Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Inertial on 19 Oct 2009 20:32 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:84spd5djv65v2hjldsqhd44nq2g72gvmi6(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:18:05 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:snuod5h68j0apkqo99c4vcn4f5lhjtd456(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:03:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: > >> >>You mean if the whole experiment does not rotate? Then in the >>non-rotating >>frame the source is at rest so the 'v' of the source is 0. c+v=c and >>c-v=c. >> >>When the entire device rotates, as viewed from the non-rotating frame, at >>the point the light is emitted the source has a velocity v. So, according >>to emission theory, the light travels at c+v and c-v according to a >>non-rotating observer. >> >>There's no magic here .. nothing special about it being light .. you'd get >>the same if you're talking about a gun shooting bullets in opposite >>directions. >> >>> the light is c relative to the source and during rotation it >>> is still c relative to the source. >> >>In the rotating frame .. yes .. and hence when the light arrives back at >>the >>source the two beams arrive at the same time and so with no phase >>difference >>and so no sagnac effect .. hence refuting emission theory > > hahahahhahaha! > > This gigantic blunder has become known as the 'great relativist rotating > frame > misinterpretation'. Only in your deluded little mind > You are ignoring the 'imaginary effects' that occur in rotating frames. Nope > You are > assuming a rotating apparatus when viewed in the rotating frame is > identical to > a nonrotating apparatus viewed in the nonrotating frame. Nope > This is hilarious....but the type of logical error one has come to expect > from > relativity supporters. Nope > All you have done is demonstrate that there is no fringe displacement when > the > apparatus does not rotate. And according to emission theories, none when it DOES rotate, because the beams arrive at the detector with the same speed relative to the detector, and the same frequency as measured at the detector, and so therefore with no phase difference. But you can't accept the truth because it contradicts your lies.
From: Androcles on 19 Oct 2009 23:30 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091019201320.2d370eae.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Charles Ives was a physicist who strongly disblieved in general >> relativity. This is Charles Ives the physicist, not Charles Ives the >> composer. In any case, he wrote some books on why general relativity >> is wrong. Most of his "experiments" were thought experiments. I read >> some pages in Ives book relating to the Sagnac effect. I believe Ives >> analysis was wrong. >> Charles Ives described a thought experiment to show why the >> Sagnac effect contradicted relativity. He never actually performed >> this experiment, but simply guessed what the results would be based on >> symmetry. However, the symmetry that he hypothesized did not exist in >> the equivalent real-world systme. >> He proposed a Sagnac interferometer consisting of a highly >> reflective ring of material. There would not be separate mirror, but a >> continuous curve of reflective material. He proposed that the ring was >> completely circular, so that the optical system had complete radial >> symmetry. A rotation by any angle would not change the system, in his >> model, by any amount. Suppose two traveling waves are propagating in >> opposite directions in this circular cavity. >> His argument was that since the cavity is radially symmetric, >> there is no way the light waves can "know" that the cavity was >> rotating. The surface of this smooth cavity is smooth and featureless. >> Motion can not show itself on a featureless surface. Thus there could >> be no beats between the two waves, and thus no Sagnac effect. Since >> the Saganc effect is predicted by relativity, the fact there is no >> Sagnac effect for such a cavity means relativity is wrong. >> Note he didn't make the main error provided by members of the >> group. He did not claim the Saganc effect contradicts relativity. His >> arguement was that the Sagnac effect couldn't exist under certain >> conditions that were consistent with relativity. >> First, let me point out that such a system has been made. >> Sagnac cavities have been constructed using fibers connected in a >> circle. There are no separate mirrors in such a cavity. The reflective >> surface is a continuous curve. The Sagnac effect has been observed >> with such continuously curved surfaces. So what went wrong with Ives' >> analysis? > > If the emitter and the detector move with the mirror, which they had > probably better do, then you get a Sagnac effect because they are > moving. I believe you could get a sagnac effect with the source and > detector moving even if they were bouncing light off mirrors that did > not move. But like Ives I have not done the experiment. > >> 1) The cavity, though "continuously curved," is made of atoms. Thus, >> it did break down. >> 2) The free electrons on the surface, that cause the reflection of >> light, are also discrete up to the limits of quantum mechanics. >> 3) The light itself consists of nodes and antinodes. Thus, the >> illuminated surface is not flat and featureless. There are regions >> with oscillating electrons, and these are forced to rotate by the >> elastic forces in the cavity. > > I doubt all that matters. Get your detector and emitter moving along the > mirror cylinder and you'll get a Sagnac effect with the mirror not > moving at all. If it doesn't matter whether the mirror moves then it > does not matter abouut the astoms and the free electrons and the > antinodes. > > But I could be wrong. And you are.
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Oct 2009 01:25 tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: > But for the moment I would like to focus on the issue of Snell's law > and how it plays into your thesis. When I think of Snell's law, I am > thinking of refraction not reflection, unless it is total internal > reflection. Nonetheless, I am not aware of any way to differentiate > between SRT and Ballistic theory when there is no relative motion > between the source and mirrors or refracting medium. Snell's law also applies to mirrors -- when measured from the normal to the mirror, the incoming and outgoing angles are equal ("angle of incidence equals angle of reflection"). For a ballistic theory, if Snell's law holds in the rest frame of the mirror such that the light rays' speeds are equal in that frame, then it predicts a null result for a Sagnac interferometer in vacuum using mirrors [#] -- that is inconsistent with actual measurements, and all such theories are refuted. For a ballistic theory in which Snell's law does not hold in the rest frame of the mirror, then it is refuted by other measurements. [#] This is a nontrivial calculation, as a different inertial frame must be used for each mirror. One must also assume Galilean relativity to transform to the lab frame. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Oct 2009 01:38 Darwin123 wrote: > Charles Ives was a physicist who strongly disblieved in general > relativity. This is Charles Ives the physicist, not Charles Ives the > composer. [...] I've never heard of him. The "Ives" of the famous Ives-Stilwell experiment was Herbert E. Ives, of Bell Labs (my "alma mater" as well). He disbelieved both SR and GR, and performed numerous experiments in an effort to display errors in them; he failed to do so, and one of his attempts has become a famous reference in support of SR. Tom Roberts
From: tominlaguna on 20 Oct 2009 06:03
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:49:25 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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: I have no control over what Walter Babin puts up or takes down. I just went there and noted that both the French and English versions are linked to the same file name. I wrote a note to Walter to have the French link corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, if you (or anyone else) are fluent in French language, please offer suggestions for changes and corrections to my translation(s). >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? |