The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 07:28 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921064255.604e6be8.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <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 >> >> >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> > >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Sorry .. I misread >> >> Its always c relative to the source. >> >> > ?? Are you saying that emission theories do not predict that the >> > speed of light varies with the speed of the light's source? >> >> c+v where the source has speed c >> >> > 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. >> >> Yes .. it is split into two different directions and both travel at c >> relative to the splitter .. which means in the non-rotating frame it >> goes as c+v and c-v .. just as per emission theory analysis > > Wait, this is new. Not new at all > If it travels at c relative to the splitter, then > it's going to travel at c relative to every mirror, isn't it? Yes > OK, that's > one emission theory. That's the one we've been talking about from the start and the one Henry does his flawed analysis on. Only he keeps changing his story every time it is shown to be wrong.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 07:53 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Recognition of the facts doesn't constitute prejudice. Einstein's > theory has never been even remotely supported by any believable > evidence. It is plain nonsense from start to finish, lapped up by > trendies who like to make out they're smarter than everyone else by > mumbling the meaningless relativist jargon. Lots of mathematicians believe that SR works adequately within its limits. It isn't plain nonsense, it's a consistent viewpoint that behaves as advertised. If it gets results that do not fit the reality, those results must be subtle enough that they have not yet been recognised. So at worst it's like ptolemaic epicycles, something that gets the correct results in a wrong-headed way. And just like the ptolemaic scholars, its advocates will not switch to something new unless the new approach is so much better that it's obviously worth the effort to learn it. There are disdvantages to relativity. It takes a long time to learn, and people with common sense are barred from physics. But you can't expect physicists to switch to something better until about a generation after something is known which is clearly better, and we don't have anything better yet. When something better arrives it will probably include a degree of time dilation. While it's possible that all the experiments that people claim involve time dilation are self-delusion, it's also quite possible that there's something real going on there.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 08:34 "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> > >> > "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 > >> >> >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Jonah Thomas wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> > 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. > >> > >> Sorry .. I misread > >> > >> Its always c relative to the source. > >> > >> > ?? Are you saying that emission theories do not predict that the > >> > speed of light varies with the speed of the light's source? > >> > >> c+v where the source has speed c > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> Yes .. it is split into two different directions and both travel at > >c> relative to the splitter .. which means in the non-rotating frame > >it> goes as c+v and c-v .. just as per emission theory analysis > > > > Wait, this is new. > > Not new at all > > > If it travels at c relative to the splitter, then > > it's going to travel at c relative to every mirror, isn't it? > > Yes > > > OK, that's > > one emission theory. > > That's the one we've been talking about from the start and the one > Henry does his flawed analysis on. Only he keeps changing his story > every time it is shown to be wrong. I didn't get that. Repeatedly I said "relative to the source" and nobody disagreed. So if I understand this, the light is continually being absorbed and re-emitted, and then we have: 1. Most inertial theories -- The light travels at the speed of its last re-emitted source. Light in air ought to smear out quickly because the molecules in the air move at random speeds. Sagnac fails because the light travels at the speed of the moving mirrors? Ah! That explains Androcles's picture! The light takes time to get to each next mirror, and in that time the mirror has tilted a little, and so the light in different directions follows two different paths that are different lengths. If his explanation is true it will apply to other theories as well. 2. Classical theories -- The light travels at the speed of the aether, and is emitted from each source at the speed of the aether. So light takes a different time to arrive at the detector from different directions. If Androcles's picture is correct it will also travel different distances. 3. SR -- The light travels at c relative to the mirrors and also travels at c relative to each outside observer. It takes different times to arrive at the detector because time happens at different rates to the light traveling in different directions around the ring.
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 10:30 Jonah Thomas 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? Why are you not willing to do some study on your own? There are books and articles that cover this very well and will give you all the detail that you could want. Start off with the articles listed here: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Sagnac This was all settled a long time ago.
From: doug on 21 Sep 2009 10:36
Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:33:29 -0400, 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 >>>>> >>>>>>doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Jonah Thomas wrote: > > >>>Wrong >> >>OK, tell me why it's wrong. > > > Jonah, you will have noticed that relativists like to hunt in packs like > wolves. They can't put up a good argument on their own so they have an > unwritten agreement to support each other in bringing down anyone who dares to > point out that Einstein was a fake. > There are a great many reputations at stake. The main aim of the wolf pack is > to waste our time. Of course we are wasting your time. You want to think you are right and we know you are an idiot and a liar. You will have already observed that they rarely if ever make > any constrfuctive scientific statements. They are clearly defending a belief > system just as any other religious fanatic would. This is spoken from ralph's view of himself as a god. He is wrong about this too. > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |