 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Wang / Sagnac Devices... |
|
Page 29 of 30 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:34:52 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
tominlaguna at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:shpde598m1o1ksut08l49llkf9je92dvp0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Park yourself at the stationary mirror... and don't move.
Source is moving toward you at +v.
Yep.
Source emits light at +c relative to itself.
Yep.
Light arrives at stationary mirror at +c+v = + (c+v).
Yep.
Light is reflected off stationary mirror at -c-v = - (c+v).
Yep.
Light flies back toward source which is still moving at +v.
Yep.
When light meets source they have a relative velocity of:
Vrel = - (c+v) - (+v) = -(c+2v).
Yep.
If you stayed put, you would see while using vectors that I arrived at
the correct 2v relationship.
Yep.
Let's do the frequency bit.
Two identical arrows with identical RPM and hence frequency,
one travels at c and the other at c+v, like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Arrows.gif
At the finish line, the faster c+v arrow has not completed the same
number of revolutions as the slower c arrow.
To do so, it has to go beyond the finish line and start its return
from further away. Since speed = distance/time, this reduces
its return speed from -(c+2v) to -(c+v). Of course it actually
reflects without going past the finishing post, but begins its return
journey with some partial revolution to make up causing the source
to detect a lesser count of revolutions as it passes.
So the return frequency is
f' = f * -(c+v)/-c and NOT f' = f (c+2v)/c
Makes no sense...
Park yourself at the stationary mirror... and don't move.
The *measured* frequency at the source is f' = f (c+2v)/c
The *measured* frequency at the mirror is f' = f (c+v)/c
The *measured* frequency at the missile is f' = f *c/c = f.
But let's look at some REAL data.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
Select Light Curves
Select Visual Light Curves
Select V1493 Aql (row 4 column 3)
There is a star that suddenly jumps 6 magnitudes, begins to dim,
brightens again to 4 magnitudes above its normal state and then
gradually settles back to normal, all inside 3 months.
And this is why:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
for a constant emitter in an orbit.
Wilson says it can't happen because it doesn't agree with his theory,
so it must explode twice.
[/quote]
I didn't say it can't happen I said it does not appear to happen. V1495 Aql and
that 2362 Cyg reference I gave you might be instances of double imagery.....but
without more information one cannot be sure.
[quote]
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:37:48 +0000, tominlaguna at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:34:52 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
tominlaguna at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:shpde598m1o1ksut08l49llkf9je92dvp0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Park yourself at the stationary mirror... and don't move.
Source is moving toward you at +v.
Yep.
Source emits light at +c relative to itself.
Yep.
Light arrives at stationary mirror at +c+v = + (c+v).
Yep.
Light is reflected off stationary mirror at -c-v = - (c+v).
Yep.
Light flies back toward source which is still moving at +v.
Yep.
When light meets source they have a relative velocity of:
Vrel = - (c+v) - (+v) = -(c+2v).
Yep.
If you stayed put, you would see while using vectors that I arrived at
the correct 2v relationship.
Yep.
That is a real concession.
Let's do the frequency bit.
Two identical arrows with identical RPM and hence frequency,
one travels at c and the other at c+v, like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Arrows.gif
At the finish line, the faster c+v arrow has not completed the same
number of revolutions as the slower c arrow.
To do so, it has to go beyond the finish line and start its return
from further away. Since speed = distance/time, this reduces
its return speed from -(c+2v) to -(c+v). Of course it actually
reflects without going past the finishing post, but begins its return
journey with some partial revolution to make up causing the source
to detect a lesser count of revolutions as it passes.
So the return frequency is
f' = f * -(c+v)/-c and NOT f' = f (c+2v)/c
Makes no sense...
Park yourself at the stationary mirror... and don't move.
The *measured* frequency at the source is f' = f (c+2v)/c
Yippee!!!! The source is also where the measuring device is located.
The *measured* frequency at the mirror is f' = f (c+v)/c
Yes.
The *measured* frequency at the missile is f' = f *c/c = f.
[/quote]
What?
[quote]We don't care; but yes.
[/quote]
I don't care either...But no.
[quote]
But let's look at some REAL data.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
Select Light Curves
Select Visual Light Curves
Select V1493 Aql (row 4 column 3)
There is a star that suddenly jumps 6 magnitudes, begins to dim,
brightens again to 4 magnitudes above its normal state and then
gradually settles back to normal, all inside 3 months.
And this is why:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
for a constant emitter in an orbit.
Wilson says it can't happen because it doesn't agree with his theory,
so it must explode twice.
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:28:06 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4jkde5t5gilhkusi0u2o81cl0t9m3t03tl at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:39:55 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
I arrived at the need for unification quite independently.
Yeah, you indendently left out inclination (pitch) and all your
distances were 3.5 light years.
I would also be
extremely surprised if anything that travels for such long times and
distances
through space would NOT experience minor speed changes.
I would also be extremely surprised if anything that travels for 1000 ly
through space would experience speed changes large enough to make
all stars appear 3.5 light years away by Wilson's calculations. Perhaps
you should have added yaw twice the way I didn't.
The simulation of star curves consistently indicates that the required
distances are shorter than the Hipparcos ones.
Bound to if you leave out inclination.
You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it) now will you also
admit you are wrong about this.
As I've now proven you are quite incapable of admitting your fuckin'
stupid blunder of REMOVING inclination from your original code of
1999 with the sloppy ace of spades orbits, so all that's left is to piss
all over you, dumbfuck.
[/quote]
It amazing then that I produce the same curves the you do.
[quote]It appears that fast light does
not creep up on the slower light forever.
No, it fucking passes it. V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid old
sheep shagger.
Look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/
light curves/CCD/V2362 Cyg
No, I will not. Fast light passes slow light over enormous distances
as predicted by emission theory and your unifuckation BaThwater
is total bullshit.
V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid, idiotic old sheep shagger.
[/quote]
Listen you stubborn old pommie bastard, V2362 Cyg has the same type of curve as
1493 Aql. I'm actually trying to help you.
Now, have a look at hte bloody thing and stop acting like a three year old kid.
..
[quote]
The effect also appears to be
dependent on the period of the star's orbit.
Bwhahahahahaha!
Strangely it does.
Short period stars exhibit more unification.
There we go. First it was distance, now it's period.
You want light from a distant star to speed up or slow
down and come to exactly c with respect to little old
special Earth because Wilson lives at the fuckin' centre
of the universe.
You don't know if your arsehole was drilled, bored,
countersunk or punched, you're a fuckin' fruitcake.
[/quote]
Gawd, he's more like a fucking two year old.
[quote]Now, whether extinction is the answer of some other explanation will be
forthcoming I cannot say...
Inclination (or pitch), dumbfuck.
You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it) now will you also
admit you are wrong about this.
*plonk*
[/quote]
Gawd, now he's more like a fucking one year old.
[quote]Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:02:11 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
[quote]Jonah Thomas wrote:
I haven't seen an argument yet why there shouldn't be frequency
differences in Sagnac.
A light source emits periodic waves,
[/quote]
You're wrong from the start...
No point in reading further....
[quote]but as I have discussed before, one
must consider a short light pulse. Consider just one wavecrest from the
source, and perform the analysis of time delay to the detector. Then
consider the next wavecrest from the source and re-do the analysis --
you will obtain EXACTLY the same time delay for each path. So the
successive waves emitted dt apart by the source will arrive dt apart at
the detector, and thus there is no frequency change.
[This of course assumes a monochromatic source. That does
not happen in practice. But typical light sources have a
coherence length longer than the difference in path
lengths, and that is sufficiently monochromatic for this
to apply.]
This is a simple symmetry of the system, called time translation [*]. A
very general principle of physics is to analyze the symmetries of a
system, as they often tell you important and useful facts about the
system with much simpler analysis (e.g. here I did not need to know
anything about the light paths except that they don't change from one
wavecrest to the next).
[*] Here time translation and rotational symmetry are
combined, as after a time translation of dt there is
also a rotation of d\phi=\omega*dt (\omega is the angular
rate of rotation). But the apparatus does not change
as it rotates.
Tom Roberts
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:44:24 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:06lde5t4bdbmic7g3l36g75tkgqnt20gi0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
This will help you understand the BaTh trreatment:
www.scisite.info/linedots.exe
It doesn't seem to do much. Also it is not like a linear sagnac.
[/quote]
There is no such animal as a 'linear sagnac'.
[quote]You have
the emission point moving .. so does this mean your diagram is showing the
rotating frame that you say should not move? If not, then why does the
emission point move .. and not the detector. Back to the drawing board on
that little program.
[/quote]
The emission point doesn't move.
can't you read. I said the blue lines are actually at the same point.... but it
cannot be drawn with both emission and detection points together.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:26:07 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:htpde5h96pc79ukcatkvh9k9pral8u8sa0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:45:26 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com
wrote:
Assuming light reflects like an elastic collision, then the separating
speed
of light from mirror is c+v in both frames. The light speed is c+2v in
the
source frame and c+v in the mirror frame
No need to continue....but if you must....
There's a number of theories around, so best to cover the bases. People
have different words for different ideas.
Assuming light reflect by being absorbed and then re-emitted, then the
separating speed of light from mirror is c in both frames. The light
speed
is c+v in the source frame and c in the mirror frame
It isn't balistic then
I'd call it an emission theory, rather than ballistic. But who knows what
others may say.
Assuming light reflects so as to keep its same speed relative to the
source
frame (weird, but there is a theory that says this),
Probably Seto's
Think that is the case for Waldron's version. If gives the expected sagnac
effect .. but it is a weird way for a mirror to work.
Seto doesn't have a theory .. he thinks he does, but its just a bunch of
nonsense that doesn't predict anything, so cannot be tested and so not a
theory.
then the separating
speed of light from mirror is c-v in both frames. The light speed is c in
the source frame and c-v in the mirror frame.
It really depends on how you think light and mirrors interact during
reflection.
Of course, as light always travels at c in SR, either way gives you an
answer of c, and you can't determine from measuring the speed of light
which
theory is correct regarding how mirrors reflect.
You were going well till this one.
Bahaha
If it could be done, a moving mirror experiment would certainly prove SR
wrong.
Of course, no experiment to date has .. so I don't think that would happen.
Note that all the above vaguely possible ways for mirrors to work end up the
same under SR.
[/quote]
Bwahahahahhahhhahahhahhahahhahhahahah! SR the universal cure for all of
science's ills...
hahahhahhahhahhahahhahhahhaaha!
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
tominlag... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was
started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion
from this new starting point.
Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber
optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest
paper provides a more detailed account of that work.
Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the
FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is
proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its
motion. Most people that I have discussed this with believe that Dr.
Wang has demonstrated that his design can detect translational motion.
I disagree. They measured the acceleration of the fiber section from
zero to some constant velocity.
The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a
phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are
experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect
that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon
itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac
interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and
Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of
Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way"
Sagnac system of devices known as GPS.
A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example:
Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler
located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car
is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant
velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at
the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while
the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first.
The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration
throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of
Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal
distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the
acceleration of the receiver.
Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was
describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal
with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices
are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to
them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal
transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary
receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to
adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is
accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang
experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow
fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others
in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms
in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they
concluded it was not. Post has written about this.
Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain
Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is
denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips
(1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two
of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission
model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of
other experiments.
In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
c +/- v. all with respect to the mirror.
Regards,
Tom Miles
Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw...
Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates
Walter Ritz by 250 years.
The behavior of photons does not resemble the behavior of Newtons
corpusules. Newtons corpusules do not have a frequency associated with
them. The energy in a photons is proportional to the frequency of the
wave.
No it isn't. the correct equation is E = hc/lambda....and nobody even
knows what the term 'wavelength' actually implies in the case of light.
There is no direct 'frequency' associated with light as we observed it.
Any 'oscillation' is intrinsic to the individual photon and is not
directly observeable.
[/quote]
Waveguide. Try again.
[quote]
The difference becomes really important when dealing with
interference effects. Newton did not predict that light could show
interference effects. Neither beats nor diffraction is consistent with
Newton's corpusules.
Diffraction is certainly consistent with Bath. So are beats if coherent
light is used.
[/quote]
No, not really.
[quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 16, 11:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
tominlag... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was
started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion
from this new starting point.
Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber
optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest
paper provides a more detailed account of that work.
Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the
FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is
proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its
motion. Most people that I have discussed this with believe that Dr.
Wang has demonstrated that his design can detect translational motion.
I disagree. They measured the acceleration of the fiber section from
zero to some constant velocity.
The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a
phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are
experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect
that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon
itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac
interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and
Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of
Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way"
Sagnac system of devices known as GPS.
A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example:
Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler
located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car
is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant
velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at
the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while
the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first.
The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration
throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of
Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal
distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the
acceleration of the receiver.
Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was
describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal
with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices
are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to
them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal
transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary
receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to
adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is
accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang
experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow
fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others
in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms
in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they
concluded it was not. Post has written about this.
Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain
Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is
denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips
(1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two
of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission
model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of
other experiments.
In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
c +/- v. all with respect to the mirror.
Regards,
Tom Miles
Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw...
Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates
Walter Ritz by 250 years.
The behavior of photons does not resemble the behavior of Newtons
corpusules. Newtons corpusules do not have a frequency associated with
them. The energy in a photons is proportional to the frequency of the
wave.
[/quote]
No it isn't. the correct equation is E = hc/lambda....and nobody even knows
what the term 'wavelength' actually implies in the case of light.
There is no direct 'frequency' associated with light as we observed it. Any
'oscillation' is intrinsic to the individual photon and is not directly
observeable.
[quote]The difference becomes really important when dealing with
interference effects. Newton did not predict that light could show
interference effects. Neither beats nor diffraction is consistent with
Newton's corpusules.
[/quote]
Diffraction is certainly consistent with Bath. So are beats if coherent light
is used.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darwin123... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 6:49 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
[quote]"Darwin123" <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415 at (no spam) y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
You are a clueless babbling lunatic.
I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in
an even clearer manner than you have presented.
1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley
interferometer,
=========================================> Dead on arrival. Light is a photon stream, not a standing wave.
[/quote]
If that is so, why does the intensity output of the Michaelson
interferometer change as the mirror is moved?
Now, the usual interpretation has to do with the resonance
enhancement of the standing waves with the spacing between mirrors.
Nodes of the waves are located at the position of the completely
reflecting mirrors.
You explain to us why the spacing between reflecting surfaces
changes the intensity of the output. Explain to us how any of these
interferometers work at all. Use theory of Newton's corpuscules to
explain the spectrum coming out of a Fourier Transform Interferometer
(FTIR). Furthermore, explain to us how a diffraction grating works
with Newton's corpusules.
Explain to us how come a dielectric mirror works. Explain to us
why colors appear on an oil slick. Explain how a Fresnel lens works.
Forget the null result on the michaelson Morley experiment. I
don't care about the accuracy of relativity per se, but I do know
optics. Just explain how the interference fringes appear in the first
place.
Explain how come the Huygens space probe, whose signal moves at
the speed of light, has a frequency that can be picked up by an
electronic circuit. Explain how a channel tuner works in terms of
Newtonian corpusules. Explain how Doppler shift occurs with Newtonian
corpusules.
Explain how light that can't transmit through two crossed
polarizers gets transmitted when a polarizer is placed between them.
Explain why the pick up on a TV antennae changes as the antennae
rotates.
Your model of Newtonian corpusules doesn't explain any of these
wave phenonema. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:22:01 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:1ccce5hi65ocpai5d92p6k05s1lmnj9kus at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:58:22 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
Have look at: www.scisite.info/geocircle.jpg (I think it might be one of
Andro's)
Is it correct?
Does light move along the green line at c? Relative to what is that
speed
relevant?
That's a pretty good drawing, H.
I suspect some drunken pommie idiot drew it.
Is it correct or isn't it?
Ask the drunken pommie idiot.
[/quote]
I thought I did.
It is correct for the source frame. But in O's frame, the pulse moves at
sqrt(c^2-v^2) in a line from point P.
Its path length is also shorter so it takes the same absolute time to arrive as
determined in both frames.
So there is no transverse doppler shift.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:10:29 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
tominlag... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw...
Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates
Walter Ritz by 250 years.
The behavior of photons does not resemble the behavior of Newtons
corpusules. Newtons corpusules do not have a frequency associated with
them. The energy in a photons is proportional to the frequency of the
wave.
No it isn't. the correct equation is E = hc/lambda....and nobody even
knows what the term 'wavelength' actually implies in the case of light.
There is no direct 'frequency' associated with light as we observed it.
Any 'oscillation' is intrinsic to the individual photon and is not
directly observeable.
Waveguide. Try again.
[/quote]
Generated microwave, RF, etc....that's not individual photons....
[quote]
The difference becomes really important when dealing with
interference effects. Newton did not predict that light could show
interference effects. Neither beats nor diffraction is consistent with
Newton's corpusules.
Diffraction is certainly consistent with Bath. So are beats if coherent
light is used.
No, not really.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
tominlag... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was
started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion
from this new starting point.
Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber
optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest
paper provides a more detailed account of that work.
Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the
FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is
proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its
motion. Most people that I have discussed this with believe that Dr.
Wang has demonstrated that his design can detect translational motion.
I disagree. They measured the acceleration of the fiber section from
zero to some constant velocity.
The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a
phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are
experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect
that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon
itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac
interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and
Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of
Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way"
Sagnac system of devices known as GPS.
A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example:
Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler
located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car
is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant
velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at
the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while
the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first.
The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration
throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of
Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal
distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the
acceleration of the receiver.
Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was
describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal
with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices
are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to
them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal
transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary
receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to
adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is
accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang
experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow
fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others
in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms
in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they
concluded it was not. Post has written about this.
Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain
Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is
denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips
(1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two
of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission
model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of
other experiments.
In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
c +/- v. all with respect to the mirror.
Regards,
Tom Miles
Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw...
Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates
Walter Ritz by 250 years.
The behavior of photons does not resemble the behavior of Newtons
corpusules. Newtons corpusules do not have a frequency associated with
them. The energy in a photons is proportional to the frequency of the
wave.
No it isn't. the correct equation is E = hc/lambda....and nobody even knows
what the term 'wavelength' actually implies in the case of light.
[/quote]
Except, of course, for knowing exactly what it means.
[quote]
There is no direct 'frequency' associated with light as we observed it. Any
'oscillation' is intrinsic to the individual photon and is not directly
observeable.
[/quote]
And this is more ralph babble. You are trying to look stupid here.
[quote]
The difference becomes really important when dealing with
interference effects. Newton did not predict that light could show
interference effects. Neither beats nor diffraction is consistent with
Newton's corpusules.
Diffraction is certainly consistent with Bath. So are beats if coherent light
is used.
[/quote]
Except, of course, for the fact that bath gives the wrong answers.
[quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415 at (no spam) y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
"Darwin123" <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c048a7e-bd06-425c-bed4-4c9d7a04fc56 at (no spam) b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 1:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
You are a clueless babbling lunatic.
I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in
an even clearer manner than you have presented.
1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley
interferometer, the Sagnac cavity, and in lasers.
-They form when two counter propagating waves are
superimposed, which is the common feature in all these devices.
2) Standing waves don't move.
-The nodes remain in the same place.
3) Since the standing wave doesn't move, the velocity of the light
waves in these devices is zero.
4) Einstein said that the velocity of light in a vacuum is always c.
5) Obviously c does not equal zero
-c is on or about 300000 km/s.
6) Einstein did not see the obvious contradiction between 3, 4 and 5.
7) Therefore, Einstein was an idiot.
Why didn't you use this simple argument instead of all
that blather about c+v versus c-v?
[/quote]
Cute.
Does a standing wave have a wavelength?
Does a standing wave have a frequency? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415 at (no spam) y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
[quote]You are a clueless babbling lunatic.
I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in[/quote]
an even clearer manner than you have presented.
1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley
interferometer,
==========================================
Dead on arrival. Light is a photon stream, not a standing wave. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8726a9ec-2c0d-4d34-a1d5-cedf92ed3415 at (no spam) y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 3:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
[quote]"Darwin123" <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c048a7e-bd06-425c-bed4-4c9d7a04fc56 at (no spam) b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 1:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
You are a clueless babbling lunatic.
I will now prove Einstein an idiot using your assumptions in[/quote]
an even clearer manner than you have presented.
========================================
Tell you what, I'll give you a fair hearing.
1) Standing waves made of light exist in the Michaelson-Morley
interferometer, the Sagnac cavity, and in lasers.
What "cavity"? Sagnac's interferometer is Michaelson's
interferometer with a camera attached and the whole shebang
rotates at a constant angular velocity. The reason for adding
the camera is it's rather difficult to run around in a circle
looking at a regular eyepiece.
-They form when two counter propagating waves are
superimposed, which is the common feature in all these devices.
2) Standing waves don't move.
-The nodes remain in the same place.
Ok, you assume a standing wave. Prove it exists.
3) Since the standing wave doesn't move, the velocity of the light
waves in these devices is zero.
Ok, you assume a standing wave. Prove it exists.
4) Einstein said that the velocity of light in a vacuum is always c.
Yeah, ok, and the Pope said Jesus walked on water and his old
lady was a virgin, Gordon Brown said he was going to combat
global warming.
5) Obviously c does not equal zero
-c is on or about 300000 km/s.
Yeah, yeah...
6) Einstein did not see the obvious contradiction between 3, 4 and 5.
Yeah, yeah...
7) Therefore, Einstein was an idiot.
Yeah yeah...
How does Einstein connect with standing waves, the price of rice
in China, global warming or the Virgin Mary?
Why didn't you use this simple argument instead of all
that blather about c+v versus c-v?
=============================
Because you saying light is a standing wave of speed zero
is no different to the Pope saying he's going to heaven to
shake hands with Gabriel and pick out a halo with gold laurel
leaf trimmings in the heavenly dollar store to look like Nero
with harp and wings, that's why.
http://www.livius.org/a/1/emperors/nero_mus_munchen.JPG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:35 am
|
|