Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Dono. on 19 Oct 2009 10:10
On Oct 18, 11:40 pm, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> I'm not dodging the issue. I wrote in my opening that Sagnac refutes
> the re-emission ballistic theory, not the emission theory of Ritz and
> Waldron.

It refutes ANY ballistic theory. Give it a rest, Tom.



From: Dono. on 19 Oct 2009 10:11
On Oct 18, 11:49 pm, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Where did you get the idea that I am no longer on the Walter Babin
> forum? First of all, I've never been on it; and secondly, I didn't
> even know he had one. I have been posting historical papers General
> Science for all to access.

You are HERE. On a much less crackpot-tolerant forum than the
walter.babin.com where you have been publishing your "masterpieces".
This is all I was saying.

From: tominlaguna on 19 Oct 2009 11:15
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:03:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com>
wrote:

>
><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:sqfod5hhbbd0o9bg90letn9p4gc8303ffe(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:02:28 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e63od5t7bl229oahgcrjfud7ts7f1i113f(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:58:18 +0100, "Androcles"
>>>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:lt7md512qegmkrme8hh6h7icq47u302ht4(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:21:32 +0100, "Androcles"
>>>>>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>>>>Both contain the same blunder, namely, there are two angles alpha
>>>>>>>and -alpha not one, as shown here,
>>>>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
>>>
>>>There are lots of angles, alpha and -alpha, made by the beams relative to
>>>the start/end point in the rotating frame .. which is what Androcles
>>>animation in that page shows. Those angles both end up as zero when the
>>>beams meet at the detector.
>>>
>>>Of course, this is not the alpha described in the article. Androcles is
>>>confused. The article describes alpha as the amount the start/end has
>>>rotated from its initial position, in the non-rotating frame. Androcles
>>>doesn't understand that, as is obvious from his irrelevant animation and
>>>nonsensical questions in red on that page.
>>
>> I agree with most all that you have said regarding the analysis of the
>> Mathpages diagram. I don't understand the Androcles animation.
>
>Not surprising .. he doesn't understand Sagnac :)
>
>>>In emission theory, there is only one alpha value (ioe one angle through
>>>whic h the start/end point has rotated in the non-rotating frame) when the
>>>beams arrive back at the start/end location. Because the rays meet
>>>simultaneously, there is no phase shift.
>>
>> I do disagree with your comments about the emission theory. You
>> appear to be claiming that photons are travelling at c +/- omega*R.
>
>They travel in emission theory at c wrt the source ..

Correct.

>which makes it c+/-v
>in the non-rotating frame (because the source is travelling at v at the time
>of emission)

I'm not following you. We are only interested in knowing what is
happening in the experiment that produces the signal. Before
rotation, the light is c relative to the source and during rotation it
is still c relative to the source.

>> If
>> they were, you would be correct there would be no phase difference.
>> But, they only travel at c in each direction.
>
>In which frame of reference?

On the platform.

>> There is no mechanism
>> for them to pick up or lose an omega*R component.
>
>They get the velocity of the source (in emission theory)

They only "get" the velocity of the source when the observer is moving
relative to the source. As far as those little photons are concerned,
they are still moving at c relative to the source.

A few examples:
(1) I'm standing still with respect to the ground while watching a man
who is also stationary with respect to the ground light a cigarette.
Light from the flame leaves the lighter at c with respect to the
lighter, and it arrives at my eyes at a speed c with respect to me.
(2) I'm walking toward a man while watching a man who is stationary
with respect to the ground light a cigarette. Light from the flame
leaves the lighter at c with respect to the lighter, and it arrives at
my eyes at a speed c+v with respect to me.
(3) I'm standing still with respect to the ground while watching a man
who is walking toward me light a cigarette. Light from the flame
leaves the lighter at c with respect to the lighter, and it arrives at
my eyes at a speed c+v with respect to me.


>>>In SR, the beams do not arrive simultaneously, so there are two
>>>values
>>>.. one alpha value when the first arrives, and a slightly larger alpha
>>>value
>>>when the second other arrives.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I don't see your reasoning.
>>>
>>>Noone does
>>
>> Disagree. I think he is on-track most of the time.
>
>Nope .. he lies and tries to deceive.
>
>>>>>> The end point has moved for both
>>>>>> beams to the 1 o'clock position
>>>
>>>Androcles is rotating the clock.
>>>
>>>>>Both beams have started from and returned to the 12 o'clock position,
>>>
>>>When your clock rotates, yes.
>>>
>>>>>and the start position is now at the 11 o'clock position.
>>>
>>>More precisely .. where the start position WAS in the non-rotating frame
>>>is
>>>now at the 11 o'clock position in the rotating frame.
>>>
>>>>> The position
>>>>>of the start is history and not relevant to the simultaneous meeting of
>>>>>beams.
>>>
>>>Yeup .. and it is that simultaneous meeting which refutes emission theory.
>>>SR does not have a simultaneous meeting, because the light travels two
>>>different length paths at the same speed, and so they arrive at the
>>>detector
>>>at different times, giving a phase shift. So far Androcles has failed to
>>>grasp that.
>>
>> His animation appears to have +/- omega*R in each ray. That is not
>> how I view the emission theory.
>
>Then your view is not correct Androcles animation shows that emission
>theory says .. that the light leaves the source with a separation speed of
>c. AS the source has a speed v in the non-rotating frame, that means the
>light travel and c+v and c-v in that frame
>
>>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/ring.gif
>>>
>>>And that animation shows how the light in an emission theory arrives at
>>>the
>>>detectors at the same time and in phase, hence refuting emission theory.
>>>There's no relevant meaning for those two alpha values, nor for the
>>>animation to pause where it does .. other than Androcles own confusion
>>>about
>>>what is happening.
>>>
>>>>>The end point hasn't moved at all, it is still at the 12 o'clock
>>>>>position.
>>>
>>>The end point in the rotating frame is ALWAYS at the 12 o'clock position
>>>in
>>>the rotating frame .. and the start point in the rotating frame is ALSO
>>>ALWAYS at the 12 o'clock position in the rotating frame. The start and
>>>end
>>>points in the rotating frame remain at the same point in the rotating
>>>frame
>>>all the time.
>>>
>>>However, the start and end points in the non-rotating frame (two different
>>>fixed point in that frame) DO move in the rotating frame. The start point
>>>in the non-rotating frame moves from the 12 o'clock to 11 o'clock position
>>>in the rotating frame, and the end point in the non-rotating frame moves
>>>from the 2 o'clock to the 12 o'clock in the rotating frame.
>>>
>>>It all depends on where you mark your start and end points .. on the
>>>rotating frame, or on the non-rotating lab frame .. and in which frame you
>>>measure their positions over time.
>>>
>>>>>What part of that reasoning do you not understand? It is clear enough
>>>>>in the gif I drew!
>>>
>>>Its clear that Androcles is confused.
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I still don't get it... The start and end points remain
>>>> together when the device rotates.
>>>
>>>Yes. In the rotating device frame. In the lab frame they both rotate
>>>together
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>>> Rays should be shown leaving the
>>>> start place and returning to the now displaced, start place.
>>>
>>>Yes .. at the same time according to emission theory .. so no phase shift.
>>
>> Disagree. That only applies to the re-emission theory.
>
>How does your pet emission theory differ?

The re-emission theory claim is that light is c relative to its source
AND all points of reflection. In other words, a mirror becomes a new
source. Sagnac disproves that hypothesis. I adopt the Stewart (1911)
definition which says light is reflected at c with respect to the
mirror image of its source.
From: tominlaguna on 19 Oct 2009 11:29
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:11:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Oct 18, 11:49 pm, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where did you get the idea that I am no longer on the Walter Babin
>> forum? First of all, I've never been on it; and secondly, I didn't
>> even know he had one. I have been posting historical papers General
>> Science for all to access.
>
>You are HERE. On a much less crackpot-tolerant forum than the
>walter.babin.com where you have been publishing your "masterpieces".
>This is all I was saying.

I've never published a physics paper in my life. The only
"masterpieces" I have at Babin are physics papers by others published
prior to 1939 that may be of interest to students. I have also posted
some translations of historical papers.
Do you "ever" check your facts?
From: Dono. on 19 Oct 2009 11:49
On Oct 19, 8:29 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I've never published a physics paper in my life. The only
> "masterpieces" I have at Babin are physics papers by others published
> prior to 1939 that may be of interest to students. I have also posted
> some translations of historical papers.
> Do you "ever" check your facts?



You mean the one you just took down:

http://www.wbabin.net/historical%5Cdufour3.pdf ?


Anyways, are you going to plug in the equations of Waldron's theory
into the Sagnac experiment or are you just going to continue
blathering about how it is consistent with the experiment?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |