Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: tominlaguna on 24 Oct 2009 08:14 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:33:08 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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? =============================================== The following is transcribed from pages 160-161 of R. A. Waldron's book: "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", (1977). =============================================== "The Ives-Stilwell Experiment" The result of the Ives-Stilwell experiment (Section 11.13) can be explained by the ideas developed in this chapter. It can be shown that when light from a source passes through transparent matter, in motion with respect to the source, it emerges on the other side with the same velocity as it had before entering the transparent body. Thus in the Ives-Stilwell experiment the light emerges from the tube, and arrives at the slit of the spectrometer, with its velocity quite unaffected by its passage through the glass wall of the tube. Also, the light which leaves the ion beam in the opposite direction to the motion of the beam is reflected elastically from the mirror and so has the same velocity after reflection as before, with respect to the apparatus. Thus the two light beams from the moving ions arrive at the slit with velocities c + v and c - v. As explained in Section V.15, the apparent frequencies to be expected are f = fo�(1 � v/c + �v�/c�) {eq. 71} which are just the values observed in the experiment. Thus the Ives-Stilwell experiment fails to discriminate between the Lorentz-Einstein theory and the Ballistic theory. =============================================== Things to learn from Waldron's presentation: A. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. B. You really don't know what you are talking about.
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Oct 2009 08:35 tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: > "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> 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? > Things to learn from Waldron's presentation: > > A. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. > > B. You really don't know what you are talking about. Don't feed the trolls unless it's fun for you. Is it fun to get into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" cycle? Is it fun to present detailed evidence and have that evidence ignored, receiving instead the same old assertions? You must choose for yourself the rules of the game you are playing. Typically trolls will try to set the rules of the game for you. "You have to convince me. If you try to convince me and I am not convinced, then that proves you're a wrong idiot. You lose and I win. If you give up trying to convince me, then you have lost and I have won, that proves you are a wrong idiot." Some of the trolls come right out and admit that they think of you as an animal in a cage that they have fun poking sticks at. "Haha, let's see if we can make the animal scream again." Is it fun to play their game with them? But all you need to get out of the cage is ignore it and ignore them. The cage only exists in their frame.
From: Dono. on 24 Oct 2009 10:44 On Oct 24, 5:14 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Thus the two light beams from the moving ions arrive at the > slit with velocities c + v and c - v. Yes, according to the emission theory. > As explained in Section V.15, > the apparent frequencies to be expected are > > f = fo·(1 ± v/c + ½v²/c²) {eq. 71} > > which are just the values observed in the experiment. No, they are not. Nowhere close, try reading the non-crackpot literature (i.e. non-Waldron) on the experiment . This is what I have been telling you. Waldron is a crackpot and so are you.
From: Androcles on 24 Oct 2009 11:50 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091024083508.5184dfb6.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> 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? > >> Things to learn from Waldron's presentation: >> >> A. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. >> >> B. You really don't know what you are talking about. > > Don't feed the trolls unless it's fun for you. > > Is it fun to get into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it > isn't" cycle? > > Is it fun to present detailed evidence and have that evidence ignored, > receiving instead the same old assertions? > > You must choose for yourself the rules of the game you are playing. > Typically trolls will try to set the rules of the game for you. "You > have to convince me. If you try to convince me and I am not convinced, > then that proves you're a wrong idiot. You lose and I win. If you give > up trying to convince me, then you have lost and I have won, that proves > you are a wrong idiot." > > Some of the trolls come right out and admit that they think of you as an > animal in a cage that they have fun poking sticks at. "Haha, let's see > if we can make the animal scream again." Is it fun to play their game > with them? But all you need to get out of the cage is ignore it and > ignore them. The cage only exists in their frame. > You are learning fast. Some trolls are merely bigots, though, and some bigots are too stooopid to reason with.
From: doug on 24 Oct 2009 15:03
Jonah Thomas wrote: > tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>"Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>>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? > > >>Things to learn from Waldron's presentation: >> >>A. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. >> >>B. You really don't know what you are talking about. > > > Don't feed the trolls unless it's fun for you. > > Is it fun to get into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it > isn't" cycle? > > Is it fun to present detailed evidence and have that evidence ignored, > receiving instead the same old assertions? > > You must choose for yourself the rules of the game you are playing. > Typically trolls will try to set the rules of the game for you. "You > have to convince me. If you try to convince me and I am not convinced, > then that proves you're a wrong idiot. You lose and I win. If you give > up trying to convince me, then you have lost and I have won, that proves > you are a wrong idiot." Your rules seem to be that you make silly claims and then run and hide when asked to back them. That is how you enjoy yourself but you are afraid to support your claims. > > Some of the trolls come right out and admit that they think of you as an > animal in a cage that they have fun poking sticks at. "Haha, let's see > if we can make the animal scream again." Is it fun to play their game > with them? But all you need to get out of the cage is ignore it and > ignore them. The cage only exists in their frame. Yes, jonah, you come out and make wrong claims and then hope to ignore it when you are shown wrong. Keep running away, the exercise is good for you. > > |