Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:06:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:43:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 23:10:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But that doesn't change the fact that Sagnac falsifies
the ballistic theory.
Sagnac DOES NOT falsify the ballistic theory.
Even by YOUR own argument, the fringes would still shift... but by a reduced
amount, (1-1/sqrt2).
Show the calculation, please.
But of course you can't.
Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-)

I have shown that rays which start out 90 apart do not reunite at the same
point.
Quite.
Which is irrelevant.

Ther is obviously more to the sagnac effect that meets the eye of an ordinary
SRian.
But you don't know what? :-)

The effect has little or nothing to do with light speed.
It is a fact that SR correctly predicts
what an I-FOG will show.
It is claimed to give the right answer IF the RI of glass is ignored. Funny how
close that is to root 2.....hahahahhahaah!
What are you raving about?
Of course cannot ignore that the medium is glass and not vacuum.
How stupid are you?
That's what I read in a paper on iFoGs.
Either that paper was written by somebody who don't know what
he is talking about, or you haven't understood what the author
of the paper said.
I am inclined to believe the latter.

The author was probably referring to the at first glance
somewhat surprising fact that the phase shift in an I-FOG
is independent of the index of refraction of the fibre.

The experimentally verified (to a first order in v/c)
equation for an I-FOG (one loop) is:
delta_t = 4*A*w/c^2
where c is the speed of light in vacuum.
Note that the index of refraction does not appear
in that equation.
That isn't surprising. Light speed is not particularly important.
What an extraordinary stupid statement!
Well done, Henri. :-)

Here is why n doesn't appear in the equation:
When we transform the speed of light in the fibre c/n
>from the fibre frame to the inertial frame,
we get the speeds (second order terms and higher in v/c ignored):
c_f = (c/n) + v(1-n^-2)
c_b = (c/n) - v(1-n^-2)
Wait a minute...
What is your basic assumption here?
....that light moves at c/n wrt the light source, in the fibre frame. That's
not what you claim elsewhere. You say it moves at c wrt the nonrotating frame
and therefore at (c+v)/n and (c-v)/n in the fibre frame.
This is strictly according to SR.

No. SR says the speed of light is c/n in both directions in the stationary frame.
That's the whole basis of your previous arguments.

Have you now changed your mind?

The speed of light in the fibre-frame is c/n in both directions.
We transform this speed to the "stationary frame" where
the fibre is moving at the speed v thus:
c_f = (c/n + v)/(1 + (c/n)*v/c^2) ~= (c/n) + v(1-n^-2)
c_b = (c/n - v)/(1 - (c/n)*v/c^2) ~= (c/n) - v(1-n^-2)

You are raving.
If light speed is NOT source dependent, as you have always claimed, then the
speed of light in the fibre is (c+/-v)/n.

You have no clue, have you? :-)


so the time to go around the circular loop with radius r
is for the beam going with the rotation:
t_f*c_f = 2*pi*r + v*t_f
t_f = 2*pi*r/(c_f - v)
and for the other beam:
t_b = 2*pi*r/(c_b + v)

delta_t = (t_f - t_b) = 2*pi*r*S

S = (1/(c_f - v) - 1/(c_b + v)) =
S = (c_b - c_f + 2v)/(c_f + v)*(c_b - v) = N/D
N = ((c/n) - v(1-n^-2))- ((c/n) + v(1-n^-2)) + 2^v = 2*v*n^-2
D = c_f*c_b + v*c_b - v*c_f - v^2
D = (c/n)^2 - v^2*(1-n^-2)^2 - 2*v^2*(1-n^-2) + v^2
D ~= c^2*n^-2 (ignoring second order and higher terms of v/c)
S ~= 2*v/c^2
Thus:
delta_t ~= 4*pi*r*v/c^2 = 4*A*w/c^2
See Henri?
This is calculated strictly according to SR.
The result is equal to the experimentally verified equation.

As far as I can see it is calculated according to a form of witchcraft.

My derivations above are strictly according to SR,
and they are correct.

If they are whitchcraft to you, it must be because
of you are too dumb to understand this very simple math.


It is remarkable that the index of refraction cancels out.
Note that the reason why it does, is that the "dragging effect"
cancels the increase of the delay which the slower speed of light
otherwise would have led to.
My interpretation would be that the sagnac effect does not depend on light
speed at all.
What an extraordinary stupid statement!
Well done, Henri. :-)

The fringes will shift by much the same amount no matter what value light speed
has. Use a source moving at 0.9c towards the splitting mirror and the fringes
will move by the same amount.

delta_t = 4*A*w/c^2

Go figure.


So:
It is an irrefutable fact that SR correctly predicts
what an I-FOG will show.
Crap.
Call it whatever you like.
It's still an irrefutable fact that SR correctly predicts
what an I-FOG will show.

SR uses classical aether theory identical to that which would describe a 'sound
based sagnac' in still air. The SR explanation requires and assumes a medium.

Do you deny that?

Yes.

Crap.
Frustrating not being able to show what your version
of the ballistic theory predicts for an I_FOG, Henri?

I have explained why a number of factors are involved in the sagnac process.

Frustrating, isn't it? :-)
Not at all. Photons simply don't like having to rotate axes and re-unite at
different angles.
Which proves that the correct SR prediction is wrong.
Well done, Henri. :-)

The 'correct' SR prediction you describe above is not what would apply if
hollow fibres were used.
Try hollow evacuated fibres, Paul.

You are an idiot, Henri.
Hollow fibres cannot be used for transmission of light,
and if you don't understand why, it is a demonstration
of your ignorance.

My calculations above are correct.
If you don't believe it, it's your problem.
I won't waste any more time on showing you what you
are too dumb to understand anyway.

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR says, "The Earth is the Centre Of The Universe".
    ... Since there aren't any frames of reference in your demo, ... Henri. ... I don't disagree with your simulation. ... | in said frame of reference also is c, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wilsonian EM Control Frames.
    ... Local "EM Reference Frames" around each planet ... the spacecraft enter and leave the local EM Reference Frames ... "Any experimental apparatus creates its own EM reference frame. ... Uh huh...sure, Henri. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sagnac Threads United
    ... despite it's yielding inconsistent results... ... Henri, you have been utterly incapable of getting your approach ... The totally consistent conclusions that I reach are that ... My metapplied to the rotating frame uses the exactly the same ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sagnac Threads United
    ... whether measured in the stationary frame or the source frame. ... No answer, Henri? ... startpoint of each ray element is stationary in the non-rotating ... met by my animation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Museeuw Flax Bicycle Frame Damping Characteristics
    ... although I'm not sure which is stiffer: the wooden or metal bat. ... Flax fibre will likely improve the failure mode of a composite frame ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)