From: Jerry on
On Sep 19, 2:50 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Who claims that Ritz fits Sagnac?
>
> > > Pauli claimed that Ritz fit the Sagnac results within first-order.
> > > There were second-order differences which at that time were too
> > > small to be tested.
>
> > > See _Theory of Relativity_ by Wolfgang Pauli, originally published
> > > in german in 1921. The 1958 GoogleBooks version is partly available
> > > online for free.
>
> > I reviewed pages 5-9 of Pauli where he reviews Ritz theory.
> >  http://books.google.com/books?id=7xrL7h10XkQC
>
> > You are perhaps taking your cue from statements that Pauli makes
> > on page 8, "It can be shown quite in general that for quantities
> > of first order there is no difference between Ritz's and ordinary
> > or relativistic optics, provided one deals with closed light
> > paths...."
>
> > The generality of a "general argument" depends crucially on the
> > assumptions of the "general argument". Quite crucial to the
> > argument are the assumptions regarding the Doppler effect for
> > a moving mirror, where Pauli carefully distinguishes between the
> > assumptions of Thomson and Stewart, versus Tolman, versus Ritz.
>
> > The analyses of the mirrored Sagnac apparatus found on this
> > newsgroup usually follow the Tolman assumptions, and find no
> > predicted fringe displacement.
>
> > It appears that the assumption of Ritzian reflections (which I
> > find utterly bizarre) does result in a fringe displacement in a
> > mirrored Sagnac apparatus.
>
> I agree that ritzian reflections look bizarre. But are they more bizarre
> than special relativity?

I find special relativity to be utterly natural.

One way of looking at SR is that it is a direct expression of the
geometry of Minkowski space-time. If you understand the geometry,
all concerns about supposed "paradoxes" vanish.

> > But here is where the "general argument" falls flat on its face.
> > Before the invention of fibre optics, it was considered
> > impossible to achieve a closed light path without the use of
> > mirrors. Fibre optic gyroscopes represent a mirrorless
> > implementation of the Sagnac principle, and all versions of
> > emission theories predict zero fringe displacement given a
> > mirrorless closed loop.
>
> Do fiber optics work without reflection>

Correct.

Jerry


From: Inertial on
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090919033616.50d0ad09.jethomas5(a)gmail.com...
> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> > Once again, it looks to me like the Ritz form is best so far,
>> >> > everybody seems to agree that it fits the Sagnac results, it is
>> >> > designed so that it will, so you don't have to come up with
>> >strange> > reasons for it to do so.
>> >>
>> >> But is refuted by other experiments.
>> >
>> > Which other experiments do you believe refute it? Traditionally
>> > people accepted DeSitter's binary star claims as a refutation. I've
>> > seen links to some possible experimental refutations but I don't
>> > know which of them actually work.
>>
>> There have been tests with particles travelling a nearly-c emiting
>> photons. . those photons do not travel at v+c (otherwise we'd see some
>> photons at nearly 2c and some at nearly 0.
>
> Of course that's how it would go.
> So, how did they measure the speed of the photons?

How do you measure the speed of anything?

You'd have to refer to the details of the experiments for how they were
measured. I'm sure one can be certain that they did actually measure them,
and did proper error analysis for the experiment, and (unlike Henry) didn't
just make it up.


From: Jonah Thomas on
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote

> > http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif
> >
> > Here's a picture, with the Sagnac ring unrolled.
> >
> > I set the distance at 10.5 wavelengths. I noticed that when one side
> > goes 9 wavelengths and the other goes 11, at the end they are
> > temporarily in phase. :|
> >
> > Two particles start in opposite directions with different speeds.
> > The wavelength is observably the same.
>
> As I showed you previously, wavelength is always measured from where
> the source is NOW, not where it was. That is how wavelength works ..
> the distance between corresponding point in successive cycles.

You are thinking about something completely different from what Wilson
is thinking about.

> > To have the wavelength be the same and the speed different, the
> > frequency has to shift.
> > And so of course when they meet they are out of phase
>
> No .. they aren't.

The picture shows two oscillating particles that are at different phases
in their oscillation.

> > As near as I can tell, this is what Wilson says is happening.
>
> Yes it is, and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what
> wavelength is

But could this be what is happening with light? These two particles that
arrive at the same time are going to be the ones that do interference at
that time. And they are clearly not in phase.

Never mind how well he understands your theories. He has described a
scenario that gives sagnac interference, and if it deserves to be
refuted then it deserves a demonstration that light cannot behave this
way. Not just that it is incompatible with the way you do things -- we
already knew it couldn't fit your thinking because if we do things your
way emission theories can't work.
From: Jonah Thomas on
Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> > > It appears that the assumption of Ritzian reflections (which I
> > > find utterly bizarre) does result in a fringe displacement in a
> > > mirrored Sagnac apparatus.
> >
> > I agree that ritzian reflections look bizarre. But are they more
> > bizarre than special relativity?
>
> I find special relativity to be utterly natural.
>
> One way of looking at SR is that it is a direct expression of the
> geometry of Minkowski space-time. If you understand the geometry,
> all concerns about supposed "paradoxes" vanish.

Well, if you spend as much time learning about Ritzian theory it might
start to seem utterly natural too. I assure you that SR does not seem
very natural to most people on first examination.

> > > But here is where the "general argument" falls flat on its face.
> > > Before the invention of fibre optics, it was considered
> > > impossible to achieve a closed light path without the use of
> > > mirrors. Fibre optic gyroscopes represent a mirrorless
> > > implementation of the Sagnac principle, and all versions of
> > > emission theories predict zero fringe displacement given a
> > > mirrorless closed loop.
> >
> > Do fiber optics work without reflection>
>
> Correct.

Interesting! I had not heard that interpretation before, tell me more?
Post links?

I did a quick google search on ["fiber optics" reflection] and this is
the first link I found:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/fiber-optic6.htm

They explained it just the way I usually hear it, about the cladding
around the fibers providing lots and lots of reflections because the
angle of incidence is low enough.
From: Jonah Thomas on
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote

> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> > Once again, it looks to me like the Ritz form is best so far,
> >> >> > everybody seems to agree that it fits the Sagnac results, it
> >is> >> > designed so that it will, so you don't have to come up with
> >> >strange> > reasons for it to do so.
> >> >>
> >> >> But is refuted by other experiments.
> >> >
> >> > Which other experiments do you believe refute it? Traditionally
> >> > people accepted DeSitter's binary star claims as a refutation.
> >I've> > seen links to some possible experimental refutations but I
> >don't> > know which of them actually work.
> >>
> >> There have been tests with particles travelling a nearly-c emiting
> >> photons. . those photons do not travel at v+c (otherwise we'd see
> >some> photons at nearly 2c and some at nearly 0.
> >
> > Of course that's how it would go.
> > So, how did they measure the speed of the photons?
>
> How do you measure the speed of anything?
>
> You'd have to refer to the details of the experiments for how they
> were measured. I'm sure one can be certain that they did actually
> measure them, and did proper error analysis for the experiment, and
> (unlike Henry) didn't just make it up.

Well yes, that's what I'm talking about.

Sometimes people want to measure lightspeed by looking for interference
patterns. There are various ways to do it, right? And they might not all
get the same results when the light is doing something you don't expect.
So it makes sense to look carefully at the experiments. I have found
that in biomedical stuff it's generally the case that experiments don't
actually show what the reserachers claim they do. Not that they are
stupid, it's that there are so many possible confounding variables that
you can always find another explanation and often a better one.
Sometimes they think they have found a way to persuade cells to switch
something on, when what they have actually done is only to kill the
cells that didn't have that something switched on.... In a big variety
of ways they think they have found important relationships when all they
have done is to find a way to throw away the data that doesn't fit their
thinking....

I'd expect much less of that in physics because physics is so
dramatically simpler. The equipment is simpler, the phenomena you study
are simpler, the theories are simpler, and the people are simpler. So it
should be much easier to get definitive results.

Still, you ought to carefully study the original experiments before you
decide they are correct.