Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Dono. on 18 Oct 2009 10:35
On Oct 18, 5:35 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 16, 11:08 pm, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 16, 8:43 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 16, 8:08 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >> In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
> >> >> >> light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
> >> >> >> after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
> >> >> >> and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
> >> >> >> will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
> >> >> >> c +/- v… all with respect to the mirror.
> >> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> >> Tom Miles
>
> >> >> >If the speed is ANYTHING but c, the model fails BOTH the Sagnac and
> >> >> >the Ives experiments.
>
> >> >> I suspect you are referring to the passive type of interferometer
> >> >> devices. In that case, you are wrong: whatever the speed of the
> >> >> initial ray of light, components going in each direction after
> >> >> splitting will have the same speed, be it c or u. The outcome is the
> >> >> same. As a practical matter, since the sources in the experiments you
> >> >> cite are not in motion with respect to the device, the speed will be
> >> >> c.
>
> >> >Prove it . Show the math.
>
> >> I don't know what there is to prove. First, please let me know which
> >> Ives experiment you are discussing.
>
> >Ives-Stilwell.
>
> >> I was not aware of an Ives
> >> experiment that tested the Sagnac effect.
>
> >Who told you that? I told you that all flavors of the ballistic theory
> >are disproved by the Ives experiment AND by the Sagnac experiment.
> >Prove that this isn't so.
>
> >> The point I was trying to make was simply that whatever the speed of
> >> the incoming ray was, that speed was retained by the two components
> >> after the ray is split.
>
> >Irrelevant, you need to write the equations of the complete
> >experiment. If you ever manage to do that (I doubt it), you will find
> >out that you are wrong: Ives, Sagnac, Fizeau experiments all falsify
> >the ballistic theory. So does MMX in a medium with refraction greater
> >than 1.
>
> Sorry, we're discussing Wang and Sagnac...


So, discuss Sagnac. I told you that it refutes the ballistic theory,
you keep trying to dodge the subject. You will find this forum much
tougher than the sympathetic one at the crackpot forum of Walter
Babin, Tom....
From: Dono. on 18 Oct 2009 10:37
On Oct 18, 7:14 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The prominent thing I see on that page is the "lie" that Sagnac is
> disproof for the Ballistic theory.

It is not a lie, Tom. It is the truth.


> Who is the idiot author of Mathpages, anyway? I stopped looking there
> when he stated that Dingle was feeble-minded.
>

He is a famous math professor by the name of Kevin Brown.
And you are just another sad crackpot. But you are no longer on the
Walter Babin crackpot forum, if you don't like the treatment here, you
can always return there....

From: Jonah Thomas on 18 Oct 2009 11:26
tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote:

> >> >> Most people that I have discussed this with believe that
> >> >> Dr. Wang has demonstrated that his design can detect
> >> >> translational motion. I disagree. They measured the
> >> >> acceleration of the fiber section from zero to some constant
> >> >> velocity.

> >> >Here is why I think there is something else going on too.
> >> > ________________
> >> >/ \
> >> >\____x___________/
> >> >
> >> >Here is the simple form of the Wang experiment, with the
> >> >emitter-detector x traveling around the loop. When x is on the
> >linear> >section traveling at constant speed they get the same phase
> >shift> >that they do when it is going around the rollers.
> >> > ___________________________________
> >> >/ \
> >> >\____x______________________________/
> >> >
> >> >When they change the length and change nothing else, they get a
> >> >change in phase shift proportional to the length. How has this
> >> >changed the acceleration proportional to the phase shift?

> >> In the diagrams you have presented, it appears you are describing
> >an> experiment shown in the earlier paper cited by Sue. Please look
> >at> the paper I referenced; specifically Fig. 3. For that test,
> >neither> the source nor the receiver was moving; it was only a
> >straight section> of fiber that was translated. So you have: 4 meter
> >(or whatever the> exact size was) loop of fiber, stationary source,
> >stationary receiver,> yet a Sagnac signal generated when you move a
> >section of the loop.> That seems to defy logic since light traveling
> >in opposing directions> still has to cover the 4 meter distance each
> >way while traveling at c;> same speed in each direction, same
> >distance to travel, but different> arrival times. There is obviously
> >a change in the optical path length> since the physical path length
> >remains unchanged. I contend that is> produced by acceleration;
> >similar to the way the bullet path length is> changed in the dueling
> >analogy.
> >
> >I can easily believe that you are talking about something that was
> >produced by a change in acceleration.
>
> No, I was talking about a change in velocity.

OK. But do you think the linear movement was accelerating when they
measured it?

> >But the effect that I pointed out from the first paper does not
> >appear to me to have different acceleration, and yet they got a phase
> >difference. So I think there is something other than acceleration
> >going on to get the Wang effect. Or possibly there is a hidden
> >acceleration that I haven't noticed. Maybe somehow if you use rollers
> >with the same radius rotating at the same speed, it puts a bigger
> >acceleration on the fiber if the fiber is a longer length?
>
> Perhaps we first need to discuss Sagnac Effect and Sagnac Instruments.

No, I don't think so. If Wang's analysis of his data is right, the
Sagnac effect is a special case of the Wang effect. If he's wrong, where
did he go wrong? What's the better explanation for his results?

> >> When I first thought about the reported results, I understood the
> >> source of the fringe shift to be a change in the enclosed area.
> >But> upon looking at the diagram and seeing the linearity of the
> >plots, I> concluded that area change was not a factor, otherwise the
> >data plot> would not be linear for the various tested speeds.
> >
> >Agreed.

So, the enclosed area matters for traditional Sagnac *because* it
correlates with the variables that do matter in that special case. There
is no motion except angular rotation around some center. If the center
is outside of the path the light takes then some of that path is moving
against the velocity and the area is a measure of the actual angular
speed. If the center is inside the path then of course the area is a
measure of the angular speed. In either case Wang's formula with the dot
product ought to work.

> >> Translational speed by itself is not a factor just as it is not a
> >> factor in the dueling analogy, where both shooters would die at the
> >> same time when the train was moving at constant speed.
> >
> >Translational speed looks like a factor in the one I mentioned, once
> >you accept that area is not a factor.
>
> The Wang setup described in each paper is a passive design. It only
> can record "changes" in velocity. I know it looks like a velocity
> meter, but it is only recording changes in velocity of the conduit. It
> is much like the speedometer on your car: you look at the gauge and it
> is reading 20 mph. I look at the gauge and I conclude it has recorded
> your change in velocity from 0 to 20 mph. It remains pinned at 20 mph
> until you accelerate or decelerate.

?? If you're going at 20 mph and the speedometer says 20 mph, it looks
to me like the speedometer is measuring velocity.

If you had something that measured acceleration so that when you
accelerate from 0 to 20 it goes up as the acceleration goes up, and down
to zero as you reach 20 and stop accelerating, that would be something
that measured acceleration. And if you did something like integrate the
signal (like "store" an electric current in a capacitor) then you would
have a velocity meter that is pinned at a particular velocity until it
gets a new signal.

But this appears to be showing an interference effect with no particular
memory (although you don't know the actual velocity until you have a
baseline to compare it to). If you have the thing moving at constant
speed before you turn on the laser, won't you get the same interference
pattern that you get if it's on during the acceleration?
From: Androcles on 18 Oct 2009 14:12

<tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tr2md5126lnoco1e0u2lr4a76ccsajf9de(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 16, 11:08 pm, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Oct 16, 8:43 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >On Oct 16, 8:08 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and
>>> >> >> therefore
>>> >> >> light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its
>>> >> >> speed
>>> >> >> after reflection is based on any relative motion between the
>>> >> >> source
>>> >> >> and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected
>>> >> >> photon
>>> >> >> will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed
>>> >> >> will be
>>> >> >> c +/- v. all with respect to the mirror.
>>> >> >> Regards,
>>> >> >> Tom Miles
>>>
>>> >> >If the speed is ANYTHING but c, the model fails BOTH the Sagnac and
>>> >> >the Ives experiments.
>>>
>>> >> I suspect you are referring to the passive type of interferometer
>>> >> devices. In that case, you are wrong: whatever the speed of the
>>> >> initial ray of light, components going in each direction after
>>> >> splitting will have the same speed, be it c or u. The outcome is the
>>> >> same. As a practical matter, since the sources in the experiments
>>> >> you
>>> >> cite are not in motion with respect to the device, the speed will be
>>> >> c.
>>>
>>> >Prove it . Show the math.
>>>
>>> I don't know what there is to prove. First, please let me know which
>>> Ives experiment you are discussing.
>>
>>Ives-Stilwell.
>>
>>> I was not aware of an Ives
>>> experiment that tested the Sagnac effect.
>>
>>Who told you that? I told you that all flavors of the ballistic theory
>>are disproved by the Ives experiment AND by the Sagnac experiment.
>>Prove that this isn't so.
>>
>>
>>> The point I was trying to make was simply that whatever the speed of
>>> the incoming ray was, that speed was retained by the two components
>>> after the ray is split.
>>
>>
>>Irrelevant, you need to write the equations of the complete
>>experiment. If you ever manage to do that (I doubt it), you will find
>>out that you are wrong: Ives, Sagnac, Fizeau experiments all falsify
>>the ballistic theory. So does MMX in a medium with refraction greater
>>than 1.
>>
> Sorry, we're discussing Wang and Sagnac...

You are supposed to believe in Don'-know's idiot religion because he
told you to.



From: Jonah Thomas on 18 Oct 2009 16:48
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
> <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:

> >>Sorry to disappoint you, but this analysis
> >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> >>is isomorphic to Einstein's lunatic "thought experiment":
> >
> > The prominent thing I see on that page is the "lie" that Sagnac is
> > disproof for the Ballistic theory.
> > Who is the idiot author of Mathpages, anyway? I stopped looking
> > there when he stated that Dingle was feeble-minded.
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/contents.htm
> ©1994-2009 Kevin Brown All bigots are certain they are right or they
>
> wouldn't be bigots.

Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when it is the only
idea we have.
Alain, 1908

From that same source: http://www.mathpages.com/home/quotes.htm

The mathpages guy has a tremendous breadth of knowledge and he's
definitely a valuable resource. You can't depend on everything he says
to be true, but he can provide a great big headstart on a lot of
problems if you aren't already as familiar with them as he is.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |