The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Jerry on 21 Sep 2009 00:23 On Sep 20, 10:53 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. You are, as I've said, absolutely, completely, totally off-base. The Tolman version of emission theory predicts zero fringe shift, and the Thomson & Stewart version of emission theory predicts the wrong value for fringe shift. The Tolman version of emission theory is the one that is most often discussed on these newsgroups, because it is the one most consonant with existing physical theory. Existing physical theory, for example, explains metallic reflection as due to the coherent re-radiation of light by conduction electrons. Tolman emission theory states that the re-radiated light is emitted at c with respect to the reflector. On the other hand, Thomson & Stewart require c+v light to magically "bounce" off the surface at c+v with no plausible mechanistic explanation. Ritz emission theory requires light to have a completely implausible "memory" of its original state of motion. This is so insane that not a single adherent of emission theory on these newsgroups advocates it. Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 01:20 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > 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. Let's make sure I understand what you're saying. Emission theories have the light that's emitted in different directions from a moving source get different speeds. So in the Sagnac experiment, the light that's emitted in different directions gets different speeds, precisely enough that the light arrives at the detector at the same time. All other theories say that the light which has the longer path arrives later, and so there are interference effects. But emission theories have it arrive at the same time and in phase and so there is no interference. Do I understand? What I say is wrong about this is that in the original experiment (and often even today) you do not start with light emitted in two different directions. You have a single beam of light that is made to travel in two different directions. And most emission theories (with the notable exception of the Ritz version) say that when you have light emitted in one direction from a moving source, that light has one speed. So the above explanation does not fit this case. Emission theories do not predict two different speeds for the light in the Sagnac experiment. They predict one speed, just like all the other theories. Since there is only one speed for the light, the light that takes the longer path will arrive later, and Bob's your uncle. There may be recent examples which do not do it that way. You could have carefully tuned lasers that are actually aimed in the appropriate directions, that interfere. But for a very long time that was not available, and the claims that the original Sagnac experiment disproved emission theories were based on a ridiculously mistaken idea what emission theories predict. Am I wrong?
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 01:26 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921012014.2da2275f.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > 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. > > Let's make sure I understand what you're saying. Emission theories have > the light that's emitted in different directions from a moving source > get different speeds. No .. the speed is c. Always c. [snip] > So the above explanation does not fit this case. Emission theories do > not predict two different speeds for the light in the Sagnac experiment. > They predict one speed, In the inertial frame, two speeds, different lengths of path .. so arrive same time .. so no phase shift In the rotating frame, one speed, same length of path .. so arrive same time ... so no phase shift. > just like all the other theories. Since there is > only one speed for the light, the light that takes the longer path will > arrive later, and Bob's your uncle. Wrong > There may be recent examples which do not do it that way. You could have > carefully tuned lasers that are actually aimed in the appropriate > directions, that interfere. But for a very long time that was not > available, and the claims that the original Sagnac experiment disproved > emission theories were based on a ridiculously mistaken idea what > emission theories predict. > > Am I wrong? Yes. Totally.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 01:26 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. > > You are, as I've said, absolutely, completely, totally off-base. Then why not respond to my actual argument?
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 01:33
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921012630.0edae3ed.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. >> >> You are, as I've said, absolutely, completely, totally off-base. > > Then why not respond to my actual argument? He has, quite extensively, about each of the various emission theories. I'm not sure what your argument are anymore. Certainly your claim that all emissions theories predict the observed Sagnac result is completely wrong. |