Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: tominlaguna on 22 Oct 2009 10:33 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:24 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > [snip] > >Show me where. > [snip] http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein1.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/historical/lunn.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein.pdf
From: tominlaguna on 22 Oct 2009 11:15 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:49:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > ><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. That is correct to this extent: If the observer has relative motion with respect to the source, he will experience that the light at c +/- v, where v is the value of the relative motion. >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. Almost correct. For example, in the situation where a mirror is moving normally toward a source at velocity v, the mirror will experience the light as arriving at c + v. Upon reflection, the light will be traveling at c + 2v with respect to the source; and, as you state, at c + v with respect to the mirror. >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 Answer 1) with respect to the mirror. But also, at c with respect to the image of the source in the mirror. >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 11:17 <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:s5q0e5drrps6bngu5u314mv0mbq82srik3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:24 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >> > [snip] >> >>Show me where. >> > [snip] > > http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein1.pdf > http://www.wbabin.net/historical/lunn.pdf > http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein.pdf That's better, now I have something to read. "The purpose of the present paper is to investigate some questions concerning light propagation in a uniformly rotating rigid system, such as the Earth, on both the aether theory and the relativity theory." -- Silberstein Hence we can safely conclude that emission fact is not considered by Silberstein. Seems to me that comparing two incorrect theories is waste of time, we are back to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you may have with respect to emission theory, or even with respect to Einstein's crackpottery, but I'm not about to agree with Einstein's second postulate which both Silberstein and Lund are doing. What was your point in raising these ancient and irrelevant documents?
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2009 11:44 <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bqs0e5lqmuqtjqft1lvurh8ui21i974qp0(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:49:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >><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. > > That is correct to this extent: If the observer has relative motion > with respect to the source, he will experience that the light at c +/- > v, where v is the value of the relative motion. > >>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. > > Almost correct. For example, in the situation where a mirror is > moving normally toward a source at velocity v, the mirror will > experience the light as arriving at c + v. Upon reflection, the light > will be traveling at c + 2v with respect to the source; and, as you > state, at c + v with respect to the mirror. > With source and reflector relatively at rest, the ray reflects at (MINUS) -c, just as a bouncing ball would with a perfectly elastic collision. With the bat/mirror swinging at -v toward the source, the approach velocity is c+v, the return velocity relative to the pitcher is -c-v. That is, the ball leaves the pitcher at c and leaves the bat at -c-v. One can imagine the ball leaving the bat at -c and the bat moving at -v, so the ball is caught by the pitcher at -c-v. There is no 2v, you cannot add v twice. Just imagine the bat is moving backwards at v = c, so that c-v = 0. You would not add v twice for that, would you? The ball would have to go through the bat if you did.
From: tominlaguna on 22 Oct 2009 11:48
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:17:46 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > ><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:s5q0e5drrps6bngu5u314mv0mbq82srik3(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:24 +0100, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >> >>> >> [snip] >>> >>>Show me where. >>> >> [snip] >> >> http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein1.pdf >> http://www.wbabin.net/historical/lunn.pdf >> http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein.pdf > >That's better, now I have something to read. > >"The purpose of the present paper is to investigate some questions >concerning light propagation in a uniformly rotating rigid system, >such as the Earth, on both the aether theory and the relativity theory." -- >Silberstein > >Hence we can safely conclude that emission fact is not considered >by Silberstein. > Seems to me that comparing two incorrect theories is waste of time, >we are back to debating how many angels can dance on the head of >a pin. >I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you may have >with respect to emission theory, or even with respect to Einstein's >crackpottery, but I'm not about to agree with Einstein's second >postulate which both Silberstein and Lund are doing. > >What was your point in raising these ancient and irrelevant documents? The Coriolis effect. I agree that both aether and SRT theories are incorrect. |