Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Oct 2009 15:17 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote > >>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. > > Ok, I did that one a long time ago. > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif > > The neat thing about Google Sketchup is one can accurately rotate > the objects and then stick the new object to it, so what you are > seeing is the mathematical true path in the rotating frame, albeit > highly exaggerated. > The light leaves at 6 o'clock, reflects at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, > ends at 12 o'clock. Although in phase, the wavelengths differ, > so when the light continues past the beamsplitter to the detector > it shows a shift which is a function of the rate of rotation. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacRing.JPG > > The bigot Tom Roberts stops looking at the beamsplitter and says > emission fact can't work because there is no phase shift at the > beamsplitter, but Sagnac doesn't have a detector at the beamsplitter, > the camera is actually off the turntable. > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png. I see your picture appears to put the detector at the edge of the turntable and hanging over the edge. Did they really do it with the detector not moving? That would be a very interesting result. I see now why you want to look at the phase shift after the beamsplitter. In that picture, the distance traveled after the beamsplitter is a little bigger than the radius of the platform, and more than a quarter of the distance the light travels in opposite directions. Sure, that's enough to make a difference if the light is getting out of phase over that distance. It doesn't look obvious to me why the effect for that linear distance would be proportional to the speed of the rotation, though. After all, in the same diagram the direction of the light source is shown. It not quite tangent to the circle, facing backward. So according to emission theory, why would we expect the light to travel at c+v anywhere in this apparatus? The light will start out traveling a little faster than c-v. Unless the mirrors and lenses and such change that speed, it will keep that same speed all the way around the mirrors in both directions and past the beam-splitter and into the interferometer. Whatever argument works to explain the Sagnac effect for other theories of light, would explain it for emission theory at least for this case. > So even if you and Jonah Thomas are taken in by his prejudice in > favour of SR, he's really just another incompetent babbling fool > and isn't knowledgeable at all. He's never read Einstein's paper, > he advocates "Spacetime Physics", a crappy publication that > skips over Einstein's faulty math. I wouldn't recommend that people read Darwin to understand evolution. If Einstein had bad math and somebody since has fixed it up, that's just fine. After all, it took hundreds of years for mathematicians to fix the holes in Newton's calculus. If they haven't fixed up Einstein's stuff but just made it harder to see the holes then boo.
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2009 16:29 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091022151710.1a0e2179.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >> <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote > >> >>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. >> >> Ok, I did that one a long time ago. >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif >> >> The neat thing about Google Sketchup is one can accurately rotate >> the objects and then stick the new object to it, so what you are >> seeing is the mathematical true path in the rotating frame, albeit >> highly exaggerated. >> The light leaves at 6 o'clock, reflects at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, >> ends at 12 o'clock. Although in phase, the wavelengths differ, >> so when the light continues past the beamsplitter to the detector >> it shows a shift which is a function of the rate of rotation. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacRing.JPG >> >> The bigot Tom Roberts stops looking at the beamsplitter and says >> emission fact can't work because there is no phase shift at the >> beamsplitter, but Sagnac doesn't have a detector at the beamsplitter, >> the camera is actually off the turntable. >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png. > > I see your picture appears to put the detector at the edge of the > turntable and hanging over the edge. Did they really do it with the > detector not moving? That would be a very interesting result. What do you mean, "my" picture? It's from wackypedia. This is the animation: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnac.gif > I see now why you want to look at the phase shift after the > beamsplitter. In that picture, the distance traveled after the > beamsplitter is a little bigger than the radius of the platform, and > more than a quarter of the distance the light travels in opposite > directions. Sure, that's enough to make a difference if the light is > getting out of phase over that distance. It doesn't look obvious to me > why the effect for that linear distance would be proportional to the > speed of the rotation, though. Because the wavelength is proportional to speed. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/diffraction.gif http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/outofphase.gif > > After all, in the same diagram the direction of the light source is > shown. It not quite tangent to the circle, facing backward. So according > to emission theory, why would we expect the light to travel at c+v > anywhere in this apparatus? "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" -- Albert Einstein, the only thing he got right. Always tell partial truths if you want to con your audience. > The light will start out traveling a little > faster than c-v. Unless the mirrors and lenses and such change that > speed, it will keep that same speed all the way around the mirrors in > both directions and past the beam-splitter and into the interferometer. > Whatever argument works to explain the Sagnac effect for other theories > of light, would explain it for emission theory at least for this case. > >> So even if you and Jonah Thomas are taken in by his prejudice in >> favour of SR, he's really just another incompetent babbling fool >> and isn't knowledgeable at all. He's never read Einstein's paper, >> he advocates "Spacetime Physics", a crappy publication that >> skips over Einstein's faulty math. > > I wouldn't recommend that people read Darwin to understand evolution. If > Einstein had bad math and somebody since has fixed it up, that's just > fine. > After all, it took hundreds of years for mathematicians to fix the > holes in Newton's calculus. If they haven't fixed up Einstein's stuff > but just made it harder to see the holes then boo. Well nobody since has fixed it up, so it's not just fine. It's a load fuckin' bullshit that naive little puppies like you will swallow in your crazy belief in the goodness of mankind. All con artists and frauds are Mr. Nice Guy or they don't succeed. So boo hoo. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17201 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/special_relativity_for_children.htm
From: doug on 22 Oct 2009 18:26 Jonah Thomas wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> >>>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote > > >>>>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. >> >>Ok, I did that one a long time ago. >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif >> >>The neat thing about Google Sketchup is one can accurately rotate >>the objects and then stick the new object to it, so what you are >>seeing is the mathematical true path in the rotating frame, albeit >>highly exaggerated. >>The light leaves at 6 o'clock, reflects at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, >>ends at 12 o'clock. Although in phase, the wavelengths differ, >>so when the light continues past the beamsplitter to the detector >>it shows a shift which is a function of the rate of rotation. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacRing.JPG >> >>The bigot Tom Roberts stops looking at the beamsplitter and says >>emission fact can't work because there is no phase shift at the >>beamsplitter, but Sagnac doesn't have a detector at the beamsplitter, >>the camera is actually off the turntable. >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png. > > > I see your picture appears to put the detector at the edge of the > turntable and hanging over the edge. Did they really do it with the > detector not moving? That would be a very interesting result. > > I see now why you want to look at the phase shift after the > beamsplitter. In that picture, the distance traveled after the > beamsplitter is a little bigger than the radius of the platform, and > more than a quarter of the distance the light travels in opposite > directions. Sure, that's enough to make a difference if the light is > getting out of phase over that distance. It doesn't look obvious to me > why the effect for that linear distance would be proportional to the > speed of the rotation, though. > > After all, in the same diagram the direction of the light source is > shown. It not quite tangent to the circle, facing backward. So according > to emission theory, why would we expect the light to travel at c+v > anywhere in this apparatus? The light will start out traveling a little > faster than c-v. Unless the mirrors and lenses and such change that > speed, it will keep that same speed all the way around the mirrors in > both directions and past the beam-splitter and into the interferometer. > Whatever argument works to explain the Sagnac effect for other theories > of light, would explain it for emission theory at least for this case. > > >>So even if you and Jonah Thomas are taken in by his prejudice in >>favour of SR, he's really just another incompetent babbling fool >>and isn't knowledgeable at all. He's never read Einstein's paper, >>he advocates "Spacetime Physics", a crappy publication that >>skips over Einstein's faulty math. > > > I wouldn't recommend that people read Darwin to understand evolution. If > Einstein had bad math and somebody since has fixed it up, that's just > fine. After all, it took hundreds of years for mathematicians to fix the > holes in Newton's calculus. If they haven't fixed up Einstein's stuff > but just made it harder to see the holes then boo. > Remember that you are talking to Androcles, the retired almost engineer who has his hatred of Einstein to keep him going. He has no clue what relativity is about but he knows that he does not like it. Einstein's work is now presented differently than it was a century ago but the basis is the same and it needed no fixing up. There is also the century of experiments which all support it.
From: Inertial on 22 Oct 2009 17:44 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091022123553.5ae0e0df.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: >> > >> >> >>Doppler shift is a change in observed frequency. >> >> >> >> Or wavelength .. Or both >> > >> > Doppler shift is a change in observed frequency. Not wavelength. I'm >> > not always precise in my wording but still I want to ask you to be. >> >> Doppler is an effect on measured wavelength or frequency or both. You >> can have Doppler shifted frequency or Doppler shifted wavelength. >> >> You can find some definitions talk about Doppler shift as a frequency >> change http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=doppler%20shift >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_shift >> http://www.nps.gov/gis/gps/glossary.htm >> >> some talk about a wavelength change eg >> http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O80-Dopplershift.html >> http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/glossary_level2/glossary_text.html >> http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro7.htm >> http://www.nrao.edu/imagegallery/glossary.shtml) >> http://www.flowmeterdirectory.com/sensor_terminology_a.html >> >> and some about both eg >> http://www.astro.bas.bg/~petrov/glossary.html >> http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/Glossary_Astro/gloss_a-f.shtml >> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/help/glossary.htm >> >> So i think I was quite valid in saying it is an observed change in >> frequency or wavelength or both. For light we find that it is both. > > The formula for the classical doppler effect is > > f = f0 * (v+vr) / (v+vs) That's the one for frequency .. yes > The doppler effect is defined in terms of frequency and velocity. Or wavelength and velocity > The formula for the relativistic doppler effect is > > f = f0*sqrt( (c+v)/(c-v) ) That's the one for frequency .. yes > It makes sense to me that once you know the invariant lightspeed you > could convert these to work for wavelength. It all depends on the starting point for wokring out hte formulas > But the definitions you quote do not give any formula at all. Because they were definitions of the term !!!! > They are mostly worthless. No .. they are definitions of the term. Looks elsewhere for the formulas for it. And you'll find formulas for the frequency and / or the wavelength > Still, it does make sense that you could calculate the > change in wavelength given the change in frequency, once you assume that > the speed cannot change. For a givens wave at a given time, the wave has a particular speed and wavelength and frequency. Regardless .. Doppler shift is an effect on the observed wavelength and/or frequency due to motion of source and/or observer. For light in SR (and as observed) one only needs to consider the relative motion of source and observer, and both wavelength and frequency are affected.
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Oct 2009 18:51
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:26:17 -0800 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > > > >><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >>>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote > > > > > >>>>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. > >> > >>Ok, I did that one a long time ago. > >> > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif > >> > >>The neat thing about Google Sketchup is one can accurately rotate > >>the objects and then stick the new object to it, so what you are > >>seeing is the mathematical true path in the rotating frame, albeit > >>highly exaggerated. > >>The light leaves at 6 o'clock, reflects at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, > >>ends at 12 o'clock. Although in phase, the wavelengths differ, > >>so when the light continues past the beamsplitter to the detector > >>it shows a shift which is a function of the rate of rotation. > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacRing.JPG > >> > >>The bigot Tom Roberts stops looking at the beamsplitter and says > >>emission fact can't work because there is no phase shift at the > >>beamsplitter, but Sagnac doesn't have a detector at the > >beamsplitter,>the camera is actually off the turntable. > >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png. > > > > > > I see your picture appears to put the detector at the edge of the > > turntable and hanging over the edge. Did they really do it with the > > detector not moving? That would be a very interesting result. > > > > I see now why you want to look at the phase shift after the > > beamsplitter. In that picture, the distance traveled after the > > beamsplitter is a little bigger than the radius of the platform, and > > more than a quarter of the distance the light travels in opposite > > directions. Sure, that's enough to make a difference if the light is > > getting out of phase over that distance. It doesn't look obvious to > > me why the effect for that linear distance would be proportional to > > the speed of the rotation, though. > > > > After all, in the same diagram the direction of the light source is > > shown. It not quite tangent to the circle, facing backward. So > > according to emission theory, why would we expect the light to > > travel at c+v anywhere in this apparatus? The light will start out > > traveling a little faster than c-v. Unless the mirrors and lenses > > and such change that speed, it will keep that same speed all the way > > around the mirrors in both directions and past the beam-splitter and > > into the interferometer. Whatever argument works to explain the > > Sagnac effect for other theories of light, would explain it for > > emission theory at least for this case. > > > > > >>So even if you and Jonah Thomas are taken in by his prejudice in > >>favour of SR, he's really just another incompetent babbling fool > >>and isn't knowledgeable at all. He's never read Einstein's paper, > >>he advocates "Spacetime Physics", a crappy publication that > >>skips over Einstein's faulty math. > > > > > > I wouldn't recommend that people read Darwin to understand > > evolution. If Einstein had bad math and somebody since has fixed it > > up, that's just fine. After all, it took hundreds of years for > > mathematicians to fix the holes in Newton's calculus. If they > > haven't fixed up Einstein's stuff but just made it harder to see the > > holes then boo. > > > Remember that you are talking to Androcles, the retired almost > engineer who has his hatred of Einstein to keep him going. > He has no clue what relativity is about but he knows that he > does not like it. Einstein's work is now presented differently > than it was a century ago but the basis is the same and it needed > no fixing up. There is also the century of experiments which all > support it. |