Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Inertial on 22 Oct 2009 07:49 <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0qc0e5dhbaf4vu8qhib1s6omos1cv3e8m6(a)4ax.com... As I understand, ballistic theory means light behaves light a ballistic particle .. so it's velocity in some frame is the sum of the velocity of source and that of the light wrt the source. Similarly light would reflect from a mirror at the same speed as it hits the mirror .. so if it hits a mirror at c+v, it will leave the mirror at the same speed. So it looks like there are three possibilities for reflection. If light hits a mirror at v+c (ie the mirror is moving toward the source at v) then the light could be reflected with a speed of either 1) c+v .. if it behaves like a particle hitting a surface (eg a pool ball bouncing off a cuschion .. the faster it hits, the faster it bounces off) 2) c .. if it is absorbed and reemitted 3) c-v .. no idea how this could happen, but someone the mirror knows how to make light faster or slower as appropriate. So like rolling a pool ball slowly at a cushion and it bounces off fast and vice versa To me, 1) sounds like light behaving in a 'ballistic' way. 2) does sound like "re-emission" .. don't know WHAT one should call 3) that isn't derogatory though :)
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2009 09:49 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:ml30e5puvdcrg9rl9sddlfmfhk6bp9dvuu(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:39:29 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > >>> >> >If the wavelength is constant, then frequency must vary with >>> >speed.> >>> >> Again, who's speed? What's speed? Frequency changes are sensed >>> >> through the Doppler Effect when there is relative motion between >>> >> source and sensor. >>> > >>> > Light's speed. If the speed that light reaches you depends on the >>> > velocity of its source, then you might be receiving light that has >>> > different speeds relative to you. >>> >>> Yeah, so? What do think Doppler shift is? >> >>It isn't easy to measure speed. In my high school science class we >>measured the speed of sound. One guy had a signal gun borrowed from the >>athletics department. Another guy had a stopwatch borrowed from the >>athletics department. They separated so many paces apart. The first guy >>waved and shot, and the second guy turned on the stopwatch when he saw >>the wave and turned it off when he heard the shot. >> >>But you can't measure lightspeed that way because you can't see when the >>other guy is pulling the trigger except at lightspeed. >> >>What you can measure easily is frequency relative to you. And given a >>constant speed and a constant frequency, you can easily measure >>wavelength. >> >>Doppler shift is a change in observed frequency. > > I don't think you can make broad statements like that for light when > nobody > really has any idea what is oscillating and how? This is one of the big > mistakes that has been made for centuries...regarding light as some kind > of > moving oscillator. Oh right, it's a Wilson headless crocodile. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Transphoton.jpg A photon is a moving oscillator. Ask Marconi. > It is obviously much more complicated than that. It is obviously no more complicated than you confusing Ben Franklin with Michael Faraday. > Also, in my ballistic diffraction grating analysis, Fuckin' ignorant rubbish. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/diffraction.gif Same frequency, double speed, double wavelength. You must be drinking double reds.
From: Dono. on 22 Oct 2009 10:05 On Oct 22, 4:04 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > The next semantics issue to address is "actual speed of light" verses > "apparent speed of light." For this, we need to look at the diagram > at the Mathpages site: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > My first impression of the equation construction below the top diagram > would leave me embarrassed and appalled if I was a relativist. No, it wouldn't. The fact that you don't understand it, is just an issue of your incompetence. The > author is claiming that light is moving at c+v and c-v. No, he's not. I explained that in another post to you. How stoopid are you? Light travels at c around the circumference, in both directions. In the CW direction, it is "chasing" the mirrors, so: c*t_CW=2pi*R+v*t_CW In the CCW direction: c*t_CCW+v*t_CCW=2pi*R v=omega*R So: t_CW=2pi*R/(c-omega*R) t_CCW=2pi*R/(c+Omega*R} <I had to snip the rest of your idiotic rantings.>
From: Dono. on 22 Oct 2009 10:29 On Oct 22, 4:04 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > A. The Ballistic Theory of Light has 2 Postulates: (1) Light is > emitted at c with respect to its source and (2) light is reflected a c > with respect to the mirror image of the source. You are "oh, so lying": Look here : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO1PDF/V07N1CYR.pdf under: 2.Thomson Theorem of the Change of Velocities Point B: "In the master frame (i.e. the inertial frame in Sagnac) light is always reflected with the RESULTANT of the relative velocity of the incident light....." You can read the rest. Note that the idiot who wrote the article did some calculations. How about you do the calcs for the Sagnac experiment using the TRUE equations of the emission theory?
From: Dono. on 22 Oct 2009 10:33
On Oct 22, 7:29 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 22, 4:04 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > A. The Ballistic Theory of Light has 2 Postulates: (1) Light is > > emitted at c with respect to its source and (2) light is reflected a c > > with respect to the mirror image of the source. > > You are "oh, so lying": > > Look here :http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO1PDF/V07N1CYR.pdf > > under: 2.Thomson Theorem of the Change of Velocities > > Point B: "In the master frame (i.e. the inertial frame in Sagnac) > light is always reflected with the RESULTANT of the relative velocity > of the incident light....." You can read the rest. > > Note that the idiot who wrote the article did some calculations. How > about you do the calcs for the Sagnac experiment using the TRUE > equations of the emission theory? PS: Note that the Cyrenika idiot also tried to do the calculations for the relativistic Doppler effect (section 4) and , predictably, got the wrong results. I told you eralier that the emission theory is falsified by the Ives-Stilwell experiment, remember? |