live forever. However, since the fields of each photon ARE FINITE everywhere, it stands to reason that some loss will always occur as light travels. This should be distance dependent and is no doubt a major cause of the galactic redshift. So BIG BANG, BIG BULL!!!! > >> I hereby invent a new term, 'half radius'....defined as the distance at >which a >> photon's influence is reduced to half. > >This seems to describe a photon as a wave front. But BaT says that a photon >is a light bullet so how does a photon exerts influence at a distance? see my small demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe >> >> It appears that the higher the energy, the smaller the half-radius of a >photon. >> That is why gammas behave like particles and infrared like a wave. > >You are making this up. Photons are now regarded (by the more enlightened) as consisting of rapidly spinning +/- charge pairs, which self-propagate through space at 'c' relative to their sources. As you know, if you want to spin wheels really rapidly, you have to make their diameters small, else they fly apart. So naturally, half-radius=K/E^2 >> >> >> Get it? > >ROTFLOL....no I don't get it. You don;t get the MMX either. > >Ken Seto > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Apr 2005 19:11
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:30:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:04:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>Ref: http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html >>> >>> "Mira is the brightest and most famous long-period pulsating variable >>> in the sky, and gave the name to this whole class of stars. It >>> changes its brightness normally between maxima of about 3rd magnitude >>> and minima of about mag 10, but occasionally brighter maxima up to >>> mag 2.0 are observed (e.g. by William Herschel), or fainter when Mira >>> stays at about magnitude 5. At a distance of about 400 light years, >>> this corresponds to absolute magnitudes of about -2.5 near the maxima >>> and +4.7 near its minima, so giant cool Mira is only about as, or >>> even less luminous than our sun near its minima, but brightens up to >>> about 700 and occasionally even over 1500 solar luminosities near the >>> maximum of its cycle". >>> >>> "Mira is also the dominant component of a double star, which is >>> separated by only 0.6 arc seconds. As the companion orbits Mira in >>> about 400 years, it has now just once orbited the star since >>> Fabricius discovered its variability. The linear distance was given >>> as about 70 Astronomical Units, i.e. 70 times the distance between >>> Earth and Sun. The companion is probably a white dwarf in interaction >>> with Mira, which is surrounded by an accretion disc of material which >>> it has captured away from the red giant Mira, and which may well be >>> brighter than the companion star itself. This companion has a >>> brightness which also varies, between 9.5 and 12 visual magnitudes >>> (its variable star designation is VZ Ceti). Its variation is rather >>> complicated: A slow variation of about 13 years period is >>> superimposeds by rapid fluctuations over minutes, and occasionally a >>> rare flare of some minutes duration. CZ is currently coming even >>> closer to Mira, to about 0.1 arc seconds at its periastron in 2001; >>> their separation has been about 1.7 arc seconds around 1800. Would >>> the companion be closer, this system would be classified as a >>> symbiotic star (like R Aquarii)". >> >> >> Sam, if astronomers want to stick with the concept that all light travels to >> Earth at c, they are bound to come up with stupid and completely incorrect >> conclusions like this one. >> >> In fact, a great deal more can be learnt about these stars when the BaT is >> accepted. > >What's most hilarious is that Henri doesn't >understand how ridiculous he is. :-) > >Paul Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. S________r________c----------------------------------------------A S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards Andromeda. S emits a light pulse towards A. Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. How can you claim that the pulse is traveling at 'c' wrt all the moving objects in Andromeda? It clearly has only one speed, not an infinite number. Note: the ballistic theory, as applied to brightness curves, is in no way dependent on how the speed of light might be measured by any observers. As we know, the aether (and pseudo-aether) concept is that all observers will measure OWLS as being 'c' because their clocks and rods will miraculously change in order to make it so. Even if that were true, (haha) it would not affect the BaT's predictions concerning variable stars. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |