The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 13:32 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > Imagine that you have a big merry-go-round with plenty of room to > > walk on it, and you have the assistance of a well-trained marching > > band. > > OK :):) > > > First we will demonstrate the Sagnac Effect under a simple emissions > > theory. We have two band members march on the carousel in opposite > > directions. They each march at the same speed. They will each march > > halfway around the carousel until they are facing each other. Are > > they in step? When the carousel is not moving and when their steps > > are the same length, definitely. > > Yes > > > Now we start the carousel moving slowly. The marchers continue to > > march at the same pace. When they face each other it will be on the > > opposite side of the carousel but it won't be lined up with the > > place they started. The carousel will have moved, so that one of the > > marchers has actually gone farther than the other. Are they in step? > > Yes, of course. > > Yes. That's your basic emission theory. Sagnac refutes it. Yes. Provided they march in time with the same step size, relative to the carousel. > > Now a slightly more sophisticated emission theory. The marchers > > march on the carousel at the same speed no matter how fast the > > carousel is turning. > > Relative to the ground or relative to the carousel? > > > But they can change the size of their steps and the rate they > > step, provided the speed stays the same. > > Relative to the ground or relative to the carousel? > > > So they will definitely reach > > the end point at the same time > > OK . so its relative to the carousel Yes. > > but they may or may not be in step. > > So they are spontaneously changing their frequency. What would cause > them to do that .. what would make a one group of marchers take > smaller faster stpes than the other (relative to the carousel)? In a > case like Sagnac, we know the 'marchers' start out with the same step > size and step rate, as they start out as one line of marchers and then > get split. Hey, they have to spontaneously change their frequency and stepsize for the SR solution too. I don't know why they'd do it. I don't have an argument why they can't. So first I'll look at the case where they do it enough to match the experiment, and then I'll look for a rationale why it might work out that way. It worked for Einstein.... > > It > > depends on how they change their stepsize. And how much do they do > > that? It depends on which emission theory you choose. You can get > > them as much out of step as you want, just pick the theory that > > gives you that amount. > > I don't think any of the emission theories have light spontaneously > change frequency. Wilson's does. If it turns out that Wilson insists on things I can't make sense of (which I don't believe he has done with me yet) then at least one of mine does. I will consider every emission theory that I haven't confirmed is disproved. I will also consider every nonemission theory that I haven't seen disproved, I'm just looking at emission theories first because I find them interesting. > > Is there anything different about the guys who march in different > > directions? Here's one difference -- The one who marches in the > > direction of rotation is pushing against the carousel and tending to > > slow it down. The one who walks against the direction of rotation is > > pushing against the carousel and tending to speed it up. The effect > > on the carousel cancels, but the effect on the marchers does not. > > The one walking against the rotation accelerates less. He gets to > > the same place using less effort. > > Depending on who is looking at it .. but that is obvsious as the rate > of rotation is different for the marchers. If the carousel is fast > enough ,they can even appear to be marching backwrd to an observer on > the ground. Yes. It's a real difference. If light is subject to a different acceleration, is there a chance that would show up as a different energy level for the light? Meaning a different wavelength or frequency? > > Now on to other theories. It can be argued that the marchers should > > not arrive at the same time. > > yes.. that should always result in a phase difference > > > One would have to move faster than the other. > > If they actually travel at the same speed then one will arrive late. > > Relative to the ground or relative to the carousel? > > > So we need a new measure for whether they are in step or not. Say > > instead of two marchers it's two files of marchers. They are still > > in step if the first marcher from one side is precisely late enough > > to be in step with the second person on the other side. And anywhere > > inbetween, if he arrives between people but he's precisely the right > > amount out of step, he counts as being in step. > > Eh? You agree don't you that if he comes out precisely in step with the second or third or fourth or fifth marcher, he's in step? What if he gets there halfway between two other marchers and precisely out of step. That's in step too, isn't it? Etc. Members of the band are discrete but waves are not. > > So, suppose the marchers have a drum to keep the beat. Then the guys > > marching with the rotation have to slow down so that people who > > aren't on the carousel will see them going the same speed as if > > there was no rotation, and the only way they can do that is to take > > smaller steps. Meanwhile the ones who march against the rotation > > have to take big steps. > > Why would the marchers care what the people on the ground see? Because otherwise they will march the same speed as usual on the carousel and they will be an emission theory band. > > Or if they take the same size steps then the ones who march against > > the rotation have to step faster while the ones who march with it > > must step slower. They'd probably rather not have the drum to > > distract them in that case. > > :):) > > > Which do they do? Do they change the size of their steps or the > > speed of their steps, so they can undo the effect of the rotation? > > Or maybe a combination of both? It depends. > > SR says a combination, btw. > > If you want distant observers to see > > them as if the carousel isn't moving, then they should march to the > > same beat but adjust their step sizes. Then observers can see their > > steps aren't the same size but at least the marchers won't be > > bunched up on one side and spread out on the other, and they will be > > traveling at the same speed, and they'll all be in step. > > > > Is that everything to consider? No, they are a trained marching > > band. If you tell them to face the same direction while they march, > > they can keep facing forward relative to an outside observer even > > while they march sideways or backward. If you tell them to do that > > in a way that leaves them facing different directions, how do you > > count whether they are in step or not? If they are facing at right > > angles you don't count them as in step or out of step either one. > > They just don't count then. If they are facing at some other angle > > then they count some, but less. > > If they arrive at the same location, then they will bve facing the > same way, so you can tell It depends on which way they're polarised. They can march sideways or backward, and they could possibly be marching backward when they arrive at the location. > > So what are the rules that they actually follow, that make them just > > the right amount out of step? I don't know. There are various ways > > it might go. But my guess is that whatever the rules are, they are > > some combination that lets the marchers all do the same amount of > > work. Because that's fair. We don't want the ones in one direction > > to get more tired than the ones in the other direction.
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 14:19 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090920131221.6a2b0cfc.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > I've figured out a metaphor for this. >> > >> > Imagine that you have a big merry-go-round with plenty of room to >> > walk on it, and you have the assistance of a well-trained marching >> > band. >> >> Doesn't work with Wilson. He says grandpa has to be on the >> merry-go-round, he can't stand at the side and watch when I told him >> only the kids ride merry-go-rounds. > > I see. I thought it was a good metaphor so I shouldn't be surprised that > it isn't new. It is a good metaphor, but not new. The kids don't meet again beside grandpa who is standing watching, they are both displaced. One meets grandpa before the other but that is a non-event and the mistake made in mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm One kid has walked eleven paces to return to grandpa, the other must walk thirteen. Put quite simply, one travels further than the other in grandpa's frame of reference but he says they have the same frequency. Therefore one has a longer stride (or "wavelength") than the other in grandpa's view. Both make twelve strides but one goes further than the other. In the rotating frame they travel the same distance, of course.
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 14:54 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090920133257.20b2bc91.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > Imagine that you have a big merry-go-round with plenty of room to >> > walk on it, and you have the assistance of a well-trained marching >> > band. >> >> OK :):) >> >> > First we will demonstrate the Sagnac Effect under a simple emissions >> > theory. We have two band members march on the carousel in opposite >> > directions. They each march at the same speed. They will each march >> > halfway around the carousel until they are facing each other. Are >> > they in step? When the carousel is not moving and when their steps >> > are the same length, definitely. >> >> Yes >> >> > Now we start the carousel moving slowly. The marchers continue to >> > march at the same pace. When they face each other it will be on the >> > opposite side of the carousel but it won't be lined up with the >> > place they started. The carousel will have moved, so that one of the >> > marchers has actually gone farther than the other. Are they in step? >> > Yes, of course. >> >> Yes. That's your basic emission theory. Sagnac refutes it. "Inertial" is a stupid prejudiced idiot. Plonk it, it is dead from the neck up. > Yes. Provided they march in time with the same step size, relative to > the carousel. Speed up the carousel. One group steps forward but is moved back by the surface beneath them (as on a treadmill). When the two groups collide they both turn 90 degrees and continue with the same speed, this time sliding on ice. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechModel.gif
From: Jerry on 20 Sep 2009 23:07 On Sep 20, 9:59 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > I have taken a closer look at Sagnac > and found that it did not refute any emission theories except likely the > Ritz model which was the one that Pauli said was not refuted. It is Miller (1924) which refutes the Ritzian version of emission theory, not Sagnac, so your understanding of what Sagnac does or does not demonstrate is absolutely, completely, totally off-base. Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 23:33
doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > One step at a time. So far I have taken a brief look at the > > astronomical data and found it inconclusive, and I have taken a > > closer look at Sagnac and found that it did not refute any emission > > theories except likely the Ritz model which was the one that Pauli > > said was not refuted. Let me repeat that. The Sagnac experiment does > > not refute any naive emission theory, because it uses light that > > according to naive emission theories all has the same speed. > > > > So far I'm 0 for 1 at refuting emission theories. > > Then you are not trying very hard. Or you could just look > at some of the experimental evidence of the last century > where competent scientists have done a great job of doing > this for you. I was disappointed that so many people claim the Sagnac experiment refuted most emission theories when it did not at all. Perhaps the competent scientists were thinking about something else while these other people made these distressing false claims. |