The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 00:44 Jonah Thomas wrote: > 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. Or you do not understand any of the physics done in the last century. However, you are free to believe what you want and are not bound to believe in reality.
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 23:52 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> 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. > > I've not seen it work with any emission theory, other than the one > where light somehow remembers its sources velocity relative to some > mirror it may hit. Which is just 'magic' > > Let me > > repeat that. The Sagnac experiment does not refute any naive > > emission theory, > > Wrong > > > because it uses light that according to naive emission theories > > all has the same speed. > > And that is why the light arrives at the detector at the same time, > after travelling for the same time, at the same speed and frequency > and wavelength and so in phase ?? No, the original claim was that emission theory gave you two different speeds for your light, c+v and c-v, and those resulted in the light arriving at the detector at the same time. Every other theory said that the light traveled at constant speed and so one side arrived first. Now it turns out that the traditional Sagnac experiment used a single source of light that would give us not c+v and c-v but c or c+v or c-v for both sides. So the result should come out like the result of all the other theories. Is this not true?
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 23:53 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. You're right. That leaves us with the traditional Sagnac experiment not contradicting any emission theory.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 00:01 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > 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. > > Or you do not understand any of the physics done in the last > century. However, you are free to believe what you want and > are not bound to believe in reality. Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my argument is wrong?
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 00:14
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921000124.0455509c.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas wrote: > >> > 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. >> >> Or you do not understand any of the physics done in the last >> century. However, you are free to believe what you want and >> are not bound to believe in reality. > > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my argument is > wrong? I've explained it to you over and over. Emissions theories get it wrong because when you analyze them they give a zero phase shift at the detector in sagnac. The only way not to get that is to have strange reflection properties for light that alter its speed in exactly the right way to get the correct results. Henry's analysis doesn't do that, btw .. its just wrong. |