Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Darwin123 on 27 Oct 2009 15:32 On Oct 16, 11:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > <tominlag...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > > >I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was > > started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion > > from this new starting point. > > Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber > > optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by: > >http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest > > paper provides a more detailed account of that work. > > Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the > > FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is > > proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its > > motion. 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. > > The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a > > phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are > > experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect > > that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon > > itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac > > interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and > > Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of > > Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way" > > Sagnac system of devices known as GPS. > > A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example: > > Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler > > located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car > > is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant > > velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at > > the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while > > the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first. > > The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration > > throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of > > Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal > > distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the > > acceleration of the receiver. > > Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was > > describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal > > with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices > > are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to > > them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal > > transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary > > receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to > > adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is > > accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang > > experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow > > fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others > > in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms > > in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they > > concluded it was not. Post has written about this. > > Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain > > Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is > > denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips > > (1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two > > of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission > > model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of > > other experiments. > > 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 > > Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw... > Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates > Walter Ritz by 250 years. The behavior of photons does not resemble the behavior of Newtons corpusules. Newtons corpusules do not have a frequency associated with them. The energy in a photons is proportional to the frequency of the wave. The difference becomes really important when dealing with interference effects. Newton did not predict that light could show interference effects. Neither beats nor diffraction is consistent with Newton's corpusules.
From: Androcles on 27 Oct 2009 16:07 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:df4793bf-c6ef-443d-be9a-65462f61189b(a)z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Oct 16, 11:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > <tominlag...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > > >I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was > > started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion > > from this new starting point. > > Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber > > optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by: > >http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest > > paper provides a more detailed account of that work. > > Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the > > FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is > > proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its > > motion. 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. > > The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a > > phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are > > experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect > > that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon > > itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac > > interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and > > Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of > > Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way" > > Sagnac system of devices known as GPS. > > A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example: > > Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler > > located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car > > is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant > > velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at > > the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while > > the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first. > > The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration > > throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of > > Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal > > distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the > > acceleration of the receiver. > > Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was > > describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal > > with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices > > are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to > > them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal > > transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary > > receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to > > adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is > > accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang > > experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow > > fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others > > in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms > > in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they > > concluded it was not. Post has written about this. > > Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain > > Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is > > denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips > > (1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two > > of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission > > model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of > > other experiments. > > 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 > > Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw... > Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates > Walter Ritz by 250 years. The behavior of photons does not resemble the behavior of Newtons corpusules. ================================================= Yes they do. They are particles of light and they zip along at a good speed. Newton's corpuscles of light are today called photons, you stupid argumentative jerk. "It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light - Sir Isaac Newton. "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" --� 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks -- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein Relativistic fuckin' bullshit, and you are a relativistic fuckin' bullshitter.
From: Darwin123 on 27 Oct 2009 18:17 On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:7c048a7e-bd06-425c-bed4-4c9d7a04fc56(a)b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 27, 1:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > You are a clueless babbling lunatic. I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in an even clearer manner than you have presented. 1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley interferometer, the Sagnac cavity, and in lasers. -They form when two counter propagating waves are superimposed, which is the common feature in all these devices. 2) Standing waves don't move. -The nodes remain in the same place. 3) Since the standing wave doesn't move, the velocity of the light waves in these devices is zero. 4) Einstein said that the velocity of light in a vacuum is always c. 5) Obviously c does not equal zero -c is on or about 300000 km/s. 6) Einstein did not see the obvious contradiction between 3, 4 and 5. 7) Therefore, Einstein was an idiot. Why didn't you use this simple argument instead of all that blather about c+v versus c-v?
From: Inertial on 27 Oct 2009 18:32 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415(a)y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: >> "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7c048a7e-bd06-425c-bed4-4c9d7a04fc56(a)b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> On Oct 27, 1:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > >> You are a clueless babbling lunatic. > I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in > an even clearer manner than you have presented. > 1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley > interferometer, the Sagnac cavity, and in lasers. > -They form when two counter propagating waves are > superimposed, which is the common feature in all these devices. > 2) Standing waves don't move. > -The nodes remain in the same place. > 3) Since the standing wave doesn't move, the velocity of the light > waves in these devices is zero. > 4) Einstein said that the velocity of light in a vacuum is always c. > 5) Obviously c does not equal zero > -c is on or about 300000 km/s. > 6) Einstein did not see the obvious contradiction between 3, 4 and 5. > 7) Therefore, Einstein was an idiot. > Why didn't you use this simple argument instead of all > that blather about c+v versus c-v? Cute. Does a standing wave have a wavelength? Does a standing wave have a frequency?
From: Androcles on 27 Oct 2009 18:49
"Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415(a)y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > You are a clueless babbling lunatic. I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in an even clearer manner than you have presented. 1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley interferometer, ========================================== Dead on arrival. Light is a photon stream, not a standing wave. |