Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2009 19:14 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091022185132.40111897.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > 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. Remember that you are not discussing physics with Dougal, but his bitter resentment that the fuckin' idiot cannot explain anything except his whining assertions.
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Oct 2009 19:18 "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 > >> > "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/glossa > >ry_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.sh > >tml> 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 !!!! No, they are vague descriptions. Not at all definitions. > > They are mostly worthless. > > No .. they are definitions of the term. No, the formula gives a definition. The vague descriptions do not. > 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. If the speed of the wave is constant, then both wavelength and frequency have to be affected. If the wavelength is constant then speed and frequency have to be affected. It depends.
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Oct 2009 19:30 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >>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. The problem is, if Sagnac is a special case of Wang, then the phase shift is propotional to two things -- the speed that the detector moves, and also the length of the path in the direction of movement. The latter has no necessary relationship to the length of the beamsplitter. What happens inside the beamsplitter is a confounding variable. It can be varied independent of the factors people believe in, and it is not observed to cause results that vary from the factors people believe in. So it cannot be the whole Sagnac effect and probably does not happen or the experiments are controlling for it. Because otherwise it would be a source of variation that is not actually observed. > > 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. When I started to pay attention to problems in Einstein's original paper various people pointed me to a later Einstein paper which they said was better written and which cleared things up. If we've had a hundred years to learn better how to derive SR and how to teach it, and we are no better than Einstein in 1920, then something is very wrong. In the last hundred years explanations have been found for the various self-contradictions and failures of SR, so the problems have either been fixed or covered over. There's no need to pretent there were never any problems if the problems have been resolved.
From: Inertial on 22 Oct 2009 19:42 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091022191811.5f6d71d1.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... [snip] >> >> >> >>Doppler shift is a change in observed frequency. > No, the formula gives a definition. The vague descriptions do not. You seem confused by the concept of a definition for a term (ie what the phrase means), and a formula that gives a value for it (ie how to calculate the value for it). You need to have both, of course. You need to know how to calculate the value in specific instance .. and you need to know what the value you just calculated actually means. >> 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. > > If the speed of the wave is constant, then both wavelength and frequency > have to be affected. Maybe .. maybe not. For light, according to SR, yes > If the wavelength is constant then speed and > frequency have to be affected. All that follows form the relationship between frequency, wavelength and speed, of course. > It depends. Exactly .. it does all depend .. which is why I have described it as above. Saying Doppler shift is just an effect on frequency (as you did originally) is misleading. It can also affect wavelength. Which is why is the point I was trying to make. Perhaps rather than "Or wavelength .. Or both" I should have more correctly said "or both frequency and wavelength" .. as Doppler will always affect frequency, but may or may not affect wavelength.
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2009 19:57
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:1sq1e5ldgdpv0623ijng08icqfqfobbfpu(a)4ax.com... > You're right about relativity. It requires a light carrrying medium. > In BaTh, there is no doppler shift at the source UNLESS the source is > accelerating. That is my own personal discovery, which has far reaching > consequences for astronomers..... if they ever wake up.. Henry Wilson, world famous discoverer of acceleration, Faraday's kite in a thunderstorm and the Franklin cage. |