Re: Sagnac Threads United

On Nov 3, 4:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:13:49 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 1, 3:53 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:11:20 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

Didn't you say that according to the BaTh, the only reference
the photons have is the source? So how do they know that they
are supposed to roll in a frame of reference where the source
is moving?

The answer, to Paul's question, Henri, is that your photons roll
in the absolute frame of the stationary observer.

This is becoming quite amusing. You two are getting yourselves
tied in knots.

The wheels move at c wrt the source

True. In my animation, the wheels wind up 225 pixels from the
source no matter what the speed of the source, and this is so
whether measured in the stationary frame or the source frame.

and roll in the nonrotating frame of the centre of the ring at
c+v and c-v where v = wR is the peripheral speed of the
ring wrt the nonR ring frame.. Note 'speed' not 'velocity'.

True. In my animation, the wheels wind up
225 and 225 pixels from the vertical bar when v = 0
270 and 180 pixels from the vertical bar when v = 0.2c
315 and 135 pixels from the vertical bar when v = 0.4c
regardless whether the measurement is made in the stationary
or the source frame.

I have supplied a new animation to illustrate the fact that your
model implies an absolute frame. Your model violates the POR, and
predicts effects that should be visible in the MMX as well as
Sagnac. Scroll down to the bottom of the following page:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm

That's a joke...

Imagine my animation to represent a small section of a very large
rotating ring, so that it appears "straight".

Ah! but it isn't straight Jerry...... that's the point.

So, if it were straight and not almost straight, what difference
would that make?

Both rays move at c wrt the source. That is what the animation shows.

That is what my animation shows as well. At the end of my
animation, no matter what the source speed, both "photons" have
moved 225 pixels away from the source (black dot), regardless
whether one is measuring in the source frame or the stationary
frame. (lightspeed = 20 pixels/sec)

I think you got the top one right...there appear to be the
same number of wavelengths between the source and the wheel
spots ......but the rotating frame
example is nonsense.

What is wrong with it? Take a seat on the source spot.
Alternatively, take a seat on the frame bar. Look to the
left and to the right. You see
LW makes 2.75 turns and RW makes 2.75 turns when v = 0
LW makes 3.30 turns and RW makes 2.20 turns when v = 0.2c
LW makes 3.85 turns and RW makes 1.65 turns when v = 0.4c
regardless whether the observation is made in the stationary
or the source frame. Whether you look at the wheels from the
stationary frame or the source frame, THEY ALWAYS WIND UP AT
THE SAME ANGLE.

As I said to Paul, the SR analysis in the NON-ROTATING frame
is identical to the BaTh analysis in the ROTATING frame.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

just interchange 'start' and 'stop'.

They move at c+v and c-v in the nonrotating frame of the ring.
that is what the animation shows.

That is what my animation shows as well. If you set the source
speed to 0.4 times the speed of light, then, measuring in the
stationary frame, the left photon will move 315 pixels, and the
right photon will move 135 pixels from the emission point. The
ratio 315/135 = 2.3333 = (1+0.4)/(1-0.4), which exactly matches
the ratio required by emission theory.

Both photons roll the precise number of revolutions required by
your model. The photon circles have a diameter of 26 pixels. If
you set the source speed to 0.4 times the speed of light, the
left photon rolls 3.86 revolutions, and the right photon rolls
1.65 revolutions regardless of whether one is measuring in the
source frame or the stationary frame.

Crank, the phase of the spot on the wheel represents that of
one infinitesimal element of the ray.
in the rotating frame, the startpoint of every element of a ray
MOVES backwards at v.

Henri, if you are sitting on a uniformly moving source, so far
as you are concerned, every photon looks like it emerged from
where you are sitting. You have no means of knowing where it
"really" emerged from unless you are told of your state of
absolute motion from the stationary frame...and then you would
have no reason to believe what you were told.

Remember, my animation shows a section of a fairly large Sagnac
ring. It could be, say, 100 meters in diameter. The bend in the
arc would be on the order of 0.1 mm, less than a pixel. Rotary
motion along the limited region of the animation would be for
all practical purposes the same as linear motion.

What could be more simple?

Exactly. What could be more simple? Your model implies an
absolute frame, and implies an ability to detect one's motion
in this absolute frame. In other words, your model is garbage.

I don't know where you get that idea. The only frames involved
are the rotating and nonR frames of the ring and the source. The
startpoint of each ray element is stationary in the non-rotating
frame and moving in the rotating frame. It is certainly NOT
absolute.

If you are situated at the stationary bar, the two photons look
like they originate from the stationary bar and move away from
you at c+v and c-v . If you are situated on the moving source,
he two photons look like they originated from the moving source
and both move at c away from you. This requirement is fully
met by my animation.

MEASURE the source to circle distances in the stationary frame
and the source frame. THEY WILL BE THE SAME. They will both
equal ct

LOOK AT the photon phases in the stationary frame and the
source frame. THEY WILL BE THE SAME.

COUNT THE BLUE LOOPS in the stationary frame and the source
frame. THEY WILL BE THE SAME.

COUNT THE RED LOOPS in the stationary frame and the source
frame. THEY WILL BE THE SAME.

There is not one aspect of my animation that disagrees with
your photon model. You just "want" my animation to be
incorrect.

**************************************************************
* I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME A SINGLE MEASUREMENT WHERE THE *
* DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MY ANIMATION AND YOUR MODEL IS GREATER *
* THAN +/- ONE PIXEL. *
**************************************************************

You can use the Alt-PrintScreen to capture applet screens and
paste them into Windows Paint, and make your XY measurements
using the Paint cursor.

Unfortunately for your model, it is a correct animation.
Your model is total nonsense.

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Lies
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
    ... > Proper spacetime implies proper time of a local observer. ... > non-accelerated frame, the speed of light is always c. ... When you receive or observe a photon directly, ... After integrating the angle to get the angle of deflection, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sagnac Threads United
    ... are supposed to roll in a frame of reference where the source ... Imagine my animation to represent a small section of a very large ... right photon will move 135 pixels from the emission point. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sagnac Threads United
    ... are supposed to roll in a frame of reference where the source ... I have supplied a new animation to illustrate the fact that your ... right photon will move 135 pixels from the emission point. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Testing length contraction
    ... >> In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set apart ... >> and the rear door open. ... I ran this by scientists one time in this form. ... Einstein's own invention, the photon, to determine what is actually ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Physics Behind Contractions.
    ... frame is a BROAD diagonal line. ... If a photon had no width or length it would have no properties at all and would ... ray moving at c. ... says that light travels at a speed greater than c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)