EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Similarly:
THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other
theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental
record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.
> THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity.
> Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
> c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
> theory of light.
This is just a repeat of the nonsense you continually attempt to
promulgate. The "equivalence" you claim is wrong, and is based on
intermixing various INCOMPLETE ideas and applying them outside their
domains of validity....
Einstein himself abandoned that 1911 equation in favor of GR, in which
it is seen that the equation is an APPROXIMATION that applies ONLY to a
specific and unusual physical situation. Pound and Rebka (and also Pound
and Snider) did not use that specific physical situation. And more
important: THEY DID NOT MEASURE SPEED AT ALL so that equation cannot be
applied to their measurements. <shrug>
The physical situation to which that 1911 equation applies
involves length and time standards valid at one location
being applied to a measurement far away, rather than the
normal use of standards valid where the measurement is made.
Anticipating Valev's usual childish response as he "stalks" me in this
newsgroup (to which I will not bother to respond): Grow up.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> > John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> > evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> > universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> > relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> > WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> > POSTULATE."
>
> Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other
> theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental
> record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.
>
> > THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> > OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> Sure.
Bravo Roberts Roberts. Let us repeat it:
THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
> But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full
> experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
> relativity.
>
> > Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
> > c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> > which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
> > theory of light.
>
> This is just a repeat of the nonsense you continually attempt to
> promulgate. The "equivalence" you claim is wrong, and is based on
> intermixing various INCOMPLETE ideas and applying them outside their
> domains of validity....
>
> Einstein himself abandoned that 1911 equation in favor of GR, in which
> it is seen that the equation is an APPROXIMATION that applies ONLY to a
> specific and unusual physical situation. Pound and Rebka (and also Pound
> and Snider) did not use that specific physical situation. And more
> important: THEY DID NOT MEASURE SPEED AT ALL so that equation cannot be
> applied to their measurements. <shrug>
>
> The physical situation to which that 1911 equation applies
> involves length and time standards valid at one location
> being applied to a measurement far away, rather than the
> normal use of standards valid where the measurement is made.
>
> Anticipating Valev's usual childish response as he "stalks" me in this
> newsgroup (to which I will not bother to respond): Grow up.
>
> Tom Roberts
You are out of Einstein criminal cult Roberts Roberts. You shamelessly
denigrate the teaching of your brothers hypnotists:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF RADIATION, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Jeckyl
news:2PT5j.51831$eY.4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
>> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
>> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
>> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
>> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
>> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
>> POSTULATE."
>
> Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories
> does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record
> refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.
Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with
emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see
that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and find
its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because
it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.
However, those experiments that COULD refute emission theory have shown it
to be false .. so we need to throw it into the enormous junkpile of refuted
theories of physics and move on. That 's what scientists do ..its only
fanatics and nutcases like Pentcho the cling for dear life to an old refuted
theory for no logical reason (maybe its just that the want some attention).
Sad.
Pentcho Valev
Banesh Hoffmann, the apostle of Divine Albert, explains for you the
meaning of "FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE":
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French:
"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:2PT5j.51831$eY.4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
>>> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
>>> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
>>> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
>>> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
>>> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
>>> POSTULATE."
>>
>> Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories
>> does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record
>> refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.
>
>Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with
>emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see
>that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and find
>its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because
>it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.
There have been a few past experiments that have been interpreted as refuting
BaTh. All those interpretations are now known to be flawed.
All those
>
>However, those experiments that COULD refute emission theory have shown it
>to be false .. so we need to throw it into the enormous junkpile of refuted
>theories of physics and move on. That 's what scientists do ..its only
>fanatics and nutcases like Pentcho the cling for dear life to an old refuted
>theory for no logical reason (maybe its just that the want some attention).
>Sad.
>
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
A simple exercise for you and your zombies Roberts Roberts. You have:
c = f * L initially
c' = f' * L' finally
f' = f(1+V/c^2) confirmed experimentally
c' = ? L' = ?
You have ONLY TWO possible solutions Roberts Roberts:
Solution 1: c' = c ; L' = L/(1+V/c^2)
This solution has been rejected by Albert Einstein in 1911 and,
implicitly, by Tom Roberts a century later. Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Solution 2: c' = c(1+V/c^2) ; L' = L
This solution has been confirmed by Albert Einstein in 1911 and,
implicitly, by Tom Roberts a century later.
A somewhat more difficult exercise Roberts Roberts is one where you
will have to prove that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the emission theory of
light. That is an exercise for YOU, not for your zombies.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Jeckyl
news:bc8ml3h7go0n9i8uh...@4ax.com...
Not true .. only *some* have had excuses made for their failure added.
Others, like Sagnac, simply refute BaTH completely
Pentcho Valev
>
> Solution 2: c' = c(1+V/c^2) ; L' = L
> This solution has been confirmed by Albert Einstein in 1911 and,
> implicitly, by Tom Roberts a century later.
>
> A somewhat more difficult exercise Roberts Roberts is one where you
> will have to prove that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
> EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the emission theory of
> light. That is an exercise for YOU, not for your zombies.
Roberts Roberts you may not know how to prove the equivalence of
c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v so let me guide you through the difficulties.
A light source at the top of a tower of height h emits photons with
speed c (relative to the source). The photons accelerate so that, when
they reach a receiver on the ground, their speed (relative to the
receiver) is
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) /1/
which is Einstein's 1911 equation.
Now a rocket with length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light
source at the front end emits photons with speed c (relative to the
source). When the photons reach the receiver at the back end, this
receiver has a speed v relative to the light source at the moment of
emission. What is the speed of the photons, c', relative to the
receiver, at the moment of reception?
You should only apply Einstein's equivalence principle Roberts Roberts
and see that
gh = cv /2/
Substitute this into /1/ and you obtain
c' = c + v /3/
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
Even I don't see your point. Your title is EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE
RELATIVITY. Both the experiments you quote are compatible with both
theories and therefore refute neither. In fact most experiments are
compatible with both theories. One of the few people with enough
knowledge to actually study the question stated:
"...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
Fox - 1965
It is not only of interest but truly remarkable that that can be said of
a theory proposed 60 years earlier which had no work done on it in the
interim. The VAST quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic
electromagnetic theory - which most relativists have been brought up to
believe can ONLY be explained by relativistic electromagnetic theory -
can equally well be explained by the much simpler Ritz's theory.
I don't see what you achieve by pointing out two such phenomena out of
so many.
Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not
been explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory - but then I rather
doubt that anyone with the necessary ability has tried. Anyone who did
would be labelled a crackpot and totally ruin his career prospects :o)
--
John Kennaugh
Pentcho Valev
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> >John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> >evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> >universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> >relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> >WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> >POSTULATE."
>
> >Similarly:
>
> >THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> >OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> >Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
> >c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> >which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
> >theory of light.
>
> Even I don't see your point. Your title is EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE
> RELATIVITY. Both the experiments you quote are compatible with both
> theories and therefore refute neither.
Unless you go into detail this statement is misleading. Concerning the
Michelson-Morley experiment, the explanation is here:
As you can see, in the absence of miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with
c'=c+v given by the emission theory and incompatible with Einstein's
second principle c'=c, that is, it REFUTES special relativity. If you
wish to make the experiment compatible with c'=c and incompatible with
c'=c+v, you should postulate miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.). First Fitzgerald and Lorentz introduced the
miracles, and only then the compatibility between the MM experiment
and c'=c became thinkable.
As for the Pound-Rebka experiment, the situation is even worse for
Einstein's theory. We have either:
(A) speed of light VARIABLE;
wavelength CONSTANT;
NO gravitational time dilation
or (B) speed of light CONSTANT;
wavelength VARIABLE;
gravitational time dilation
(A) is fatal for Einstein's theory and yet all hypnotists in Einstein
criminal cult claim that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light
is VARIABLE (rather, they used to claim so; now they claim nothing
because their heads are constantly in the sand):
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Jeckyl
news:qDWoYHGo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> Even I don't see your point. Your title is EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE
> RELATIVITY.
There are none
> Both the experiments you quote are compatible with both theories and
> therefore refute neither. In fact most experiments are compatible with
> both theories. One of the few people with enough knowledge to actually
> study the question stated:
>
> "...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
> theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
> Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
> of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
> Fox - 1965
Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac. So we can disregard that,
no matter whether or not it may be able to aplain other experimental results
(like MMX)
> Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
> emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
No .. it shows he has done his homework, and knows that emission theory is
refuted.
> There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not been
> explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory
No .. they refute it. It only takes one .. and Sagnac will do quite nicely
for that. That there are otehrs just reinforced the view that emission
theories are incorrect.
> - but then I rather doubt that anyone with the necessary ability has
> tried. Anyone who did would be labelled a crackpot and totally ruin his
> career prospects :o)
What a feeble excuse.
John Kennaugh
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qDWoYHGo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Even I don't see your point. Your title is EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE
>> RELATIVITY.
>
>There are none
>
>> Both the experiments you quote are compatible with both theories and
>> therefore refute neither. In fact most experiments are compatible with
>> both theories. One of the few people with enough knowledge to actually
>> study the question stated:
>>
>> "...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
>> theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
>> Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
>> of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
>> Fox - 1965
>
>Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
I know how ballistic theory explains it how does SR explain it?
--
John Kennaugh
Eric Gisse
What strikes me as amazing is how folks like you lack the ability to
do any basic research.
Tom Roberts
> Jeckyl wrote:
>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
>
> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
> I know how ballistic theory explains it
But nobody else does, if by "ballistic theory" one means:
a) the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which
the source is at rest, and one uses Galilean relativity
to compute its speed in other frames.
b) Snell's law applies to mirrors and transparent media in
their rest frame, and for moving media or mirrors one uses
Galilean relativity to compute the light's speed in other
frames.
So please describe how ballistic theory "explains" the Sagnac results
for both a fiber-optic gyroscope and a 4-mirror rotating Sagnac
interferometer. Assume the center of rotation is at rest in an inertial
frame.
Or describe why the above is not "ballistic theory".
The fiber-optic gyroscope is particularly simple to
analyze in the above theory, because (b) directly implies
that no fringe shift should be observed for a rotating
fiber gyroscope. This is, of course, in contradiction to
observation....
The 4-mirror interferometer is rather complicated to
analyze, as one must compute the angles in the rest
frame of each mirror, rather than in the inertial frame
of the center. One must also take into account the
rotation of the mirrors during the light propagation
time, and one must carefully specify how the mirrors are
aligned on the platform. Note that if one assumes there is
air that remains at rest in the inertial frame of the
center, then the analysis is easy, but this is not what
Sagnac did....
> how does SR explain it?
The speed of light is isotropically c in the inertial frame in which the
rotation center is at rest. For light propagation in a moving medium,
one uses the Lorentz composition of velocities. For the 4-mirror case,
it's easy to show that the effect due to the rotation of the mirrors is
negligible compared to the path length difference.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
: John Kennaugh wrote:
: > Jeckyl wrote:
: >> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
: >
: > No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
: > I know how ballistic theory explains it
:
: But nobody else does,
Ok, so you are nobody.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> >> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
>
> > No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
> > I know how ballistic theory explains it
>
YOU do Roberts Roberts. You even claim that
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c1614c38b6219a06?
Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."
So don't be inconsistent Roberts Roberts. You should go towards the
adoption of the emission theory of light and never look back. Superior
brothers don't like people like you. Einstein criminal cult may kick
you out soon.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
All of your animations and words implicitly assume that the speed of
light is constant in THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE CENTER. You are not
actually using any ballistic/emission theory, because your light waves
do not really travel with speed c+v in that inertial frame.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
> emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
It is not a "vast pool", but there are several experiments that clearly
refute the usual ballistic theory. Whether or not Ritz's theory can
explain them is up to advocates of Ritz's theory to demonstrate to the
world -- AFAIK nobody has done that. This is not "a total lack of
objectivity and balance", this is a knowledge of the experimental
record, and awareness of how science ACTUALLY works.
> There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not
> been explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory
It only takes one.
Sagnac refutes the usual ballistic theory, as does Fizeau (speed of
light in moving media). In addition, it is not at all clear how such a
theory could be extended to accommodate all of the tests of time
dilation or relativistic kinematics or ....
> but then I rather
> doubt that anyone with the necessary ability has tried. Anyone who did
> would be labelled a crackpot and totally ruin his career prospects :o)
This is not true -- you CLEARLY do not understand how science works, or
how real careers in science actually happen and progress. You are
probably confused because in most cases the people who discuss
alternatives to SR are indeed crackpots. This is especially true around
here (yourself included).
No serious scientist has anything to fear from making a careful analysis
of some ancient theory, and showing how it does or doesn't agree with
any given set of experiments. But this takes time, and there is such
little likelihood of success that most scientists are not interested.
If you had any sense at all, and were truly interested in
this, you would stop babbling nonsense around here and STUDY
Ritz's theory, and STUDY the experimental record, and write
a careful paper about how his theory explains the experiments
and is not refuted by them. THAT would be doing science -- I
have no idea at all what it is that you are actually doing,
but it is clearly not science.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: > news:J3x9j.54151$eY.3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
: > : John Kennaugh wrote:
: > : > Jeckyl wrote:
: > : >> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
: > : >
: > : > No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
: > : > I know how ballistic theory explains it
: > :
: > : But nobody else does,
: >
: > Ok, so you are nobody.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
:
: All of your animations and words implicitly assume that the speed of
: light is constant in THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE CENTER.
All of your wild assertions implicitly assume you have you clue. YOU DON'T.
Oh look, the speed of the ball is constant in THE INERTIAL
FRAME OF the camera.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
: You are not
: actually using any ballistic/emission theory, because your light waves
: do not really travel with speed c+v in that inertial frame.
Of course not, a photon is modelled. Anyone that hallucinates I've
modelled a wave has to be totally clueless. Which, being a nobody,
you are. Kennaugh understands Sagnac, you don't.
Androcles
: John Kennaugh wrote:
: > Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
: > emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
:
: It is not a "vast pool", but there are several experiments that clearly
: refute the usual ballistic theory.
Baloney.
There are several experiments that clearly refute the usual Einstein-Roberts
claptrap.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
>>
>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
>
>But nobody else does, if by "ballistic theory" one means:
> a) the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which
> the source is at rest, and one uses Galilean relativity
> to compute its speed in other frames.
> b) Snell's law applies to mirrors and transparent media in
> their rest frame, and for moving media or mirrors one uses
> Galilean relativity to compute the light's speed in other
> frames.
>
>So please describe how ballistic theory "explains" the Sagnac results
>for both a fiber-optic gyroscope and a 4-mirror rotating Sagnac
>interferometer. Assume the center of rotation is at rest in an inertial
>frame.
>
>Or describe why the above is not "ballistic theory".
>
> The fiber-optic gyroscope is particularly simple to
> analyze in the above theory, because (b) directly implies
> that no fringe shift should be observed for a rotating
> fiber gyroscope. This is, of course, in contradiction to
> observation....
This is not true. The standard argument, using the rotating frame, ignores the
fact the in that frame, the startpoint of each 'photon' moves backwards around
the ring.
The ballistic explanation of the ring gyro is animated at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe
The simple maths is shown at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
The SR analysis clearly requires that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the
source. ...and therefore contradicts its own postulate.
See, for instance: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> The 4-mirror interferometer is rather complicated to
> analyze, as one must compute the angles in the rest
> frame of each mirror, rather than in the inertial frame
> of the center. One must also take into account the
> rotation of the mirrors during the light propagation
> time, and one must carefully specify how the mirrors are
> aligned on the platform. Note that if one assumes there is
> air that remains at rest in the inertial frame of the
> center, then the analysis is easy, but this is not what
> Sagnac did....
The BaTh analysis of the four mirror Sagnac is given at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>> how does SR explain it?
>
>The speed of light is isotropically c in the inertial frame in which the
>rotation center is at rest. For light propagation in a moving medium,
>one uses the Lorentz composition of velocities. For the 4-mirror case,
>it's easy to show that the effect due to the rotation of the mirrors is
>negligible compared to the path length difference.
The phase difference between the two rays when they reunite at the detector is
just (Path length difference)/(absolute wavelength).
Please don't argue unless you make an attempt to fully understand the details I
have provided.
>Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
>> emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
>
>It is not a "vast pool", but there are several experiments that clearly
>refute the usual ballistic theory. Whether or not Ritz's theory can
>explain them is up to advocates of Ritz's theory to demonstrate to the
>world -- AFAIK nobody has done that. This is not "a total lack of
>objectivity and balance", this is a knowledge of the experimental
>record, and awareness of how science ACTUALLY works.
>
>
>> There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not
>> been explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory
>
>It only takes one.
>
>Sagnac refutes the usual ballistic theory, as does Fizeau (speed of
>light in moving media). In addition, it is not at all clear how such a
>theory could be extended to accommodate all of the tests of time
>dilation or relativistic kinematics or ....
Sagnac definitely DOES NOT refute the BaTh.
Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
The SR Sagnac explanation requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt
the source..... which is clearly a contradiction of its own second postulate.
>> but then I rather
>> doubt that anyone with the necessary ability has tried. Anyone who did
>> would be labelled a crackpot and totally ruin his career prospects :o)
>
>This is not true -- you CLEARLY do not understand how science works, or
>how real careers in science actually happen and progress. You are
>probably confused because in most cases the people who discuss
>alternatives to SR are indeed crackpots. This is especially true around
>here (yourself included).
>
>No serious scientist has anything to fear from making a careful analysis
>of some ancient theory, and showing how it does or doesn't agree with
>any given set of experiments. But this takes time, and there is such
>little likelihood of success that most scientists are not interested.
So what do you say about my perfectly correct and successful BaTh analysis of
Sagnac?
What do you say about my successful matching of just about any observed
variable star curve using c+v?
Should not these findings be of considerable interest to genuine scientists?
> If you had any sense at all, and were truly interested in
> this, you would stop babbling nonsense around here and STUDY
> Ritz's theory, and STUDY the experimental record, and write
> a careful paper about how his theory explains the experiments
> and is not refuted by them. THAT would be doing science -- I
> have no idea at all what it is that you are actually doing,
> but it is clearly not science.
:)
You poor fellow, all experimental evidence points to the BaTh being correct.
Jeckyl
Nonsense
> I know how ballistic theory explains it how does SR explain it?
It is well documented that ballistic theories do NOT explain Sagnac. Sagnac
is explained by ether or relativity theories.
see
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm
If you claim Sagnac is actually explained by ballistic theories, go ahead
and do so.
Jeckyl
news:kex9j.70356$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yeup . .that obviously includes you. What you show there is light moving as
SR predicts .. not ballistic theories. Dumbass
Jeckyl
You are a fool .. SR explains it perfectly .. and ballistic theories fail.
You are a fool
> See, for instance: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Yes .. that shows how SR explains it and how ballistic theory doesn't I
guess you're too ignorant to undersatnd that. But we already knew that from
the copious evidence of your ignorance that you supply in every post.
Jeckyl
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:49:13 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
>>> emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
>>
>>It is not a "vast pool", but there are several experiments that clearly
>>refute the usual ballistic theory. Whether or not Ritz's theory can
>>explain them is up to advocates of Ritz's theory to demonstrate to the
>>world -- AFAIK nobody has done that. This is not "a total lack of
>>objectivity and balance", this is a knowledge of the experimental
>>record, and awareness of how science ACTUALLY works.
>>
>>
>>> There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not
>>> been explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory
>>
>>It only takes one.
>>
>>Sagnac refutes the usual ballistic theory, as does Fizeau (speed of
>>light in moving media). In addition, it is not at all clear how such a
>>theory could be extended to accommodate all of the tests of time
>>dilation or relativistic kinematics or ....
>
> Sagnac definitely DOES NOT refute the BaTh.
Yes it does
> Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
No .. it doesn't
You know nothing .. you're an ignorant fool
Jeckyl
Really .. show one.
Tom Roberts
> On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
>>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
>>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
>> But nobody else does.....
>
> YOU do Roberts Roberts.
Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
> You even claim that
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c1614c38b6219a06?
> Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
> discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
> structure of the world is not continuous."
Yes, there is indeed no need for relativistic KINEMATICS in discussing
the Sagnac effect. If you had read this IN THE CONTEXT IT AS WRITTEN you
would understand that. Other aspects of SR apply and explain the Sagnac
effect, and quantitatively agree with the measurements.
Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
relationship to the words preceding it.
> So don't be inconsistent Roberts Roberts.
I am not. It is YOU who quote words out of context, intermix different
statements made by others, and don't understand what they say. <shrug>
Grow up.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:01:45 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> by "ballistic theory" one means:
>> a) the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which
>> the source is at rest, and one uses Galilean relativity
>> to compute its speed in other frames.
>> b) Snell's law applies to mirrors and transparent media in
>> their rest frame, and for moving media or mirrors one uses
>> Galilean relativity to compute the light's speed in other
>> frames.
>> The fiber-optic gyroscope is particularly simple to
>> analyze in the above theory, because (b) directly implies
>> that no fringe shift should be observed for a rotating
>> fiber gyroscope. This is, of course, in contradiction to
>> observation....
>
> This is not true. The standard argument, using the rotating frame, ignores the
> fact the in that frame, the startpoint of each 'photon' moves backwards around
> the ring.
What I said is true. You just don't understand the "standard argument"
-- your claim about it is wrong. There's no need to use the "rotating
frame", one simply uses the instantaneously-comoving inertial frame of
each point of the fiber:
Let me idealize the fiber gyroscope as a ring of fiber with a
bidirectional source and relative phase detector at one point. At every
point around the fiber, the light propagates with speed c relative to
the fiber, for both directions of propagation. The length of fiber from
source to detector is independent of the propagation of light. These
statements are independent of any motion of the fiber (see item (b)
above), so the relative phase of the two counter-propagating light beams
remains constant, independent of rotation. Hence this theory predicts
the fiber gyroscope cannot detect rotation, in contradiction to observation.
> The ballistic explanation of the ring gyro is animated at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe
I am not so stupid to run a program like that. And this is a Linux box.
> The simple maths is shown at
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
Your "BaTh" is NOT the theory being discussed. See the "ballistic
theory" above. But your "simple maths" are wrong -- wavelength is NOT
absolute.
> The SR analysis clearly requires that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the
> source. ...and therefore contradicts its own postulate.
You don't understand SR and are incompetent to make such a claim. This
claim is false. In SR, speeds are measured in inertial frames and the
"c+v" and "c-v" you mention are in the ROTATING frame, not in any
inertial frame. An accurate SR analysis of this physical situation
involves the Lorentz composition of velocities integrated around the
ring [@], not any simple "c+v" and "c-v" [#].
[@] the integral is trivial.
[#] But the Sagnac effect is first order in v/c, and the
diference mentioned is second order in v/c, which is
negligible for practical gyroscopes.
> The phase difference between the two rays when they reunite at the detector is
> just (Path length difference)/(absolute wavelength).
That is your "BaTh", not the theory above that I am using. You invoke
"magic" in that "absolute wavelength". And you ignore real measurements
that show the wavelength of a given light source depends on the motion
of the detector relative to the source.
Wavelength is not absolute, no matter how much you might wish it to be.
<shrug>
> Please don't argue unless you make an attempt to fully understand the details I
> have provided.
YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
> ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
> the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.
Roberts Roberts let's get things straight. So far you have claimed
that:
1. The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the emission
(ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
postulate c'=c.
2. The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission
(ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
postulate c'=c.
However above you seem to claim that:
3. The Sagnac experiment is INcompatible with the emission (ballistic)
theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light postulate
and for that reason the Sagnac experiment REFUTES the equation c'=c+v
and GLORIFIES Einstein's light postulate c'=c.
Is that true Roberts Roberts? You have already said so but just
confirm it even more explicitly. Then we will have to ask the editors
of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Rotating-Frames-Relativistic-Fundamental/dp/1402018053
"For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
relativistic theory."
to explain why they did not invite YOU to defend Einstein's idiocies.
The only problem with the Sagnac experiment Roberts Roberts is that
its analysis is somewhat complicated, difficult to discuss on a forum
like this and so criminals like you can relatively safely say
anything. However be careful: note that brothers much cleverer than
you NEVER mention Sagnac. Try to find a discussion of Sagnac by John
Norton for instance.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:231ef3d1-bbb1-4094...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Dec 18, 07:06, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: sci.physics.relativity:
: > YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
: > ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
: > the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.
:
: Roberts Roberts let's get things straight. So far you have claimed
: that:
:
: 1. The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the emission
: (ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
: postulate c'=c.
:
: 2. The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission
: (ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
: postulate c'=c.
:
: However above you seem to claim that:
:
: 3. The Sagnac experiment is INcompatible with the emission (ballistic)
Roberts is correct about crazy Wilson's "BaTh" and his crackpot wavelength
ideas not being anything the rest of us mean by emission fact.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Tom, Tom, you are making the same mistake that Jerry, Andersen and Dishman..and
probably a lot of other people over the years - have consistently made.
I assume you are using the rotating frame.
The point you are missing is that the emission point (startpoint) and the
detection point are not the same, no matter what frame you use.
In the non-R frame, the startpoint is static and the detection point lies at a
distance vt from it....in both BaTh and SR.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
In the rotating frame, the startpoint is NOT static. It moves backwards a
distance vt. The path lengths are NOT the same.
>
>> The ballistic explanation of the ring gyro is animated at:
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe
>
>I am not so stupid to run a program like that. And this is a Linux box.
That's your problem not mine.
You can look at .jpgs.
>> The simple maths is shown at
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>
>Your "BaTh" is NOT the theory being discussed. See the "ballistic
>theory" above. But your "simple maths" are wrong -- wavelength is NOT
>absolute.
Tom, the wavelength around the ring does not change just because an observer
happens to move around the ring. Wavelength IS absolute...like all lengths.
No matter....Alternatively, the analysis can be done using frequency. In the
rotating frame, both rays have the same frequency at the source and detector.
In the non-R frame, one ray is doppler shifted (c+v)/c and the other (c-v)/c.
The travel times are the same.....so the phases are generaly different at the
detector. My animation illustrates this....but you can't see it.
I emphasise again that the two path lengths ARE NOT the same in the rotating
frame...as has always been wrongly assumed.
>> The SR analysis clearly requires that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the
>> source. ...and therefore contradicts its own postulate.
>
>You don't understand SR and are incompetent to make such a claim. This
>claim is false. In SR, speeds are measured in inertial frames and the
>"c+v" and "c-v" you mention are in the ROTATING frame, not in any
>inertial frame. An accurate SR analysis of this physical situation
>involves the Lorentz composition of velocities integrated around the
>ring [@], not any simple "c+v" and "c-v" [#].
The SR diagram presented at: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.
Do you understand the SR diagram?
> [@] the integral is trivial.
>
> [#] But the Sagnac effect is first order in v/c, and the
> diference mentioned is second order in v/c, which is
> negligible for practical gyroscopes.
>
>
>> The phase difference between the two rays when they reunite at the detector is
>> just (Path length difference)/(absolute wavelength).
>
>That is your "BaTh", not the theory above that I am using. You invoke
>"magic" in that "absolute wavelength". And you ignore real measurements
>that show the wavelength of a given light source depends on the motion
>of the detector relative to the source.
'Frequency' is subject to Doppler shifted, not wavelength.
>Wavelength is not absolute, no matter how much you might wish it to be.
><shrug>
All lengths are absolute and universal.
>> Please don't argue unless you make an attempt to fully understand the details I
>> have provided.
>
>YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
>ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
>the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.
As far as Sagnac goes, my theory IS standard ballistic theory.
YOU have made the same mistake that I took years to get across to the Andersen,
Dishman, Jerry brigade.
In the rotating frame, the path lengths are NOT the same.
You are a little moter intelligent that the rest of your colleagues, I expect
you to be able to see why this is true.
Pentcho Valev
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > sci.physics.relativity:
> >> John Kennaugh wrote:
> >>> Jeckyl wrote:
> >>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
> >>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
> >>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
> >> But nobody else does.....
>
> > YOU do Roberts Roberts.
>
> Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
>
> > You even claim that
> > Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
> > discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
> > structure of the world is not continuous."
>
> Yes, there is indeed no need for relativistic KINEMATICS in discussing
> the Sagnac effect. If you had read this IN THE CONTEXT IT AS WRITTEN you
> would understand that. Other aspects of SR apply and explain the Sagnac
> effect, and quantitatively agree with the measurements.
>
> Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
> relationship to the words preceding it.
Then let me show your whole statement:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts, August 25: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold"
that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is,
I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure
of the world is not continuous."
I think now you understand how dangerous this statement is Roberts
Roberts. It is closely related to Einstein's 1954 confession:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
So your statement is not only dangerous, it is a serious crime
according to Einstein criminal cult and superior brothers will never
forget your criminal behaviour. In fact, only three hypnotists are
allowed to discuss the field concept of light, continuum,
discontinuum, the adoption of the emission theory of light etc. These
are John Norton, John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. As long as Einstein expected a viable theory of light,
electricity and magnetism to be a field theory, these sorts of
objections would render an emission theory of light inadmissible."
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Jeckyl
> Tom, Tom, you are making the same mistake that Jerry, Andersen and
> Dishman..and
> probably a lot of other people over the years - have consistently made.
Yes .. reading your posts.
> I assume you are using the rotating frame.
>
> The point you are missing is that the emission point (startpoint) and the
> detection point are not the same, no matter what frame you use.
If you are talkinag about Sagnac, then they are the same in the rotating
frame .. that's how the experiment is constructed .. there is no movement
between the source and the detector.
In the non-rotating frame, both move
> In the non-R frame, the startpoint is static and the detection point lies
> at a
> distance vt from it....in both BaTh and SR.
Yes .. but in Bath the velocity of the light is c+v and c-v in the
non-rotating frame.. in SR it is c and c
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> In the rotating frame, the startpoint is NOT static. It moves backwards a
> distance vt.
The source of the light and the detector do not move at all in the rotating
frame.
> The path lengths are NOT the same.
In ballistic theory, they both go around the path at speed c and end up back
at the source in the rotating frame. The distance is the same in both cases
in the rotating frame.
>>> The simple maths is shown at
>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>>
>>Your "BaTh" is NOT the theory being discussed. See the "ballistic
>>theory" above. But your "simple maths" are wrong -- wavelength is NOT
>>absolute.
>
> Tom, the wavelength around the ring does not change just because an
> observer
> happens to move around the ring. Wavelength IS absolute...like all
> lengths.
In Sagnac, there is only insignificant dopler effect due ot the motion of
the detector realtive to the light .. so it doesn't really matter
> No matter....Alternatively, the analysis can be done using frequency. In
> the
> rotating frame, both rays have the same frequency at the source and
> detector.
And they both travel the same distance at the same speed c and you get no
Sagnac effect
> In the non-R frame, one ray is doppler shifted (c+v)/c and the other
> (c-v)/c.
> The travel times are the same.....so the phases are generaly different at
> the
> detector.
That makes no sense then .. either the light is in phase, or its not .. yo
uare claiming it is both
> My animation illustrates this....but you can't see it.
> I emphasise again that the two path lengths ARE NOT the same in the
> rotating
> frame...as has always been wrongly assumed.
But they are .. it goes 360 degrees around the path from the source back to
the source (where the detector is.
Gees you're dumb
[snip more babbling by Henri who doesn't even appear to know how Sagnac is
constructed]
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
>
>But nobody else does, if by "ballistic theory" one means:
> a) the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which
> the source is at rest, and one uses Galilean relativity
> to compute its speed in other frames.
> b) Snell's law applies to mirrors and transparent media in
> their rest frame, and for moving media or mirrors one uses
> Galilean relativity to compute the light's speed in other
> frames.
>
>So please describe how ballistic theory "explains" the Sagnac results
>for both a fiber-optic gyroscope
I'll have to pass on that one for now.
>and a 4-mirror rotating Sagnac interferometer.
I can help you there.
Suppose you have a table with 4 mirrors ABC and D
| B
|
|
|
|
|
--------X------------ o ----------- C -----------
|
|
|
|
|
| D
|
Light is emitted towards both B and D when A is at X. Clearly if the
table is stationary it will reach B and D simultaneously.
Now let us rotate the table CW. Light is emitted towards both B and D
when A is at X and X is moving vertically up the page at periferal speed
v. We will be considering what happens from the PoV of the inertial FoR
in which the light is emitted X. In this FoR the table is moving down
the page at v while rotating about o.
|
|
|
|
| B
| B'
|
--------X-A'--------------------------------------
|
|
A o C
|
|
| C'
|
| D'
| D
In X's FoR the light spreads out in a circle centred X until it reaches
D' - shown above.
It has not yet reached B' as X-B' is greater than X-D'. This asymmetry
is multiplied x4 around the loop resulting in a a difference in time of
arrival of the two waves.
Note that in the FoR of X - the inertial FoR in which the light was
emitted - Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
that light travels at c away from the source so both theories *must*
predict the same result.
May I say that you were perfectly capable of working that out for
yourself had you not been blinded by prejudice.
--
John Kennaugh
Jeckyl
Yeup
> Now let us rotate the table CW. Light is emitted towards both B and D
> when A is at X and X is moving vertically up the page at periferal speed
> v. We will be considering what happens from the PoV of the inertial FoR
> in which the light is emitted X. In this FoR the table is moving down
> the page at v while rotating about o.
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | B
> | B'
> |
> --------X-A'--------------------------------------
> |
> |
> A o C
> |
> |
> | C'
> |
> | D'
> | D
>
>
> In X's FoR the light spreads out in a circle centred X until it reaches
> D' - shown above.
> It has not yet reached B' as X-B' is greater than X-D'.
You are here assuming SR .. not ballistic theory. SR agrees with what you
say because light travels at c in both directions from the moving source A
that was at point X when the light in question was emitted. Ballistic
theory says that the light travels at different speed in the tationary
inertial frame (which is what you are using) because its source A has a
velocity v and the time of emission .. so the light travels at c+v and c-v.
That is why ballistic theories say that light arrives at mirros B and D at
teh SAME time. SR says no.
You've just nicely shown how SR explains Sagnac and emission theories fail.
Well done. Thanks for doing the work for us
May I say the you would have realised that yourself had not been blinded by
prejudice.
harry
OK - that's correct in an inertial frame that is co-moving with X'
> It has not yet reached B' as X-B' is greater than X-D'. This asymmetry
> is multiplied x4 around the loop resulting in a a difference in time of
> arrival of the two waves.
Good try! :-)
I'm afraid that it's *not* good *enough* though: it's too qualitative.
Certainly the inequality has to do with the placement of the mirrors (just
put mirrors above and below X), while in SRT that placement is irrelevant.
In other words, I expect an accurate analysis to NOT yield the same results
as Sagnac. Note: hasn't this already been discussed in the past in this
group, in reaction to postings by Androcles?
> Note that in the FoR of X - the inertial FoR in which the light was
> emitted - Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
> that light travels at c away from the source so both theories *must*
> predict the same result.
That's all too simple, and thus not really correct: In SR, the light can be
taken as travelling at c away from the source, but next it does NOT travel
at c away from the mirror (except if one does a Lorentz transformation to
the rest frame of the mirror). Thus it is *highly unlikely* that both
theories would postdict the same result.
> May I say that you were perfectly capable of working that out for
> yourself had you not been blinded by prejudice.
That analysis was not good enough, and thus also your assertion.
Regards,
Harald
Androcles
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w94O3oDS...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
: >John Kennaugh wrote:
: >> Jeckyl wrote:
: >>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
: >> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
: >> I know how ballistic theory explains it
: >
: >But nobody else does, if by "ballistic theory" one means:
: > a) the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which
: > the source is at rest, and one uses Galilean relativity
: > to compute its speed in other frames.
: > b) Snell's law applies to mirrors and transparent media in
: > their rest frame, and for moving media or mirrors one uses
: > Galilean relativity to compute the light's speed in other
: > frames.
: >
: >So please describe how ballistic theory "explains" the Sagnac results
: >for both a fiber-optic gyroscope
:
: I'll have to pass on that one for now.
So please describe how SR theory "explains" the Sagnac results
for a fiber-optic gyroscope.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:pj3fm3lbpg767fs31...@4ax.com...
Wilson, Wilson, you are making the same mistake as a lot of other people
over the years - have consistently made.
Let the fucking clown prove his SR using fibre optics, because no way in
hell can that be Einstein's empty space. The speed of light in the fibre is
constant and therefore c+v, c-v in the stationary frame.
"That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1v...@4ax.com.
It's called giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
You should know all about that, you've been dangling for ages.
Roberts is right about one thing.
You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I've been in Britain 4.75 years while you've gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER"
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
"There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."
news:ctb7l3lhh3vmq9b0s...@4ax.com
"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
news:1193906355.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com
"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news:pllli3puamdqd70qn...@4ax.com
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs...@4ax.com
"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS
THE
SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson
news:920ni31ul6rb833qr...@4ax.com
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
news:q21vi3lmjhp5s9pkc...@4ax.com...
"That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1v...@4ax.com.
"There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and
the detector" -- Wilson
news:8no1j39qhu9tk2nqg...@4ax.com
"<plonk>" -- Wilson (faced with his own words)
news:gci9j3lf66t9d1j9i...@4ax.com
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1197982...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
:
: "John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
HAHAHAHA!
: Certainly the inequality has to do with the placement of the mirrors (just
: put mirrors above and below X), while in SRT that placement is irrelevant.
Oh, well, in that case turn them backwards.
This is how it works:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
This is why it works:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
This is why it disproves crackpot SR:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
You lose, bubble brain.
Tom Roberts
> On Dec 18, 06:36, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> You even claim that
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>>> Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
>>> discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
>>> structure of the world is not continuous."
>>
>> relationship to the words preceding it.
>
> Then let me show your whole statement:
I repeat: YOU CANNOT READ. The statement above begins "There's no need
...", but your attempt to quote my "whole statement" does not include
those words. You COMPLETELY missed my point. BOTH TIMES.
Grow up. Learn to read.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: > sci.physics.relativity:
: >> John Kennaugh wrote:
: >>> Jeckyl wrote:
: >>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
: >>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
: >>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
: >> But nobody else does.....
: >
: > YOU do Roberts Roberts.
:
: Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
As the bigot he is, Humpty Roberts is willfully ignorant and refuses
to study anything that disagrees with his religious-like faith in the
Prophet Einstein.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>>John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
>>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
>>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
>>
>>But nobody else does, if by "ballistic theory" one means:
>> a) the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which
>> the source is at rest, and one uses Galilean relativity
>> to compute its speed in other frames.
>> b) Snell's law applies to mirrors and transparent media in
>> their rest frame, and for moving media or mirrors one uses
>> Galilean relativity to compute the light's speed in other
>> frames.
>>
>>So please describe how ballistic theory "explains" the Sagnac results
>>for both a fiber-optic gyroscope
>
>I'll have to pass on that one for now.
John, the BaTh explanation of a ring gyro Sagnac is extremely simple. Why don't
you try to follow what I have said?
In fact, the BaTh analysis using the ROTATING RAME is virtually the same as the
SR one using the NON-R frame.
If you refer again to the ring diagram in:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm.....
In the non-rotating frame, the startpoint is at rest and the source/detector
moves a distance vt.
In the rotating frame, the source/detector is at rest and the startpoint moves
a distance -vt.
(this is the crucial factor that Roberts and Co have missed. They have always
claimed that both path lengths are the same. They are not)
SR says both rays move at c wrt the non-rotating frame. Their path lengths
differ by 2vt....etc...
BaTh says both rays move at c wrt the rotating frame. Their path lengths differ
by 2vt....etc.....
Unfortunately for SR, it claims that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the
source when viewed in the NON-ROTATING FRAME but c wrt the source when viewed
in the ROTATING frame.
BaTh correctly says the rays move at c wrt the source in both frames.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Just look at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
...and stop all this stupid arguing.....
>Regards,
>Harald
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
John Kennaugh
In the inertial FoR in which the light is emitted both theories say
exactly the same. If you do not appreciate that then you have not
understood ballistic theory.
> SR agrees with what you
>say because light travels at c in both directions from the moving source A
>that was at point X when the light in question was emitted.
Correct
> Ballistic
>theory says that the light travels at different speed in the tationary
>inertial frame (which is what you are using)
I am using the inertial FoR in which the light is emitted. The inertial
FoR in which the source is *stationary* at the time the light is
emitted. That is why the *table* is moving down the page at v.
> because its source A has a
>velocity v and the time of emission
No it is zero in the FoR I am using.
>.. so the light travels at c+v and c-v.
So the light travels at c in that FoR in all directions. It is the
logical FoR to use for analysis for both SR and Ballistic theory because
that is the FoR in which the light is emitted and in the FoR in which
the light is emitted both theories say exactly the same thing.
>That is why ballistic theories say that light arrives at mirros B and D at
>teh SAME time.
> SR says no.
>
>You've just nicely shown how SR explains Sagnac and emission theories fail.
>
>Well done. Thanks for doing the work for us
>
>May I say the you would have realised that yourself had not been blinded by
>prejudice.
>
>
>
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
Is that aimed at me or Tomb Robber?
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
Why? You will have to explain that.
> while in SRT that placement is irrelevant.
You will have to explain that too.
>In other words, I expect an accurate analysis to NOT yield the same results
>as Sagnac.
On the contrary the statement was that Sagnac refutes Ballistic theory.
Prove it. Do a full analysis of both. You cannot claim an experiment
refutes a theory when you have never analysed whether it does or it
doesn't. You are the one making the claims not me.
I'm not claiming it refutes SR. I don't have a claim to substantiate. My
experience is that SR and ballistic theory 'in the vast quantity of
phenomena' give the same results as Fox and Waldron both found. As
Sagnac predates their work they will both have looked into it in greater
depth than I have.
> Note: hasn't this already been discussed in the past in this
>group, in reaction to postings by Androcles?
I have not been involved in such a discussion. I do not know what
Androcles argues.
>
>> Note that in the FoR of X - the inertial FoR in which the light was
>> emitted - Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
>> that light travels at c away from the source so both theories *must*
>> predict the same result.
>
>That's all too simple,
> and thus not really correct:
It is so simple you can't fault it.
>In SR, the light can be
>taken as travelling at c away from the source, but next it does NOT travel
>at c away from the mirror
It does if you change the FoR to that of the mirror and there is no
reason why you can't. Note that in the Sagnac experiment there is no
relative motion between any of the parts of the apparatus hence there
cannot be any relativistic effects i.e there cannot be any effects
specific to SR.
>(except if one does a Lorentz transformation to
>the rest frame of the mirror). Thus it is *highly unlikely* that both
>theories would postdict the same result.
>
>> May I say that you were perfectly capable of working that out for
>> yourself had you not been blinded by prejudice.
>
>That analysis was not good enough, and thus also your assertion.
>
>Regards,
>Harald
>
>
--
John Kennaugh
Jeckyl
> Wilson, Wilson, you are making the same mistake as a lot of other people
> over the years - have consistently made.
> Let the fucking clown prove his SR using fibre optics, because no way in
> hell can that be Einstein's empty space. The speed of light in the fibre
> is
> constant and therefore c+v, c-v in the stationary frame.
No .. it is c in the stationary frame .. dumbass
You just don't understand the physics.. yet you have the hide to comment on
it .. the hallmarks of a true idiot.
Jeckyl
> Oh, well, in that case turn them backwards.
>
> This is how it works:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
> This is why it works:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
> This is why it disproves crackpot SR:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
>
> You lose, bubble brain.
No .. your animation though pretty are not relevant .. you can do an
animation to show anything you like.
SR correctly explains Sagnac
LET correctly explains Sagnac
Ballistic theories do not .. Sagnac refutes ballistic theories.
Its very clear and straightforward. There is no ballistic theory
explanation of Sagnac, because in ballistic theory you can look at Sagnac
experiment from the rotating frame, in which the source and detector are
(effectively) at the same fixed location, and so the path length in the
rotating frame is the same in both directions .. ballistic theory says the
speed of light emitted is c relative to the source in both directions .. so
the time take to travel is the same in both directions .. and there is no
Doppler effect because the source and detector are commoving (stationary in
the rotating frame). So no Sagnac effect.
That there IS a sagnac effect shows the ballistic theory is wrong. And is
rightly refuted and discarded.
Jeckyl
> As the bigot he is, Humpty Roberts is willfully ignorant and refuses
> to study anything that disagrees with his religious-like faith in the
> Prophet Einstein.
And you refuse to accept experimental evidence that refutes those
alternatives to Einstein .. you are blinded by your faith, and not at all a
scientist.
Jeckyl
No .. they do not. Because the source is moving.
> If you do not appreciate that then you have not understood ballistic
> theory.
No .. it is you who do not undestand Sagnac.
Go and read up on it.
Jeckyl
> If you refer again to the ring diagram in:
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm.....
>
> In the non-rotating frame, the startpoint is at rest and the
> source/detector
> moves a distance vt.
The source moves .. so that means the start point moves.
> In the rotating frame, the source/detector is at rest and the startpoint
> moves
> a distance -vt.
No .. the source IS the starting point.. if the source is moving, so is the
starting point.
> (this is the crucial factor that Roberts and Co have missed. They have
> always
> claimed that both path lengths are the same. They are not)
Yes .. they are.
There is a MOVING SOURCE in the inertial frame and a STATIONARY SOURCE in
the rotating frame.
BaTh would then predict that the velocities are DIFFERNET in the moving
frame, and the SAME in the rotating frame.
In the rotating frame the disance from source to detector is the SAME in
both directions.
> SR says both rays move at c wrt the non-rotating frame. Their path lengths
> differ by 2vt....etc...
Yes
> BaTh says both rays move at c wrt the rotating frame. Their path lengths
> differ
> by 2vt....etc.....
No .. their path lengths do not differ .. because they travel around the
path from source back to detector .. and the source and detector are at rest
in the non-rotating frame. So it is one complete circuit for both 'beams'
of light.
> Unfortunately for SR, it claims that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the
> source when viewed in the NON-ROTATING FRAME but c wrt the source when
> viewed
> in the ROTATING frame.
No .. that is the exact OPPOSITE of what SR claims. THAT is what ballistic
theories claim
> BaTh correctly says the rays move at c wrt the source in both frames.
No .. it does not .. and that is patently contrary to what any ballistic
theory says .. as it implies the that speed of the SAME light is c in two
moving frames.. so therefore the spped of light is source indpendant, which
is toatlly against ballistic theory claims.
You don't even know your own theories. So sad
Jeckyl
> ...and stop all this stupid arguing.....
Yes .. it is very clear the SR explains Sagnac and ballistic theories do
not. We'd all appreciate no more stupid arguing from ignorant trolls like
you.
Jeckyl
> On the contrary the statement was that Sagnac refutes Ballistic theory.
> Prove it. Do a full analysis of both
Already done
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
[snip ranting from ignorant Kennaugh]
> I'm not claiming it refutes SR. I don't have a claim to substantiate. My
> experience is that SR and ballistic theory 'in the vast quantity of
> phenomena' give the same results as Fox and Waldron both found.
Yes .. they do .. but not in the case of Sagnac, which clearly refutes
ballistic theory.
> As Sagnac predates their work they will both have looked into it in
> greater depth than I have.
>>In SR, the light can be
>>taken as travelling at c away from the source, but next it does NOT travel
>>at c away from the mirror
>
> It does if you change the FoR to that of the mirror and there is no reason
> why you can't.
Yes there is .. it is not an inertial frame of refernce.
> Note that in the Sagnac experiment there is no relative motion between any
> of the parts of the apparatus hence there cannot be any relativistic
> effects i.e there cannot be any effects specific to SR.
It doesn't need relativistic effects, like time dilation and length
contraction .. everything is moving so slowly such effects woud be
undetectable. The only things about SR that is needed is the constant speed
of light, independant of the speed of the source, in an inertial frame of
reference.
Ballistic theory does not have that .. and that is why it predicts a null
results and no Sagnac effect.
Androcles
Humpty Roberts, of course. You have the necessary modicum of
sense but lack the aggressive stance to take him on. He knows full
well not to challenge me, I carve him up for arse-paper simply by
throwing his own words back in his face. He's troll, all troll and
nothing but the troll. Once a year he'll have a stab at me and gets
bitten every time. He won't respond.
John, Sagnac's experiment is isomorphic to Einstein's thought
experiment. It is the real thing vs the dream.
You'll find Einstein's dream embedded in this ridiculous "explanation"
of Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
This is the isomorphism:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
In Einstein's craziness the model is the rack. That's where all the talk
of "inertial frame" comes from. In Sagnac, the model is the gear. What is
true for one is true for the other. If you can DERIVE the cuckoo
malformations from Sagnac then you have Einstein's relativity, but
Catch 22 will stop you every time.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
>news:%LQ9j.73025$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Oh, well, in that case turn them backwards.
>>
>> This is how it works:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
>> This is why it works:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
>> This is why it disproves crackpot SR:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
>>
>> You lose, bubble brain.
>
>No .. your animation though pretty are not relevant .. you can do an
>animation to show anything you like.
>
>SR correctly explains Sagnac
>LET correctly explains Sagnac
>Ballistic theories do not .. Sagnac refutes ballistic theories.
>
>Its very clear and straightforward. There is no ballistic theory
>explanation of Sagnac, because in ballistic theory you can look at Sagnac
>experiment from the rotating frame, in which the source and detector are
>(effectively) at the same fixed location, and so the path length in the
>rotating frame is the same in both directions ..
NO IT ISN'T, YOU DUMB FOOL.
In the rotating frame, the STARTPOINT moves backwards by vt during the travel
time around the ring. The path lengths are clearly different.....but this is
far too hard for anyone stupid enough to support Einstein's relativity.
>ballistic theory says the
>speed of light emitted is c relative to the source in both directions .. so
>the time take to travel is the same in both directions .. and there is no
>Doppler effect because the source and detector are commoving (stationary in
>the rotating frame). So no Sagnac effect.
>
>That there IS a sagnac effect shows the ballistic theory is wrong. And is
>rightly refuted and discarded.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
You're so full of yourself .. and so pathetic .. are you under treatment for
your delusions?
> John, Sagnac's experiment is isomorphic to Einstein's thought
> experiment. It is the real thing vs the dream.
> You'll find Einstein's dream embedded in this ridiculous "explanation"
> of Sagnac.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
Any explanation by you is indeed ridiculous. Sagnac is preedicted by SR's
constancy of the speed of light, and refutes the ballistic theories that say
the speed of light is source dependant. Its a very simple
[snip more repeated crap from Androcles]
Gees you post volumes of crap here. If you weren't so full of shit I'd
wonder where you get it all form.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:urbgm3p0ivicqlum2...@4ax.com...
>> If you refer again to the ring diagram in:
>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm.....
>>
>> In the non-rotating frame, the startpoint is at rest and the
>> source/detector
>> moves a distance vt.
>
>The source moves .. so that means the start point moves.
The startpoint is fixed in the non-rotating frame. The startpoint is not the
detection point.
Even SR gets that right.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Anything stationary in the nonrotating frame is MOVING IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH ANY KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS.
>
>> In the rotating frame, the source/detector is at rest and the startpoint
>> moves
>> a distance -vt.
>
>No .. the source IS the starting point.. if the source is moving, so is the
>starting point.
Each 'photon' is emitted at a stationary point in the non rotating frame.
When it reaches the detector, the latter has moved to another stationary point
a distance vt away from the startpoint.
>
>> (this is the crucial factor that Roberts and Co have missed. They have
>> always
>> claimed that both path lengths are the same. They are not)
>
>Yes .. they are.
>
>There is a MOVING SOURCE in the inertial frame and a STATIONARY SOURCE in
>the rotating frame.
>
>BaTh would then predict that the velocities are DIFFERNET in the moving
>frame, and the SAME in the rotating frame.
>
>In the rotating frame the disance from source to detector is the SAME in
>both directions.
the 'source' is not the startpoint, dummy.
The distance from startpoint to detector is 2piR+vt.
Even SR gets that right. Do you want to argue with SR?
>> SR says both rays move at c wrt the non-rotating frame. Their path lengths
>> differ by 2vt....etc...
>
>Yes
>
>> BaTh says both rays move at c wrt the rotating frame. Their path lengths
>> differ
>> by 2vt....etc.....
>
>No .. their path lengths do not differ .. because they travel around the
>path from source back to detector .. and the source and detector are at rest
>in the non-rotating frame.
You got that wrong....like everything else....I gather you meant the 'rotating
frame'.
>So it is one complete circuit for both 'beams'
>of light.
plus and minus vt.
>
>> Unfortunately for SR, it claims that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the
>> source when viewed in the NON-ROTATING FRAME but c wrt the source when
>> viewed
>> in the ROTATING frame.
>
>No .. that is the exact OPPOSITE of what SR claims. THAT is what ballistic
>theories claim
>
>> BaTh correctly says the rays move at c wrt the source in both frames.
>
>No .. it does not .. and that is patently contrary to what any ballistic
>theory says .. as it implies the that speed of the SAME light is c in two
>moving frames.. so therefore the spped of light is source indpendant, which
>is toatlly against ballistic theory claims.
>
>You don't even know your own theories. So sad
You are a moron. I feel very sorry for you.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:52:50 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
>>news:%LQ9j.73025$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Oh, well, in that case turn them backwards.
>>>
>>> This is how it works:
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
>>> This is why it works:
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
>>> This is why it disproves crackpot SR:
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
>>>
>>> You lose, bubble brain.
>>
>>No .. your animation though pretty are not relevant .. you can do an
>>animation to show anything you like.
>>
>>SR correctly explains Sagnac
>>LET correctly explains Sagnac
>>Ballistic theories do not .. Sagnac refutes ballistic theories.
>>
>>Its very clear and straightforward. There is no ballistic theory
>>explanation of Sagnac, because in ballistic theory you can look at Sagnac
>>experiment from the rotating frame, in which the source and detector are
>>(effectively) at the same fixed location, and so the path length in the
>>rotating frame is the same in both directions ..
>
> NO IT ISN'T, YOU DUMB FOOL.
yes it is .. jsut because you are ignorant of the facts and the theory
doesn't mean they are wrong.
> In the rotating frame, the STARTPOINT moves backwards by vt during the
> travel
> time around the ring.
No .. it doesn't. Do you even know how Sagnac is constructed? Do you know
that hte source is FIXED relative to the rotating frame. It does NOT move
in the rotating frame AT ALL?
> The path lengths are clearly different.....
Anyone who looked at the diagram for a Sagnac experiment (or the aparratus
itself) can see it clearly. In a typical case, loking wrt the rotating
frame, Sagnac has a stationary source/detector and three stationary mirrors
forming a square .. one light ray travels clockwise along the square path,
and the other counter-clockwise, both returning to the same point .. the
length is blatantly obviously the same. That you claim you cannot see this
speaks volumes about your complete incoptence and/or lack of integrity
> but this is
> far too hard for anyone stupid enough to support Einstein's relativity.
You're beyond hope .. truly. You have obviously never studied physics.
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:59:56 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:urbgm3p0ivicqlum2...@4ax.com...
>>> If you refer again to the ring diagram in:
>>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm.....
>>>
>>> In the non-rotating frame, the startpoint is at rest and the
>>> source/detector
>>> moves a distance vt.
>>
>>The source moves .. so that means the start point moves.
>
> The startpoint is fixed in the non-rotating frame. The startpoint is not
> the
> detection point.
Yes .. it is, for the correct analysis. If you want to be technical, a
single beam of light travels to a splitter, the light splits and goes around
identical but opposite paths back to the starting point at the splitter,
then the phase difference is detected after the light paths are rejoined.
The combined beam travelling from a physical source (that is stationary in
the rotating frame) to the splitter, and the re-combined beam travelling
from the point where the beams re-combine to a physical detector are not
relevant to the analysis of the experiment itself. The interesting stuff
happens between when the beam is split and when it rejoins .. thay are the
same fixed points relative ot the rotating frame.
> Even SR gets that right.
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Yes .. and you see there that the start and end points ARE THE SAME POINT IN
THE ROTATING FRAME . That is crucial to how Sagnac works. You really are a
complete an utter fool if you do not understand that
> Anything stationary in the nonrotating frame is MOVING IN THE ROTATING
> FRAME.
That's right. The source and detector are both stationary in the rotating
frame, and both co-moving in the non-rotating frame
> THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH ANY KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS.
I'm not claiming otherwise .. neither is anyone else .. are you?
>>> In the rotating frame, the source/detector is at rest and the startpoint
>>> moves
>>> a distance -vt.
>>No .. the source IS the starting point.. if the source is moving, so is
>>the
>>starting point.
> Each 'photon' is emitted at a stationary point in the non rotating frame.
No .. it is emitted from a stationary point in the ROTATING frame .. it
should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of physics that that means it
is a moving point in the non-rotating frame.
> When it reaches the detector, the latter has moved to another stationary
> point
> a distance vt away from the startpoint.
No .. neither the source nor the detector move anywhere in the rotating
frame. They are stationary in it. They are both a fixed part of the
rotating aparatus, as are the mirrors. As the aparatus as a whole is
moving, the source and detector are also moving, as are the mirrors, in the
inertial non-rotating frame of reference
>>> (this is the crucial factor that Roberts and Co have missed. They have
>>> always
>>> claimed that both path lengths are the same. They are not)
>>Yes .. they are.
>>There is a MOVING SOURCE in the inertial frame and a STATIONARY SOURCE in
>>the rotating frame.
>>BaTh would then predict that the velocities are DIFFERNET in the moving
>>frame, and the SAME in the rotating frame.
>>In the rotating frame the disance from source to detector is the SAME in
>>both directions.
> the 'source' is not the startpoint, dummy.
Of course it is, you damned fool .. why else do you think it is called a
source?
> The distance from startpoint to detector is 2piR+vt.
In the inertial frame .. yes.
> Even SR gets that right. Do you want to argue with SR?
No .. I'm not as suptid as you
>>> SR says both rays move at c wrt the non-rotating frame. Their path
>>> lengths
>>> differ by 2vt....etc...
>>Yes
>>> BaTh says both rays move at c wrt the rotating frame. Their path lengths
>>> differ
>>> by 2vt....etc.....
>>No .. their path lengths do not differ .. because they travel around the
>>path from source back to detector .. and the source and detector are at
>>rest
>>in the non-rotating frame.
> You got that wrong....like everything else....I gather you meant the
> 'rotating
> frame'.
Yes .. that was a typo .. they happen occasionally. The source and detector
are at rest in the ROTATING frame as I have said previously and since.
>>So it is one complete circuit for both 'beams'
>>of light.
> plus and minus vt.
No .. because they are at rest in the rotating frame. You just don't even
underastnd how the experiemtn is set up . let alone have the brains to
analyse it
>>> Unfortunately for SR, it claims that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt
>>> the
>>> source when viewed in the NON-ROTATING FRAME but c wrt the source when
>>> viewed
>>> in the ROTATING frame.
>>No .. that is the exact OPPOSITE of what SR claims. THAT is what
>>ballistic
>>theories claim
>>> BaTh correctly says the rays move at c wrt the source in both frames.
>>No .. it does not .. and that is patently contrary to what any ballistic
>>theory says .. as it implies the that speed of the SAME light is c in two
>>moving frames.. so therefore the spped of light is source indpendant,
>>which
>>is toatlly against ballistic theory claims.
>>You don't even know your own theories. So sad
> You are a moron. I feel very sorry for you.
You are the moron .. I don't feel sorry for you at all
Tom Roberts
> In the rotating frame, the STARTPOINT moves backwards by vt during the travel
> time around the ring.
This is just plain wrong. In the rotating frame the source/detector does
not move, because both source and detector are fixed on the rotating
table, at the same place on the rotating table.
> The path lengths are clearly different.
Not in the rotating frame. In the rotating frame the path lengths for
both rays are clearly identical, and unchanging.
You MUST get the physical situation correct before you have any hope at
all of understanding what it happening.
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
That is making the rather large assumption that he WANTS to understand it.
He probably knows that if he let himself understand it, he would then have
to admit he was wrong. Some people just can't face that and would prefer to
live a lie. The problem is, he's trying to convince others, who may not
know better, to live his lie as well .. that is a sad and dangerous thing to
do. Hopefully susceptible minds won't believe the crap he posts.
Pentcho Valev
Your point?!? Criminal Einsteinians have points?!? Don't be ridiculous
Roberts Roberts. Criminal Einsteinians do not have any points; they
just desperately defend their money-spinner. Let me illustrate this:
A point (right or wrong):
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Criminal Einsteinians' desperate defence:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."
Roberts Roberts would you refer to your idiotic defence of special
relativity (special relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in
vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform") as "point"?!?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
harry
To elaborate: If you put mirrors closely above and below X, the difference
becomes more than proportionally less. That's probably the reason why you
didn't answer the case of the glassfibre type of Sagnac interferometer.
>> while in SRT that placement is irrelevant.
>
> You will have to explain that too.
See above: in SRT the round path is important, not the placement of
individual elements.
>>In other words, I expect an accurate analysis to NOT yield the same
>>results
>>as Sagnac.
>
> On the contrary the statement was that Sagnac refutes Ballistic theory.
> Prove it. Do a full analysis of both.
The OP claims that Sagnac refutes Ballistic theory. You claim that that's
wrong. It's for you and him to prove your claims. I simply showed to here
above as well as here below you that your analysis is insufficient to prove
anything.
> You cannot claim an experiment refutes a theory when you have never
> analysed whether it does or it doesn't. You are the one making the claims
> not me.
Not true on two accounts. I expressed my expectation while you made the
following strong claims:
"Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
that light travels at c away from the source so both theories *must*
predict the same result."
and
"blinded by prejudice"
> I'm not claiming it refutes SR.
Indeed, and who thinks that you do??
> I don't have a claim to substantiate. My experience is that SR and
> ballistic theory 'in the vast quantity of phenomena' give the same results
> as Fox and Waldron both found. As Sagnac predates their work they will
> both have looked into it in greater depth than I have.
That's what I thought too; but apparently they skipped the issue.
>> Note: hasn't this already been discussed in the past in this
>>group, in reaction to postings by Androcles?
>
> I have not been involved in such a discussion. I do not know what
> Androcles argues.
Check the archives, in response there were quite some analyses from others
about Sagnac and ballistic theory.
>>> Note that in the FoR of X - the inertial FoR in which the light was
>>> emitted - Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
>>> that light travels at c away from the source so both theories *must*
>>> predict the same result.
>>
>>That's all too simple,
>> and thus not really correct:
>
> It is so simple you can't fault it.
I did, here below. I have the very strong feeling that you reply before
reading on and then forget to delete afterwards...
>>In SR, the light can be
>>taken as travelling at c away from the source, but next it does NOT travel
>>at c away from the mirror
>
> It does if you change the FoR to that of the mirror and there is no reason
> why you can't.
See below (that's REALLY annoying!)
> Note that in the Sagnac experiment there is no relative motion between any
> of the parts of the apparatus hence there cannot be any relativistic
> effects i.e there cannot be any effects specific to SR.
There is relative motion between all parts relative to any inertial frame.
Thus you unmistakenly misunderstand SRT.
>>(except if one does a Lorentz transformation to
>>the rest frame of the mirror).
Oops - that should have been "the inertial frame that is momentarily
co-moving with the rest frame of the mirror", sorry. That's usually
understood, but from the above, it's evidently not understood by you.
>> Thus it is *highly unlikely* that both
>>theories would postdict the same result.
And?? What is according to you the equivalence between a Lorentz
transformation and a Galilean transformation as in ballistic theory?
>>> May I say that you were perfectly capable of working that out for
>>> yourself had you not been blinded by prejudice.
>>
>>That analysis was not good enough, and thus also your assertion.
Harald
Sue...
wrote:
[...]
> The OP claims that Sagnac refutes Ballistic theory. You claim that that's
> wrong. It's for you and him to prove your claims. I simply showed to here
> above as well as here below you that your analysis is insufficient to prove
> anything.
>
> > You cannot claim an experiment refutes a theory when you have never
> > analysed whether it does or it doesn't. You are the one making the claims
> > not me.
>
> Not true on two accounts. I expressed my expectation while you made the
> following strong claims:
>
> "Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
> that light travels at c away from the source so both theories *must*
> predict the same result."
I think you are right, Harald. Even in the 1920 paper, Einstein
prefers fiddling clocks to an Ewald-Oseen extinction.
So the equations only work in the nearfield where clocks
have to be fiddled anyway.
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
What is an Extinction Shift?
http://www.extinctionshift.com/details.htm
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html
Sue...
[...]
> Harald-
Jerry
wrote:
> "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > I don't have a claim to substantiate. My experience is that
> > SR and ballistic theory 'in the vast quantity of phenomena'
> > give the same results as Fox and Waldron both found.
Not true, but the above was not Fox's claim. Fox's claim was
that, before 1965, the vast majority of measurements demonstrating
constancy of the speed of light were invalidated by not having
taken properly into account the phenomenon of "extinction".
I am not familiar with Waldron's claims. In any event, John Fox
himself, in collaboration with Filippas, conducted an experiment
taking into account extinction, and found the speed of light from
moving sources to be c. All measurements performed subsequent to
Fox's paper have taken extinction into account, and have found
c not to be affected by motion of the source.
A few of the experiments may be found here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/
> > As Sagnac predates their work they will both have looked
> > into it in greater depth than I have.
>
> That's what I thought too; but apparently they skipped the issue.
Since Sagnac conducted his experiment in atmosphere, it could
theoretically be critiqued on the basis of the extinction argument.
Of course, fibre optic gyros also work, invalidating the entire
extinction argument...
Jerry
Jeckyl
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:5f957c4e-76c2-42ab...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Another off-topic reply by Sue , doing her
copy-and-paste-to-appear-intelligent trick again.
Sue...
A vacuum interprtation has been more than critiqued.
It has been ignored at the Wetzell facility.
Helium-neon dielectric sloshes around where
the vacuum paths at Christchurch make barely
detectable signals.
http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/CII/precise.htm
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml
Not surprisingly, a massive child will be flung from
a fast carousel, the massless beam of a flashlight
will not.
Sue...
Jeckyl
What the fuck are you rambling on about now?
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:ec1d3ccd-c41a-4fb1...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 4:34 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Since Sagnac conducted his experiment in atmosphere, it could
> >> theoretically be critiqued on the basis of the extinction argument.
>
> > A vacuum interprtation has been more than critiqued.
> > It has been ignored at the Wetzell facility.
> > Helium-neon dielectric sloshes around where
> > the vacuum paths at Christchurch make barely
> > detectable signals.
>
http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/CII/precise.htm
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3806
>
> > Not surprisingly, a massive child will be flung from
> > a fast carousel, the massless beam of a flashlight
> > will not.
>
> What the fuck are you rambling on about now?- Hide quoted text
Dr. Who is quite a well loved chap. Why do think he
needs a KKKlansman to burn crosses in the yards of
infiedels and non-belivers?
Sue...
-
>
> - Show quoted text -
takecool
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> Similarly:
>
> THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
> c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
> theory of light.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The mathematical arguments that refute derivation of E=mc2
( Sep 1905, Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).)
can be found at
www.AjayOnLine.us
The arguments are published in international journals and conferences.
If someone needs the copy of book
Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized
can be sent if required for observations.
Book is available at
www.amazon.com.
visit for details
Jeckyl
Again, Sue ahs nothing to say, and replies anyway. Sad.
Denis Feldmann
> On Dec 6, 5:26 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
>> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
>> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
>> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
>> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
>> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
>> POSTULATE."
>>
>> Similarly:
>>
>> THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
>> OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>>
>> Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
>> c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
>> which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
>> theory of light.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>> pva...@yahoo.com
> The mathematical arguments that refute derivation of E=mc2
You mean E=mc^3 ?
Or taht the proof is not a mathematical one (hint : it coumld not be, as
"Energy" is not a mathématical notion
> ( Sep 1905, Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).)
> can be found at
>
> www.AjayOnLine.us
> The arguments are published in international journals and conferences.
Good for you. So is the whole of Usenet...
[*plonk*]
> If someone needs the copy of book
>
> Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized
No, thanks
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:52:50 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
:
: >"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
: >news:%LQ9j.73025$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >> Oh, well, in that case turn them backwards.
: >>
: >> This is how it works:
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
: >> This is why it works:
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
: >> This is why it disproves crackpot SR:
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
: >>
: >> You lose, bubble brain.
: >
: >No .. your animation though pretty are not relevant .. you can do an
: >animation to show anything you like.
: >
: >SR correctly explains Sagnac
: >LET correctly explains Sagnac
: >Ballistic theories do not .. Sagnac refutes ballistic theories.
: >
: >Its very clear and straightforward. There is no ballistic theory
: >explanation of Sagnac, because in ballistic theory you can look at Sagnac
: >experiment from the rotating frame, in which the source and detector are
: >(effectively) at the same fixed location, and so the path length in the
: >rotating frame is the same in both directions ..
:
: NO IT ISN'T, YOU DUMB FOOL.
Don't argue with that moron, just kill-file the cunt, he's a troll.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dY1aj.25101$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
: > In the rotating frame, the STARTPOINT moves backwards by vt during the
travel
: > time around the ring.
:
: This is just plain wrong.
YOU are just plain WRONG, Roberts.
Obviously YOU don't understand the Principle of Relativity, Roberts, and
Wilson does. His statement is correct.
John Kennaugh
>On Dec 19, 2:58 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
>wrote:
>> "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> > I don't have a claim to substantiate. My experience is that
>> > SR and ballistic theory 'in the vast quantity of phenomena'
>> > give the same results as Fox and Waldron both found.
>
>Not true, but the above was not Fox's claim.
>Fox's claim was
>that, before 1965, the vast majority of measurements demonstrating
>constancy of the speed of light were invalidated by not having
>taken properly into account the phenomenon of "extinction".
That related specifically to double star evidence. The article "Evidence
Against Emission Theories" critically reviewed all so called evidence
against emission theories Sagnac was part of that so called evidence. In
a letter to
To Fritzius in 1975 Fox wrote:
"Although I believe that experimental evidence is against Ritz's theory,
... it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory."
The fact is that most relativist mistakenly and automatically believe
that a phenomena "described today by relativistic electromagnetic
theory" can only be "described by relativistic electromagnetic theory"
and therefore is evidence against Ballistic theory. This just isn't
true. I am not claiming that there is *no* evidence against
ballistic/emission theory, what I am trying to do is promote a more
balanced view. The truth is that a theory - untouched and undeveloped -
for 60 years still came 'so close to describing correctly the vast
quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic
theory'. That theory was the biggest challenge to relativity and
should be a part of the standard education of physics. The reason it is
not, is that having introduced it you have to explain why it was
rejected. Because Ritz died in 1909 is not a good reason neither is that
experiments performed 60 years after cast severe doubts upon it. There
just isn't a good answer to the question - so best avoid the question.
There is a detailed analysis of Sagnac by A.A.Faraj which concludes:
"It should be clear from this discussion that the Sagnac and related
experiments are more readily handled and explained away by theories
based on variable speed of light including the Emission Theory.
In fact, experiments of the Sagnac type are part of the evidence
against Special Relativity"
http://www.wbabin.net/babin/sagnac.htm
I don't claim he is right. As I say my experience - admittedly limited
is that SR and ballistic theory give the same results, sometimes
unexpectedly.
>I am not familiar with Waldron's claims.
R A Waldron "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light - A Critical
Review", Frederick Muller Ltd., London 1977
Reviewer: Walter G. Hecker
"Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before
learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that A.
Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. Waldron shows with
mathematical accuracy and in excruciating detail, one by one, that all
the so called proofs of Einsteinian relativity (approx. 20) aren't proof
at all but that the experimental and observational results can be just
as well explained with the more pedestrian Ritzian relativity.
Unfortunately the books writing style is extremely dry and the back
referencing to figures and what was said earlier is hard to follow
(References are to sections, but the pages have no section headers). But
he is so detailed and conscientous in his proofs, that its a book worth
having for any 'dissenter' regarding Einsteinian Relativity, special or
general."
Strictly speaking 'emission theory' is Ritz's theory and 'Ballistic
theory' is Waldron's. I am trying to get hold of an article by Waldron
which compares the two.
>In any event, John Fox
>himself, in collaboration with Filippas, conducted an experiment
>taking into account extinction, and found the speed of light from
>moving sources to be c. All measurements performed subsequent to
>Fox's paper have taken extinction into account, and have found
>c not to be affected by motion of the source.
I suspect that Fox felt that there was really not enough evidence
against Ballistic to justify the rejection of it in favour of the far
more complex theory of relativity and has attempted to supply that
evidence. Good for him. That is how science is supposed to work. If
someone wants to put forward that evidence as evidence against ballistic
theory then that would have some point. People who declare that Sagnac
or ANY simple experiment is going to fit the bill are simply ill
informed. Fox was realistic. It is a close run thing.
Having said that when ever experimental evidence 'disproves' a theory
there are three options either abandon the theory or find an error in
the experiment or modify the theory so as to account for the result.
>
>A few of the experiments may be found here:
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/
Thank you I will look at them.
>
>> > As Sagnac predates their work they will both have looked
>> > into it in greater depth than I have.
>>
>> That's what I thought too; but apparently they skipped the issue.
>
>Since Sagnac conducted his experiment in atmosphere, it could
>theoretically be critiqued on the basis of the extinction argument.
I don't believe extinction comes into it
>
>Of course, fibre optic gyros also work, invalidating the entire
>extinction argument...
Hmmm - what do you know about extinction? My understanding is that where
it originates is a well established theory that when light passes from
one medium into one of a different refractive index the 'extinction
length' is the distance into the new medium after which no photon is
still travelling at its original speed. In something like glass that is
microscopic, in air much longer and in outer space about 3 light years.
In an optical fibre, extinction would be almost immediate.
--
John Kennaugh
Androcles
There is no evidence for extinction in the vacuum of space.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
There is very little evidence for close proximity binary stars either.
Yes, there are binary stars, Sirius A and B for example. 8 light years
distant and a 50 year period. But two stars with a period of 70 hours?
Impossible.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
harry
> Jerry wrote:
[...]
>>Of course, fibre optic gyros also work, invalidating the entire
>>extinction argument...
>
> Hmmm - what do you know about extinction? My understanding is that where
> it originates is a well established theory that when light passes from one
> medium into one of a different refractive index the 'extinction
> length' is the distance into the new medium after which no photon is still
> travelling at its original speed. In something like glass that is
> microscopic, in air much longer and in outer space about 3 light years. In
> an optical fibre, extinction would be almost immediate.
That's the point - it seems straightforward that light would travel at
constant speed relative to the fibre. It does not.
Harald
Dono
Jeckyl
No .. it is not. In the rotating frame in Sagnac, the source is fixed. It
doesn't move anywhere.
Gees you guys just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Jeckyl
Talking about yourself again.
The source and detector are firmly fixed to the rotating apparatus . .The
source and detectors are most definitely stationary in the rotating frame.
Don't you guys even know how a Sagnac experiment is constructed?
Jeckyl
Yeup
> If someone wants to put forward that evidence as evidence against
> ballistic theory then that would have some point.
Safnac refutes it. Simply and clearly.
> People who declare that Sagnac or ANY simple experiment is going to fit
> the bill are simply ill informed.
Sagnac very clearly refutes ballistic theories .. any theory where the speed
of light is dependant on the speed of the source.
I have provided links to the page that does a thorough and correct analysis
of Sagnac. Sagnac supports SR and simply ether theories (although the
latter is refuted by MMx). Sagnac refutes ballistic theory (although it
does explain MMX). SR is the only one left standing after you look at MMx
and Sagnac.
That you cannot see that speaks only of your lack of understand and the
limited information you read.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> In the rotating frame, the STARTPOINT moves backwards by vt during the travel
>> time around the ring.
>
>This is just plain wrong. In the rotating frame the source/detector does
>not move, because both source and detector are fixed on the rotating
>table, at the same place on the rotating table.
Tom, consider an iFog wth a circumference of 1 lightsecond. An observer sits at
the source/detector. The iFog rotates at v cms/sec. Adjacent to the ifog is
another ring that is not rotating.
When a particular photon is emitted, the observer places a mark - the
startpoint - on the nonrotating ring. The photon splits into two and moves in
both directions at c wrt the observer.
One second later BOTH photons return, ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The observer again marks the ring adjacent to his position.
It is displaced v cms from the first one.
In other words, during the second the photon was traveling around the ring, the
first mark - THE STARPOINT - moved v cms in the ROTATING FRAME.
The observer knows from this that one photon half has moved a distance of 1
Lightsec + v and the other moved 1 Lightsec - v.
Since they both moved at the same speed, and were emitted in phase, it is
obvious that they were out of phase upon arrival.
The fringe displacement of the gyro is proportional to the distance 2v.
>> The path lengths are clearly different.
>
>Not in the rotating frame. In the rotating frame the path lengths for
>both rays are clearly identical, and unchanging.
Really Tom, this is not like you.
>You MUST get the physical situation correct before you have any hope at
>all of understanding what it happening.
Are you really silly enough to believe you can change the relative path lengths
of the two rays simply changing frames?
hahahahaaha!
>Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
I am truly amazed that a reputable scientist like Tom cannot see that a point
which is stationary in the non rotating frame is MOVING in the rotating frame.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
It is emitted from a stationary SOURCE in the rotating frame at a point that
subsequently moves away at -v.
>> When it reaches the detector, the latter has moved to another stationary
>> point
>> a distance vt away from the startpoint.
>
>No .. neither the source nor the detector move anywhere in the rotating
>frame. They are stationary in it. They are both a fixed part of the
>rotating aparatus, as are the mirrors. As the aparatus as a whole is
>moving, the source and detector are also moving, as are the mirrors, in the
>inertial non-rotating frame of reference
Rotating frames are difficult enough for those of us who actually understand
physics. Idiots like you have no hope of understanding them, let alone try to
use one.
>>>BaTh would then predict that the velocities are DIFFERNET in the moving
>>>frame, and the SAME in the rotating frame.
>>>In the rotating frame the disance from source to detector is the SAME in
>>>both directions.
>> the 'source' is not the startpoint, dummy.
>
>Of course it is, you damned fool .. why else do you think it is called a
>source?
Rotation is absolute. The 'startpoint' is point of emission in the ring's
nonrotating frame.
>
>> The distance from startpoint to detector is 2piR+vt.
>
>In the inertial frame .. yes.
>
>> Even SR gets that right. Do you want to argue with SR?
>
>No .. I'm not as suptid as you
You really believe that the two path lengths can be equaliaed simply by
changing observer frames? YOU MUST BE MAD!
READ my reply to Tom.... then PISS OFF.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Absolute nonsense.
In an iFog, both rays move at c wrt the source and the fibres.
They both travel for the same time duration and one ray moves a distance 2vt
further than the other.
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Tom Roberts
> Suppose you have a table with 4 mirrors ABC and D
>
> | B
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> --------X------------ o ----------- C -----------
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | D
> |
>
> Light is emitted towards both B and D when A is at X. Clearly if the
> table is stationary it will reach B and D simultaneously.
> Now let us rotate the table CW. Light is emitted towards both B and D
> when A is at X and X is moving vertically up the page at periferal speed
> v. We will be considering what happens from the PoV of the inertial FoR
> in which the light is emitted X. In this FoR the table is moving down
> the page at v while rotating about o.
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | B
> | B'
> |
> --------X-A'--------------------------------------
> |
> |
> A o C
> |
> |
> | C'
> |
> | D'
> | D
The diagram is just plain wrong, because it shows A,B,C,D moving down,
when in fact they are merely markers for the initial mirror locations IN
THIS FRAME and don't move. In particular, when the mirror initially at D
moves to D', it moves DOWN TO THE LEFT, not up to the left as shown.
Just look -- D' is closer to o than is D (though the ASCII drawing is
admittedly low-resolution).
> In X's FoR the light spreads out in a circle centred X until it reaches
> D' - shown above. It has not yet reached B' as X-B' is greater than X-D'.
Wrong! Indeed, to first order in v/c those distances are equal. Your
drawing is woefully inadequate to show this. Here it is in algebra: Let
y be up and x be to the right, and the radius of the table be R; I'll
notate positions as (x,y). In this frame at time t=0: A=X=(0,0),
B=(R,R), C=(2R,0), D=(R,-R). After a short time t: A'=)0,-vt),
B'=(R+vt,R-vt), C'=(2R,-vt), D'=(R-vt,-R-vt). B' and D' are CLEARLY the
same distance from X=(0,0), independent of both v and t (as long as they
are small enough so vt<<R, which is true for any practical Sagnac
apparatus).
vt<<R basically means that the table moves so small a
distance that the curve of the circle can be neglected.
So every mirror moves a distance vt around the circle
(tangentially) and also a distance vt in the -y direction
(due to the motion of the center in this frame). For a
1-meter square apparatus rotating at 100 RPM, vt is
1.7E-8 meters for the light flight time across one side,
indeed very much smaller than 0.7 meters.
You'll find this carries through for all other legs of both rays'
journeys, in this frame.
So this theory predicts that to first order the time around the square
is the same for both directions, independent of v and t. That is
inconsistent with actual observations, of course.
> This asymmetry
> is multiplied x4 around the loop resulting in a a difference in time of
> arrival of the two waves.
Wrong! Your diagram is incorrect and fooled you. There is no "asymmetry"
here, and after you work it out you'll find there is none for the other
legs.
> Note that in the FoR of X - the inertial FoR in which the light was
> emitted - Both SR and Ballistic theories say *exactly* the same thing,
Not true. Ballistic theory says the time around the square is the same
for both rays, independent of v (to first order in v/c). SR says there
is a difference in the time around the square, and the difference is
proportional to 4vt (but it is normally expressed in terms of the area
of the square and its rotational velocity).
There is a very simple way to think about this in ballistic theory --
replace the light with bullets, and then increase the number of mirrors
to infinity so the bullets are guided by a frictionless circular surface
-- it is QUITE CLEAR that the time around for these bullets is the same
for both directions, independent of the rotation. This, of course, is
quite similar to the fiber gyro.
There is another aspect of this: the end result must be the same
regardless of which frame is used for the analysis. In the inertial
frame of the center to first order it is clear there is no significant
difference in the flight time of the light, independent of rotation. So
there must be no difference in your frame, either. And there isn't, once
your error is corrected.
Yes, I have ignored higher orders. But we know that the Sagnac effect is
first order in v/c, so that is sufficient. There are several
higher-order effects in ballistic theory:
* the moving mirrors change the speed of the light rays
* rotation is not straight paths as in first order
In SR, it is easy to compute to all orders, because the speed of light
is isotropically c in the inertial frame of the center (the apparatus is
implicitly in vacuum). One merely needs to compute the path lengths of
the two rays and divide by c to get their flight times.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:21 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Let me idealize the fiber gyroscope as a ring of fiber with a
>> bidirectional source and relative phase detector at one point. At every
>> point around the fiber, the light propagates with speed c relative to
>> the fiber, for both directions of propagation. The length of fiber from
>> source to detector is independent of the propagation of light. These
>> statements are independent of any motion of the fiber (see item (b)
>> above), so the relative phase of the two counter-propagating light beams
>> remains constant, independent of rotation. Hence this theory predicts
>> the fiber gyroscope cannot detect rotation, in contradiction to observation.
>
> Tom, Tom, you are making the same mistake that Jerry, Andersen and Dishman..and
> probably a lot of other people over the years - have consistently made.
Not true. It is you who is confused. For instance:
> I assume you are using the rotating frame.
Look up there and READ WHAT I WROTE! I am NOT using the rotating frame.
For each infinitesimal interval around the path I'm using the
instantaneously comoving inertial frame of the fiber.
> The point you are missing is that the emission point (startpoint) and the
> detection point are not the same, no matter what frame you use.
It does not matter. As I wrote above, for each interval of the fiber the
two rays travel with speed c/n relative to the fiber. The integral
around the circle is the same in both directions.
> [... you keep shifting subjects without any description of what you
are changing. Either specify things precisely, or don't bother at all.]
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:26:33 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> In the rotating frame, the STARTPOINT moves backwards by vt during the
>>> travel
>>> time around the ring.
>>
>>This is just plain wrong. In the rotating frame the source/detector does
>>not move, because both source and detector are fixed on the rotating
>>table, at the same place on the rotating table.
>
> Tom, consider an iFog wth a circumference of 1 lightsecond. An observer
> sits at
> the source/detector. The iFog rotates at v cms/sec.
So .. if this was Sagnac, the observer and source and detector would be also
rotating with the iFog.
If not, then you're not talking about Sagnac.
> Adjacent to the ifog is
> another ring that is not rotating.
Fine
> When a particular photon is emitted, the observer places a mark - the
> startpoint - on the nonrotating ring.
If this is Sagnac, then the mark will always be at teh same place.. because
the source is fixed in the rotating frame.
If not, then you're not talking about Sagnac.
> The photon splits into two and moves in
> both directions at c wrt the observer.
If this is Sagnac, no .. because the observer is not in an iFoR .. he is
rotating, as you said he was sitting at the source/detector which MOVES with
the whole apparatus, and is fixed in its rotating non-inertial frame.
If not, then you're not talking about Sagnac.
> One second later BOTH photons return, ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY.
If this is Sagna, c then yes, because of the speed of light is not source
dpeendant. Ballisitc theory says they return at EXACTLY SIMULTANEOUSLY.
> The observer again marks the ring adjacent to his position.
> It is displaced v cms from the first one.
If this is Sagna, It will be the same position as before
If not, then you're not talking about Sagnac.
> In other words, during the second the photon was traveling around the
> ring, the
> first mark - THE STARPOINT - moved v cms in the ROTATING FRAME.
If this is Sagna, it has not moved AT ALL
If not, then you're not talking about Sagnac.
> The observer knows from this that one photon half has moved a distance of
> 1
> Lightsec + v and the other moved 1 Lightsec - v.
> Since they both moved at the same speed, and were emitted in phase, it is
> obvious that they were out of phase upon arrival.
> The fringe displacement of the gyro is proportional to the distance 2v.
You are not describing Sagnac .. this is your own wierd experiment that is
unrelated to Sagnac and is totally irrelevant.
Tom Roberts
> Tom, consider an iFog wth a circumference of 1 lightsecond. An observer sits at
> the source/detector. The iFog rotates at v cms/sec. Adjacent to the ifog is
> another ring that is not rotating.
>
> When a particular photon is emitted, the observer places a mark - the
> startpoint - on the nonrotating ring. The photon splits into two and moves in
> both directions at c wrt the observer.
> One second later BOTH photons return, ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY.
> The observer again marks the ring adjacent to his position.
>
> It is displaced v cms from the first one.
>
> In other words, during the second the photon was traveling around the ring, the
> first mark - THE STARPOINT - moved v cms in the ROTATING FRAME.
WRONG! You have intermixed the rotating and the non-rotating frame. In
the rotating frame, the distance traveled is identical in both
directions. You must measure EVERYTHING in the rotating frame. You have
measured distance in the NON-rotating frame.
In the rotating frame, the source moves with the detector. Your
"startpoint" is NOT IN THE ROTATING FRAME, and is irrelevant. In a
rotating frame, points in space rotate with the frame -- that's what we
mean by "rotating frame".
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
Of course it would be .. noone is denying that.
However, it is totally irrelevant,
In Sagnac there is nothing of interest at such a point,
The source, detector, and ring are all FIXED to a rotating apparatus. The
whole thing rotates .. source, detector, ring and all.
That you do not even know how Sagnac is contructed, and still have the hide
to comment on it, is laughable
Jeckyl
I read it .. you are a moron. You don't know how Sagnac is constructed, ye
you comment on it and dismiss those who DO know as fools. So sad.
Jeckyl
Complete nonsense. For a start you just contradicted yourself .. you say
the rays more at c for the same time, but they travel different distances.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:49:48 GMT, "Androcles"
Hahaha!
Reputable scientist?
He got fired from Lucent Technologies for wasting company time on
the internet. Where did you get the crazy idea he is "reputable"?
The guy is a lunatic, he babbles more than Humpty Dumpty in
Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass".
Humpty Roberts in Wonderland:-
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
`I don't know what you mean by "observations",' Alice said.
Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' <shrug>
`But "observations" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
<shrug>,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' <shrug>
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Roberts, `which is to be master -- that's
all.' <shrug>
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Roberts
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however,
I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
<shrug>
"And you never responded to how a 2-d surface in a flat 4-d spacetime can
have nonzero curvature, and why that shows that the curvature of such
2-d surfaces is useless in "describing" the geometry of the 4-d
manifold...." he
droned on.
"If you say that the curvature of 2-d surfaces is useless in
"describing" the geometry of the 4-d manifold....I am willing to agree
with you. But I just wanted you people to help me visualize the
intrinsic curvature of 3-d Schw. space. I was told that the Gaussian
curvature of certain 2-d surfaces will represent the intrinsic
curvature of 3-d Schw. space. When I wanted these 2-d surfaces to be
identified, Jan PB had given some interesting suggestions. But now you
say it is *useless*....." said Alice.
"_SOME_ 2-d surfaces can be useful in describing the geometry of 4-d
spacetime, in particular those spanned by a 2-d vector space of
geodesics. But you were discussing 2-d surfaces defined by coordinates,
and _those_ are useless because coordinates are completely arbitrary,
and introducing that arbitrariness destroys their usefulness" replied Humpty
Roberts.
"That means the notion of intrinsic curvature of space is either too
complex that it cannot be visualized or it is just invalid." exclaimed
Alice.
"No. But in many cases using a ball of dust particles is a better
visualization tool than 2-d surfaces.", said Humpty Roberts, teetering
on his wall.
"Mathematically it is good enough to state that in Riemannian geometry
the Riemann tensor is non-zero. Where is the necessity of associating
it with a cooked up fictitious term 'curvature of space'? " asked Alice,
thinking of the cooked up egg she had for breakfast.
"Mathematicians and physicists are human. We share the common desire to
communicate with each other easily, accurately, and concisely -- that's
why technical vocabularies were invented." said Humpty Roberts scornfully
and pretending he is human by saying "we".
Alice pondered this for moment, then asked "Was it required to fool and
mislead the 'layman'?"
"Your problem, not mine", said Humpty Roberts, then realizing his
Freudian slip, he was pretending to be human, added "(ours).
But this technical vocabulary is not secret or unfathomable, it just
takes _STUDY_. <shrug>"
Alice then went back to say "The term *curvature* basically applies to
the bending of curves and 2-d surfaces."
Ho ho, thought Humpty Roberts, "Not in differential geometry or GR.
The term "curvature" was borrowed by analogy with 2-d surfaces, and
has come to mean the Riemann curvature tensor. That is, a manifold of
_any_ dimension with nonzero Riemann tensor is said to be curved."
and he shrugged like this :- "<shrug>"
Alice asked "Why *said* to be curved when it is actually not curved?"
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
news:ZDmYf.51582$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com
The end.
With thanks to Lewis Carroll.
The reader should take careful note here.
Humpty Roberts is not discussing the concepts words represent, he is
discussing the meaning of words. The rest of us use a dictionary.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:34:05 -0800 (PST), Jerry
Correct.
Extinction length in air at normal pressure and temperature is 3 metres,
rendering it invalid for small scale Sagnac experiments also. There is
no extinction in a vacuum. Fox introduced that idea but was unaware
of the extent to which astronomers have gone in their belief that what
they see is what is there, particularly for the supposed "binaries".
FOG operation is very different to RLG operation, A FOG may
have up to 5km of coiled fibre to increase sensitivity.
Jeckyl
> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> news:k5hjm31j906p10qe1...@4ax.com...
> point
> : which is stationary in the non rotating frame is MOVING in the rotating
> frame.
>
> Hahaha!
> Reputable scientist?
> He got fired from Lucent Technologies for wasting company time on
> the internet. Where did you get the crazy idea he is "reputable"?
> The guy is a lunatic, he babbles more than Humpty Dumpty in
> Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass".
[snip babbling be Androcles]
Jeckyl
> Extinction length in air at normal pressure and temperature is 3 metres,
Where did you dig up that made-up figure from?
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>
>>>Since Sagnac conducted his experiment in atmosphere, it could
>>>theoretically be critiqued on the basis of the extinction argument.
>>>
>>>Of course, fibre optic gyros also work, invalidating the entire
>>>extinction argument...
>>
>> Absolute nonsense.
>>
>> In an iFog, both rays move at c wrt the source and the fibres.
>> They both travel for the same time duration and one ray moves a distance
>> 2vt
>> further than the other.
>
>Complete nonsense. For a start you just contradicted yourself .. you say
>the rays more at c for the same time, but they travel different distances.
....you overlook the fact that the source is moving at v and the distances I
referred to were ABSOLUTE and in the NON-ROTATING FRAME.
The ray frequencies are doppler shifted in the nonrotating frame to f(c+v)/c
and f(c-v)/c (where f is the frequency in the source frame) ....so even though
the travel times are the same, a phase shift occurs at the detector.
The distances travelled appear to be the same in the rotating frame but in fact
are not. The Source observer is not aware that the startpoint has moved.
As I said before, don't try to use rotating frames, you will only become very
confused.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Suppose you have a table with 4 mirrors ABC and D
>>
>
>You'll find this carries through for all other legs of both rays'
>journeys, in this frame.
>
>So this theory predicts that to first order the time around the square
>is the same for both directions, independent of v and t. That is
>inconsistent with actual observations, of course.
No it isn't, the frequency in the source frame is f. In the nonR frame, one ray
is doppler shifted to f(c+v)/c and the other to f(c-v)/c....so after traveling
for the same time, their phases are different....which is true at the detector.
My animation www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe clearly shows this....but
you apparently can't afford a decent computer that will run it.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)