Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Androcles on 27 Oct 2009 19:22 "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. ======================================== Tell you what, I'll give you a fair hearing. 1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley interferometer, the Sagnac cavity, and in lasers. What "cavity"? Sagnac's interferometer is Michaelson's interferometer with a camera attached and the whole shebang rotates at a constant angular velocity. The reason for adding the camera is it's rather difficult to run around in a circle looking at a regular eyepiece. -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. Ok, you assume a standing wave. Prove it exists. 3) Since the standing wave doesn't move, the velocity of the light waves in these devices is zero. Ok, you assume a standing wave. Prove it exists. 4) Einstein said that the velocity of light in a vacuum is always c. Yeah, ok, and the Pope said Jesus walked on water and his old lady was a virgin, Gordon Brown said he was going to combat global warming. 5) Obviously c does not equal zero -c is on or about 300000 km/s. Yeah, yeah... 6) Einstein did not see the obvious contradiction between 3, 4 and 5. Yeah, yeah... 7) Therefore, Einstein was an idiot. Yeah yeah... How does Einstein connect with standing waves, the price of rice in China, global warming or the Virgin Mary? Why didn't you use this simple argument instead of all that blather about c+v versus c-v? ============================= Because you saying light is a standing wave of speed zero is no different to the Pope saying he's going to heaven to shake hands with Gabriel and pick out a halo with gold laurel leaf trimmings in the heavenly dollar store to look like Nero with harp and wings, that's why. http://www.livius.org/a/1/emperors/nero_mus_munchen.JPG
From: Darwin123 on 27 Oct 2009 19:59 On Oct 27, 6:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415(a)y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > 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? Yes. > > Does a standing wave have a frequency? Yes. I know full well that frequency times wavelength is the "speed" of a wave, even though the nodes of the wave aren't going anywhere. I wasn't presenting this as a real argument <duhh>. I was pointing out that that the "speed of light" isn't defined as the actual motion of energy. The speed of light characterizes a property of the vacuum. Androcles sees "c+v" and "c-v" and automatically interprets this as a speed of light. After making this identification, he accuses Einstein of contradicting himself. Einstein said the speed of light is c, and then he says it is c+v or c-v. What an idiot! However, light energy isn't traveling at either "c+v" or "c-v". The energy in an interferometer is really stored in a standing wave, which doesn't move at all. So Androcles didn't really think carefully as to what "speed of light" means. His arguments imply that the speed of light is the speed of some form of energy. The speed of a standing wave is frequency times wavelength. If speed is calculated this way, then the speed of light is c in all the interferometers. The frequency and wavelength changes due to Doppler shift. But the speed of light is "c". The "c+v" and the "c-v" are caused by changes in frequency, not changes in "speed of light." The wavelengths changed in such a way as to leave the speed of light as "c".
From: doug on 27 Oct 2009 21:26 Androcles wrote: > "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. Androcles is showing his great ignorance again. He has never heard of a Fabry-Perot resonant optical cavity. We keep expecting him to find new ways to show his lack of knowledge and he never disappoints us. > > > > > >
From: Darwin123 on 27 Oct 2009 21:47 On Oct 27, 6:49 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(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. If that is so, why does the intensity output of the Michaelson interferometer change as the mirror is moved? Now, the usual interpretation has to do with the resonance enhancement of the standing waves with the spacing between mirrors. Nodes of the waves are located at the position of the completely reflecting mirrors. You explain to us why the spacing between reflecting surfaces changes the intensity of the output. Explain to us how any of these interferometers work at all. Use theory of Newton's corpuscules to explain the spectrum coming out of a Fourier Transform Interferometer (FTIR). Furthermore, explain to us how a diffraction grating works with Newton's corpusules. Explain to us how come a dielectric mirror works. Explain to us why colors appear on an oil slick. Explain how a Fresnel lens works. Forget the null result on the michaelson Morley experiment. I don't care about the accuracy of relativity per se, but I do know optics. Just explain how the interference fringes appear in the first place. Explain how come the Huygens space probe, whose signal moves at the speed of light, has a frequency that can be picked up by an electronic circuit. Explain how a channel tuner works in terms of Newtonian corpusules. Explain how Doppler shift occurs with Newtonian corpusules. Explain how light that can't transmit through two crossed polarizers gets transmitted when a polarizer is placed between them. Explain why the pick up on a TV antennae changes as the antennae rotates. Your model of Newtonian corpusules doesn't explain any of these wave phenonema.
From: Androcles on 28 Oct 2009 02:23
"Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:73e81849-45bc-497b-b260-6460f062bc97(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... On Oct 27, 6:49 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(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. If that is so, why does the intensity output of the Michaelson interferometer change as the mirror is moved? =========================================== Why doesn't my bathroom scale change colour when I stand on it? Because it was never designed to, that's why. Michelson interferometers do not output intensity, you idiot. |