Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Sam on 26 Oct 2009 16:09
On Oct 25, 8:21 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ohhh, that's premature. What we have at this point is that your
> simple ballistic theory does not give a difference in arrival
> time for the light. We have not yet estasblished that it does
> not do interference.

A couple of comments: First, it isn't "my" simple ballistic theory, it
is simple ballistic theory, per the accepted definition of that term,
as understood by (e.g.) Sagnac.

Second, if you are challenging the fact that different arrival times
for corresponding pulses implies a phase difference and interference,
then you are denying basic and well-established phenomenology of
light, so it's rather silly for you to be focusing on the Sagnac
effect. A Sagnac device is not a particularly good apparatus for
trying to experimentally pin down the basic phenomenology of light and
optics. For that, you need to go back to the most basic observations
(Kepler, Hooke, Newton, Huygens, Coulomb, Young, Oersted, Ampere,
Faraday, Hertz,...). This is the basis for our belief in the existence
of things like the phase velocity of light, from which the
correspondence between time delay and interference in a Sagnac device
follows. These basic attributes of light can't be inferred from
examining the fringe shifts in a Sagnac device, nor was this device
ever intended to establish those attributes. No single experiment or
phenomena can possibly do that.

Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam <shay...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> so what we need is for you to articulate the non-
>> straightforward ballistic theory that you believe gives the observed
>> Sagnac effect. You need to state how light behaves when it is
>> reflected, i.e., what speed the light has after it has encountered
>> some material particle and been reflected by it.
>
> 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.

That description doesn't parse as it stands, but if we charitably
interpret what you seem to be trying to say, then what you've
described is just simple ballistic theory, which we've already agreed
predicts no difference in arrival times for the two pulses (which is
falsified by the Sagnac effect for anyone who knows anything about the
basic phenomenology of electromagnetism and optics). If you concede
that ballistic theories predict equal arrival times for pulses emitted
at equal times, and your only argument is that you think this can
produce fringe shifts, then see my comments above about the basis for
our understanding of the rudimentary attributes of light and optics.
In that case, the Sagnac effect is the least of your worries.

Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, what is it that destroys every possible version of this?

You may have missed it when I said previously that it's obviously not
possible to rule out every possible thing that someone might choose to
call an emission theory, because (for example) the modern theory of
light under special relativity can with some plausibility be called an
emission theory. After all, according to special relativity, light
propagates away from the source at the speed c in terms of the rest
frame inertial coordinates of the source, and this is what you
yourself have cited as the defining characteristic of an emission
theory. And yet, I somehow intuit that you would not regard the modern
theory of light in special relativity as a "possible version of"
emission theory. In fact, your comments suggest that when you talk
about "some version of this" you actually mean "anything other than
the modern theory of light in special relativity".

The short answer is that, empirically, light exhibits some ballistic
attributes and some wavelike attributes, which is to say, light
propagates at the speed c in terms of the rest frame inertial
coordinates of its source, but it also propagates at a characteristic
speed c independent of the motion of the source (with respect to any
inertial coordinate system). Again, the basis of our belief in these
statements is not the Sagnac effect, it is a host of more fundamental
observations and experiments. If your objective is to disregard all
observations and phenomena other than the Sagnac effect, and seek a
non-special relativistic theory that can be made consistent with the
Sagnac effect (totally unconstrained by the requirements of agreeing
with any of the other known phenomena), then that isn't very difficult
- it's just silly.

When scientific text books say that the Sagnac effect refutes
"ballistic theories", they are understood to be referring to theories
that have at least a minimal level of cognitive coherence and
definiteness, and at least a minimal concordance with observed
phenomena, and to actually conform to the basic idea of ballistic
motion in Galilean spacetime. The ideas that seem to interest you
aren't in that category.
From: Jonah Thomas on 26 Oct 2009 16:36
Sam <shayiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > Ohhh, that's premature. What we have at this point is that your
> > simple ballistic theory does not give a difference in arrival
> > time for the light. We have not yet estasblished that it does
> > not do interference.
>
> A couple of comments: First, it isn't "my" simple ballistic theory, it
> is simple ballistic theory, per the accepted definition of that term,
> as understood by (e.g.) Sagnac.

> Second, if you are challenging the fact that different arrival times
> for corresponding pulses implies a phase difference and interference,
> then you are denying basic and well-established phenomenology of
> light, so it's rather silly for you to be focusing on the Sagnac
> effect.

It makes perfect sense to me that different arrival times will imply a
phase difference and interference, provided that the first to arrive
continues to arrive for a significant time after the second arrives. I
don't say that's wrong.

I wonder whether there can be another way to get phase difference and
interference also.

> > 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.
>
> That description doesn't parse as it stands, but if we charitably
> interpret what you seem to be trying to say, then what you've
> described is just simple ballistic theory, which we've already agreed
> predicts no difference in arrival times for the two pulses (which is
> falsified by the Sagnac effect for anyone who knows anything about the
> basic phenomenology of electromagnetism and optics).

Not so. It does not imply that. I don't know why it's so hard for you to
imagine what I'm saying. Maybe there's some glaring fundamental error in
the concept that leaves you unable to imagine it because it simply is
not imaginable to people who know the truth.

I'll say it again: One beam of light leaves the emitter at speed c
relative to the emitter. It goes through a beam-splitter which does not
change its speed. It bounces off mirrors which do not change its speed.
So the light traveling in opposite directions travel at the same speed.
So one of them arrives early. I have a bad case of flu and I get
frustrated easily just now. I keep thinking you ought to be able to
follow this. But it doesn't fit your thinking, and possibly you might
have valid reasons why it's impossible.

> > OK, what is it that destroys every possible version of this?
>
> You may have missed it when I said previously that it's obviously not
> possible to rule out every possible thing that someone might choose to
> call an emission theory, because (for example) the modern theory of
> light under special relativity can with some plausibility be called an
> emission theory. After all, according to special relativity, light
> propagates away from the source at the speed c in terms of the rest
> frame inertial coordinates of the source, and this is what you
> yourself have cited as the defining characteristic of an emission
> theory. And yet, I somehow intuit that you would not regard the modern
> theory of light in special relativity as a "possible version of"
> emission theory. In fact, your comments suggest that when you talk
> about "some version of this" you actually mean "anything other than
> the modern theory of light in special relativity".

Naturally, I would want that as a last resort. But if nothing else
works, why not?

> The short answer is that, empirically, light exhibits some ballistic
> attributes and some wavelike attributes, which is to say, light
> propagates at the speed c in terms of the rest frame inertial
> coordinates of its source, but it also propagates at a characteristic
> speed c independent of the motion of the source (with respect to any
> inertial coordinate system). Again, the basis of our belief in these
> statements is not the Sagnac effect, it is a host of more fundamental
> observations and experiments. If your objective is to disregard all
> observations and phenomena other than the Sagnac effect, and seek a
> non-special relativistic theory that can be made consistent with the
> Sagnac effect (totally unconstrained by the requirements of agreeing
> with any of the other known phenomena), then that isn't very difficult
> - it's just silly.
From: Androcles on 26 Oct 2009 17:09

"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20091026163624.7730f933.jethomas5(a)gmail.com...
> Sam <shayiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Ohhh, that's premature. What we have at this point is that your
>> > simple ballistic theory does not give a difference in arrival
>> > time for the light. We have not yet estasblished that it does
>> > not do interference.
>>
>> A couple of comments: First, it isn't "my" simple ballistic theory, it
>> is simple ballistic theory, per the accepted definition of that term,
>> as understood by (e.g.) Sagnac.
>
>> Second, if you are challenging the fact that different arrival times
>> for corresponding pulses implies a phase difference and interference,
>> then you are denying basic and well-established phenomenology of
>> light, so it's rather silly for you to be focusing on the Sagnac
>> effect.
>
> It makes perfect sense to me that different arrival times will imply a
> phase difference and interference, provided that the first to arrive
> continues to arrive for a significant time after the second arrives. I
> don't say that's wrong.
>
> I wonder whether there can be another way to get phase difference and
> interference also.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> That description doesn't parse as it stands, but if we charitably
>> interpret what you seem to be trying to say, then what you've
>> described is just simple ballistic theory, which we've already agreed
>> predicts no difference in arrival times for the two pulses (which is
>> falsified by the Sagnac effect for anyone who knows anything about the
>> basic phenomenology of electromagnetism and optics).
>
> Not so. It does not imply that. I don't know why it's so hard for you to
> imagine what I'm saying. Maybe there's some glaring fundamental error in
> the concept that leaves you unable to imagine it because it simply is
> not imaginable to people who know the truth.
>
> I'll say it again: One beam of light leaves the emitter at speed c
> relative to the emitter. It goes through a beam-splitter which does not
> change its speed. It bounces off mirrors which do not change its speed.
> So the light traveling in opposite directions travel at the same speed.
> So one of them arrives early.

So they have travelled different path lengths. However, the path lengths
were set to be the same (modulo wavelength) when the device was
calibrated (and not rotating) to give a zero shift or there would be no
reference for a shift when the device rotates.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif





> I have a bad case of flu and I get
> frustrated easily just now. I keep thinking you ought to be able to
> follow this. But it doesn't fit your thinking, and possibly you might
> have valid reasons why it's impossible.

Nonsequitur.


From: Jonah Thomas on 26 Oct 2009 17:21
HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
> > So a photon
> >> emitted from a source moving at v with respect to the ground would
> >be> c+v momentarily until it is captured; it would then be re-emitted
> >> almost instantly at c relative to the molecule. 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.
> >
> >I can imagine that. So you don't get any indication how fast the
> >aether moves, but if light is traveling in air it slows down or
> >speeds up to fit the velocity of the individual air molecules. That
> >should quickly result in incoherence, unless some subtle effect takes
> >place. Perhaps for some subtle reason the light which has been
> >absorbed and re-emitted by a molecule that is traveling backwrd, will
> >then be more like to be absorbed and re-emitted by a molecule that
> >travels forward.
> >
> >I would expect fiber optic cables to maintain coherence better than
> >air, because they are solids with constrained motion. But maybe they
> >wind up with correlated motions that drive up the incoherence.
> >
> >So OK, this looks like another cop-out for emission theory. You get a
> >special effect but in air the effect goes away.
>
> I've been pointing that out for years. It is virtually impossible to
> perform an OWLS experiment from a moving source on Earth, even in a
> good vacuum.
>
> This is why Andro and I have been looking at star brightness curves.
> They are the best evidence we have since interstellar space is pretty
> empty.
>
> You and Tomi are going over the same stuff that has been thoroughly
> analysed before, right here.

Yes, but haven't you been universally ignored?

Maybe Tominlaguna will see that we're right about this one specific
point. Of course there could be lots of other experiments that
invalidate every emission theory you can invent, but at least they
aren't the Sagnac experiment.

Or maybe he will discover my error, and then you and Androcles can
explain whether you made the same error I did.
From: Androcles on 26 Oct 2009 17:39

"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:bd3ce5pp336b09ogvhslcq8mg1vkg1aad2(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:46:35 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/bounce.gif
>
>
> There! Top one!
> You have shown that, in the ground frame, the ball bounces back at c+2v.

You are fuckin' blind, its moving toward the middle wall at c+v
and bouncing away at -c-v. The top one has -v added to that, which
is -c-2v. Bwhahahahaha!


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |