Re: Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- From: "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:27:55 +0200
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:COqIe.96565$Pf3.8598@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
> states:
> [quote]
> A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
> special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
> gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
> a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
> [end quote]
>
> The author has accepted the "Lorentz" (actually Einstein)
Actually Poincare's (he was the first to write them down fully and
correctly).
> transforms
> at face value instead of deriving them from first principles, a common
> error of many.
> Sagnac closely resembles Einstein's own thought experiment, in that
> it is evaluating the speed and time of flight of the light over a fixed
> distance.
> Einstein uses reflection to obtain the return (or counterclockwise) ray,
> but that is not as important as the values c+v and c-v for the distance
> travelled and the resulting times obtained.
> In the case of Sagnac, these values apply not to the rotating apparatus
> but to the stationary observer, who now simulates Einstein's "moving"
> frame, the light's speed being c in the apparatus.
> It is as if the apparatus did not rotate and the observer moved around
> the circumference.
>
> To see why, we imagine the following:
> Ref: http://carouselmagic.com/graphics/lj400.jpg
> On the carousel, normally the rider moves with the same angular
> velocity as the ride, his relative velocity is zero with respect to the
> ride. To model our situation, we need children to walk or run around
> the carousel in opposite directions and meet again where they started,
> relative to the carousel. Grandpa puts the children on the slowly
> turning carousel and off they go in opposite directions, and he waits
> to see what happens. The child that moved in the same direction as
> the carousel meets grandpa before he meets his sibling, there is a
> non-zero angle alpha in the diagram shown at
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> The frequency of the clockwise child, in radians per second or steps
> he takes, is different to the frequency of the counterclockwise child,
> as seen from where grandpa is standing.
> Whether or not we turn the carousel, grandpa could walk around it
> to his starting point and obtain the same result.
> From the carousel's point of view the speed of the children is c.
> From grandpa's point of view the speeds of the children are
> c+v and c-v.
> The carousel is Einstein's "stationary" frame and grandpa is the
> "moving" frame. Einstein uses quotation marks around "stationary"
> and "moving" to emphasize the frames are interchangable, he states
> [quote]
> " In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
> this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be
> introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system.''
> [end quote]
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
You missed the point (indeed lack of emphasis) that Einstein's description
was for inertial frames only.
Thus from here on your discourse goes down the drain. Pity, you were
*almost* there...
[SNIP]
BTW, Sagnac really disproves ballistic (classical) emission theories, as in
such theories the speeds "of the children" should be c wrt the caroussel...
Harald
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- From: Androcles
- Re: Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- References:
- Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- From: Androcles
- Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- Prev by Date: Distance, Duration & Action, oops camera
- Next by Date: Re: Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- Next by thread: Re: Why Sagnac disproves Special Relativity.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|