Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: tominlaguna on 23 Oct 2009 10:29 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:20:32 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in >news:8qm2e594ha17fniorfc2fjktli1n1f03b3(a)4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:32:10 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+mspep(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:bqs0e5lqmuqtjqft1lvurh8ui21i974qp0@ >>>4ax.com: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Easily tested by experiment: >>>a) Two parallel mirrors, moving toward and away from each other (one >>>attached to the voice coil of a loud speaker, or plated onto a surface >>>of a quartz crystal). >>>b) laser beam bouncing back and forth between the mirrors many times. >>>If the bounce is n times, then the final velocity of the light exiting >>>from the pair of mirrors should >>>be c+n*v and c-n*v >> >> That is a very interesting concept. I will try to model it and see if >> it can be done easily. I am thinking the result might be c+/-2n*v. > >Correct, if both mirrors are moving, toward or away from each other. >Then they would have a peak 'closing speed' of +/- 2v. >I was only thinking of moving one of them but my wording was ambiguous. What type of detection system would you suggest? Androcles put up a ..gif of a Crooks radiometer which might work. Though, it would be nice to have a more accurate radiometer like the Nichols design. I don't know if anything like that exists commercially. I was thinking of using a prism as the detector to display changes in the refraction angle. By having the prism near the mirrors and the viewing screen at some distance, one might be able to register minute angular differences. Your thoughts are welcome.
From: tominlaguna on 23 Oct 2009 10:36 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:46:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25@ >4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> >> [snip] >> >> Tom Roberts has prompted a refinement to my description of the Sagnac >> experiment which I have incorporated below: >> >> Now let's refer to the actual Sagnac diagram which is located at: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png >> >> Now we'll follow the clockwise beam from start to finish and numerate >> each step for later identification: >> >> 1. Light is emitted from source O at c with respect to that source. >.... >> 16. After refraction, Beam T passes through mirror j and after a >> second refraction proceeds toward telescope L at speed c. >> 17. It is at mirror j that Beam T and Beam R are mixed to produce >> interference fringes. > >Why should there be fringe_s_ when the 'line-of-sight' distances traveled >are identical for beams traveling in both directions? There should be a >fixed phase relationship between the two beams in the ballistic theory. > >> 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. >> 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic >> plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion >> between telescope L and the film at PP'. >> 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives >> before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical >> path length; made shorter due to rotation. > >You just jumped from the rotating frame of reference "along the 'line-of- >sight'" to the fixed frame of reference, which is the frame in which the >distances traveled are different. >Naughty, naughty! > >The path lengths do NOT change as measured along the 'line-of-sight' >distances traveled in the rotating frame of reference, so unless you have >some magic Wilsonian effect to insert, you seem to be out of luck. > >In the rotating frame of reference, in the ballistic theory, the _only_ >place that you can look for any difference between rotating and non >rotating saganac apparatus is the coriolis effect, and if I remember >correctly, that is insufficient in magnitude to account for the observed >saganac effects. > >> 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for >> the counter-clockwise beam. >> >> Summarizing: >> >> 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. >> B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse >> the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. > >AND no change in distance traveled along that line of sight. > >> C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all >> points of reflection. >> D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam >> because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. > >bzzzt. wrong! > >> E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac >> experiment. > >Sorry but you seem to be wrong. Rather than replying to each criticism at this time, what if I adopted the Mathpages version and said my "closing speed" in one direction is c+v and it is c-v in the opposite direction? Would that make it more palatable?
From: bz on 23 Oct 2009 10:53 tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:6kf3e5l67npud09ba7gn5162veto0gl992@ 4ax.com: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:46:01 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25@ >>4ax.com: >> >>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>> [snip] ..... >>> 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. >>> 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic >>> plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion >>> between telescope L and the film at PP'. >>> 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives >>> before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical >>> path length; made shorter due to rotation. >> >>You just jumped from the rotating frame of reference "along the 'line-of- >>sight'" to the fixed frame of reference, which is the frame in which the >>distances traveled are different. >>Naughty, naughty! >> >>The path lengths do NOT change as measured along the 'line-of-sight' >>distances traveled in the rotating frame of reference, so unless you have >>some magic Wilsonian effect to insert, you seem to be out of luck. >> >>In the rotating frame of reference, in the ballistic theory, the _only_ >>place that you can look for any difference between rotating and non >>rotating saganac apparatus is the coriolis effect, and if I remember >>correctly, that is insufficient in magnitude to account for the observed >>saganac effects. >> >>> 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for >>> the counter-clockwise beam. >>> >>> Summarizing: >>> >>> 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. >>> B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse >>> the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. >> >>AND no change in distance traveled along that line of sight. >> >>> C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all >>> points of reflection. >>> D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam >>> because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. >> >>bzzzt. wrong! >> >>> E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac >>> experiment. >> >>Sorry but you seem to be wrong. > > Rather than replying to each criticism at this time, what if I adopted > the Mathpages version and said my "closing speed" in one direction is > c+v and it is c-v in the opposite direction? Would that make it more > palatable? In that case, you are measuring everything from the fixed frame of reference and the path lengths DO change. It so happens that when you work out the math and calculate the TIME of flight over those different length paths at those 'closing speeds', you will come up with identical time of flight for both the clockwise and counterclockwise propagation, for the ballistic theory. Thus predicting no saganac effect, which is falsified by experimental data. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
From: Dono. on 23 Oct 2009 11:16 On Oct 23, 7:53 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:6kf3e5l67npud09ba7gn5162veto0gl992@ > 4ax.com: > > > > > > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:46:01 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > >>tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25@ > >>4ax.com: > > >>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> [snip] > .... > >>> 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no > >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. > >>> 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic > >>> plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion > >>> between telescope L and the film at PP'. > >>> 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives > >>> before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical > >>> path length; made shorter due to rotation. > > >>You just jumped from the rotating frame of reference "along the 'line-of- > >>sight'" to the fixed frame of reference, which is the frame in which the > >>distances traveled are different. > >>Naughty, naughty! > > >>The path lengths do NOT change as measured along the 'line-of-sight' > >>distances traveled in the rotating frame of reference, so unless you have > >>some magic Wilsonian effect to insert, you seem to be out of luck. > > >>In the rotating frame of reference, in the ballistic theory, the _only_ > >>place that you can look for any difference between rotating and non > >>rotating saganac apparatus is the coriolis effect, and if I remember > >>correctly, that is insufficient in magnitude to account for the observed > >>saganac effects. > > >>> 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for > >>> the counter-clockwise beam. > > >>> Summarizing: > > >>> 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. > >>> B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse > >>> the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no > >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. > > >>AND no change in distance traveled along that line of sight. > > >>> C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all > >>> points of reflection. > >>> D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam > >>> because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. > > >>bzzzt. wrong! > > >>> E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac > >>> experiment. > > >>Sorry but you seem to be wrong. > > > Rather than replying to each criticism at this time, what if I adopted > > the Mathpages version and said my "closing speed" in one direction is > > c+v and it is c-v in the opposite direction? Would that make it more > > palatable? > > In that case, you are measuring everything from the fixed frame of > reference and the path lengths DO change. > It so happens that when you work out the math and calculate the TIME of > flight over those different length paths at those 'closing speeds', you > will come up with identical time of flight for both the clockwise and > counterclockwise propagation, for the ballistic theory. > > Thus predicting no saganac effect, which is falsified by experimental data. > Correct: t_CW=2piR/(c_CW-v)=2piR/(c+v-v)=2piR/c t_CCW=2piR/(c_CCW+v)=2piR/(c-v+v)=2piR/c If you think this new idiot will accept the explanation, you are much mistaken. :-)
From: Androcles on 23 Oct 2009 11:10
"bz" <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9CAD64A5F8259WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:6kf3e5l67npud09ba7gn5162veto0gl992@ > 4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:46:01 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25@ >>>4ax.com: >>> >>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> [snip] > .... >>>> 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no >>>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. >>>> 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic >>>> plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion >>>> between telescope L and the film at PP'. >>>> 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives >>>> before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical >>>> path length; made shorter due to rotation. >>> >>>You just jumped from the rotating frame of reference "along the 'line-of- >>>sight'" to the fixed frame of reference, which is the frame in which the >>>distances traveled are different. >>>Naughty, naughty! >>> >>>The path lengths do NOT change as measured along the 'line-of-sight' >>>distances traveled in the rotating frame of reference, so unless you have >>>some magic Wilsonian effect to insert, you seem to be out of luck. >>> >>>In the rotating frame of reference, in the ballistic theory, the _only_ >>>place that you can look for any difference between rotating and non >>>rotating saganac apparatus is the coriolis effect, and if I remember >>>correctly, that is insufficient in magnitude to account for the observed >>>saganac effects. >>> >>>> 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for >>>> the counter-clockwise beam. >>>> >>>> Summarizing: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse >>>> the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no >>>> "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. >>> >>>AND no change in distance traveled along that line of sight. >>> >>>> C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all >>>> points of reflection. >>>> D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam >>>> because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. >>> >>>bzzzt. wrong! >>> >>>> E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac >>>> experiment. >>> >>>Sorry but you seem to be wrong. >> >> Rather than replying to each criticism at this time, what if I adopted >> the Mathpages version and said my "closing speed" in one direction is >> c+v and it is c-v in the opposite direction? Would that make it more >> palatable? > > In that case, you are measuring everything from the fixed frame of > reference and the path lengths DO change. > It so happens that when you work out the math and calculate the TIME of > flight over those different length paths at those 'closing speeds', you > will come up with identical time of flight for both the clockwise and > counterclockwise propagation, for the ballistic theory. Yes, quite correct. A meets B when B meets A. How surprising! > Thus predicting no saganac effect, which is falsified by experimental > data. Wrong, the Sagnac effect is a phase shift at the camera, not a meeting at the beamsplitter, idiot. > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. |