Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Androcles on 26 Oct 2009 05:32 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:n5eae5ldnaaro7l7srqg3cld4vv53c27pa(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:11:10 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> >> > Sam <shayiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> > If a ballistic theory predicts that the speed of light >>> >> >> > depends on the speed of its source, then in every early >>> >> >> > Sagnac experiment the light went the same speed in two >>> >> >> > different directions, according to an inertial observer. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Right, relative to the instantaneous rest frame of the emission >>> >> >point.> So, relative to the Galilean rest frame of the hub, the >>> >light> >is going> faster in the direction of rotation than in the >>> >opposite> >direction. >>> >> > >>> >> > No, the light goes the same speed >>> >> >>> >> No, relative to the Galilean rest frame of the hub, the light is >>> >going> faster in the direction of rotation than in the opposite >>> >direction. >> >>How come? > > The light moves at c wrt the source, which is moving at v wrt the > nonrotating > frame. > So the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the nonR frame. > Are you sure it's not c+2v when it bounces off a mirror? Remember, 503-497 = 6. After bouncing off 4 mirrors v should increase to 48, doubling with every bounce.
From: Androcles on 26 Oct 2009 05:26 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091025231110.4254058f.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> > Sam <shayiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > If a ballistic theory predicts that the speed of light >> >> >> > depends on the speed of its source, then in every early >> >> >> > Sagnac experiment the light went the same speed in two >> >> >> > different directions, according to an inertial observer. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right, relative to the instantaneous rest frame of the emission >> >> >point.> So, relative to the Galilean rest frame of the hub, the >> >light> >is going> faster in the direction of rotation than in the >> >opposite> >direction. >> >> > >> >> > No, the light goes the same speed >> >> >> >> No, relative to the Galilean rest frame of the hub, the light is >> >going> faster in the direction of rotation than in the opposite >> >direction. > > How come? See below >> > Look at your diagram of the original Sagnac experiment. There is one >> > light source that points in one direction, backward compared to the >> > direction of motion. The light leaves the source at one speed. It >> > goes into a beam-splitter and comes out as two beams. Do they travel >> > at different speeds? Sure, some emission theories say they do, >> > notably the Ritz version. But not all. They bounce off mirrors. >> >> Look at a flight attendant on a plane. Do they walk at 3 mph? >> How come they can cross the Atlantic, 3000 miles, in just 6 hours? >> That's 500 mph, nobody can walk that fast. Maybe they bounce off >> fuckin' mirrors. > > That's a pretty picture but I don't see Ah... I may be able to help you there. Have you tried Pearle Vision, Vision Express, SpecSavers, Lens Crafters? When I don't see it's usually because I left my specs on the bedside table. Have you left yours in the bathroom? I do that, too. I take 'em off to get the zits out of my nose or trim my moustache and then I don't see where I put them. > how it applies. The flight > attendant walks and makes the plane go faster or slower? Must do, she gets to London before the passengers but being polite lets them get off first. Have you ever noticed they tell you to wear a seat belt and then rush to the exit door first? >> > Do they then travel at different speeds? Sure, some emission >> > theories say they do. But not all. >> > >> > If a particular emission theory says they travel at diferent speeds >> > in different directions in the Sagnac experiment, it is because it >> > says the beam-splitter nd mirrors change the speed. >> >> Let me tell ya something. A plane flies at 500 mph. A flight attendant >> flies at 503 mph and overtakes the plane and all its passengers. >> Then she bounces off the flight deck door and flies backwards >> at 497 mph and the plane overtakes her as she walks past the >> passengers on her way to the rear of the plane. See if you can >> say "r-e-l-a-t-i-v-e m-o-t-i-o-n" and find out what it means. >> Couldn't do it, huh? Try one syllable at a time. Rell --- ah --- tiv --- mo --- shun. >> >> No, r-e-l-a-t-i-v-e to the Galilean rest frame of the hub, the light >> is going >> faster in the direction of rotation than in the opposite direction. > > It wasn't going faster when it started out. What made it increase its > speed? A-c-c-e-l-e-r-a-t-i-o-n. It's got four great big Pratt&Whitney or Rolls Royce jet engines that blow the air backwards and slow the Earth down -- or would if another one wasn't going the other way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 Concorde went so fast the sun would set in the East. It not only slowed the Earth down, it made it go backwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde This is really basic physics 01, not physics 101. Are you in the right classroom? >> No, relative to the Galilean r-e-s-t f-r-a-m-e of the hub, the light >> is going >> faster in the direction of rotation than in the opposite direction. >> >> > The light is emitted at one >> > speed for every theory, emission, classical, relativist, you name >> > it. >> >> The flight attendant walks at 3 mph in every theory, emission, >> classical, relativist, you name it. >> How come they can cross the Atlantic, 3000 miles, in just 6 hours? >> That's 500 mph, nobody can walk that fast. Maybe they bounce off >> fuckin' mirrors. >> >> All speeds are relative. Get used to it. >
From: Androcles on 26 Oct 2009 05:41 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091025232155.263c7a51.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Here's one: Light is emitted at c relative to its source's rest frame. > It continues to travel at the same speed until it is absorbed etc. It > reflects off mirrors at the same speed, but when traveling through a > refractive medium it slows for that. What happened to its momentum, which is conserved?
From: Androcles on 26 Oct 2009 06:08 <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:61oae5h20gq09lcire34k0krb6mnbv7u1k(a)4ax.com... > Jonah, I am going to have to modify comments I made last week about > the shape of the waves from a moving Ballistic source. While talking > with a friend of mine who runs the Walther Ritz web site, > ( http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/ ), > he reminded me that the concentric wave model is only applicable for > the void of space. For the moving sources that we experience in our > atmosphere on Earth, there is an extinction process by which photons > are captured and re-emitted by molecules of air. I am not certain of > the extinction distance at standard conditions in our atmosphere but > it is likely to be on the order of a few millimetres. Bwhahahahahahahahahaha! http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0701/greenset_pivato.gif What "standard conditions in our atmosphere" would that be? > So a photon > emitted from a source moving at v with respect to the ground would be > c+v momentarily until it is captured; Are you sure it's not c+2v? > it would then be re-emitted > almost instantly at c relative to the molecule. In a different direction, as this shows: http://www.allvidzhaze.com/images/fog&snow/fog01.jpg > So you have the air > behaving like an ether to moderate the speed of light to a value of c, > similar to what would occur if there was an ether. Therefore, the > wave shape for earth-bound moving sources would be eccentric, just as > they are for the ether and SRT theories. > Thus formulations and calculations for the Doppler radar devices we > use in our atmosphere such as for weather monitoring, police radar > guns, target acquisition, guidance, etc. would remain applicable even > though they were constructed using the ether model. Well, yes. A: f' = f *(c+v)/c and B: f' = f * c/(c-v) give approximately the same result for v<<c. For example, at v = 0.0001c (speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun) we have A: = 1.00001 and B: = 1.000010000100001000010000100001
From: Jonah Thomas on 26 Oct 2009 10:35
HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> >> > Sam <shayiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > If a ballistic theory predicts that the speed of light > >> >> >> > depends on the speed of its source, then in every early > >> >> >> > Sagnac experiment the light went the same speed in two > >> >> >> > different directions, according to an inertial observer. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Right, relative to the instantaneous rest frame of the > >emission> >> >point.> So, relative to the Galilean rest frame of the > >hub, the> >light> >is going> faster in the direction of rotation than > >in the> >opposite> >direction. > >> >> > > >> >> > No, the light goes the same speed > >> >> > >> >> No, relative to the Galilean rest frame of the hub, the light is > >> >going> faster in the direction of rotation than in the opposite > >> >direction. > > > >How come? > > The light moves at c wrt the source, which is moving at v wrt the > nonrotating frame. > So the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the nonR frame. If the light moves at c wrt the source when it leaves the source, then an inertial observer just might see it move at c+v if it is traveling the direction of the sorce, and c-v if it is traveling backward, and if it travels at any other angle theta the speed might be c + v*cos(theta). Traditional light sources were hard to get coherent. The usual approach was to have the light travel through one or more tiny pinholes so that the light which is used is traveling very much in the same direction, and is produced from a tiny part of the emitter. So OK, the light starts out traveling at c+v*cos(theta), and the sourca is being accelerated radially. Is the light which left the source at angle theta going to change its speed because the source is now traveling at angle sigma? You could make an emission theory where it does, where every light ray is like a metal wire and when the source changes its speed or direction all the light moves with it. But I don't see that you can't have an emission theory where that does not happen. |