Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:16:02 -0700
On Nov 3, 7:41 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:52:47 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.
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?
No answer, Henri?
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.
no answer, Crank?
Your statement had no relevance to the issue at hand.
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.
...but Crank, you can measure your absolute rotation. That's
what a gyro does.
If you know your absolute rotation and the rotation centre,
But you DON'T, in general, know your rotation center.
you can calculate
Without knowing your rotation center, you CAN'T calculate.
the true motions of objects in the non-rotating frame from
nature of those 'apparent' motions in YOUR ROTATING frame.
This is a common procedure in astronomy and rocketry.
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.
irrelevant. You have to consider what happens over the whole circle.
Relevant.
You theory predicts local violations of the POR.
How big is the circle that I drew? The radius is so large that
it looks like a straight line, and the only analysis that you
can apply is a local straight line analysis.
How do you know I haven't added a loop-the-loop or a figure-8
somewhere on the other side? What influence can bends "out there"
have on the local behavior "here"?
You do NOT have to "consider what happens over the whole circle"
in order to analyze local behavior.
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.
No Crank, you can't use the linear equivalent. I also tried that
and it doesn't work.
I am looking at local behavior. Your analysis needs to work
at a local level as well as on a global level.
There are two frames to worry about, the rotating and
non-rotating ring frames.
Remember rotation is absolute.
The startpoint MOVES in the rotating frame....because the
rotating frame MOVES in the non-rotating frame and the startpoint
is STATIONARY in the non-rotating frame.
You are quite mixed up here. All you know is that the light
radiates at c with respect to you. You can measure how fast
you rotate, but there is no measns of measuring how fast you
are moving from the hypothetical "startpoint."
According to BaTh, in the rotating frame, the travel time of
an 'element' in one ray is 2piR/(c+v) and the other 2piR/(c-v),
exactly the same as in the SR treatment.
The rest follows in the same way and you get D = 4Aw/cL.
According to your model, measuring the frequency/wavelength of
light radiated in different directions allows you to determine
your velocity relative to an absolute frame.
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.
You are counting the wrong things.
What are the right things to count, Henri?
Every measurement in my animation can be precisely matched with
the corresponding predictions of your model. It is a precise
representation of your model.
The animation is nonsensical because your model is nonsensical.
Naturally, the number of ''wavelength' and parts thereof will
always be the same between source and detector.....just 2piR/L
in both rays....no tick fairies needed.
BUT, each element of light in each ray moves that extra amount vt or
-vt...where vt is the distance the source moves from the startpoint
in the time light takes to encircle the ring.
So if the rays are always in phase from SOURCE to DETECTOR they
will never be in phase from STARTPOINT to detector....except for
zero wR.
I don't think you have fully grasped the idea that the startpoint
is stationary in the nonrotating frame AND THAT THIS DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT FRAME TO BE ABSOLUTE.
Henri, imagine yourself in a closed box with a gyro.
The gyro tells you that you are rotating at 1 degree per minute.
How fast is the startpoint moving with respect to you?
Do you have enough information to answer this question?
If you don't have this information, how can your model
predict anything?
**************************************************************
* I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME A SINGLE MEASUREMENT WHERE THE *
* DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MY ANIMATION AND YOUR MODEL IS GREATER *
* THAN +/- ONE PIXEL. *
**************************************************************
No answer, Henri? Unable to find a single discrepancy?
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.
Sorry Crank, you are missing the vital point.
...and SR is dead..
In other words, you haven't found a discrepancy between any
aspect of my animation and your model.
The animation is crazy because your model is crazy.
Why do you keep snipping my list? Are you not PROUD of
your accomplishments?
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
.
- References:
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Jerry
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Jerry
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Prev by Date: Re: Relativity is a Dutch discovery
- Next by Date: Re: RF antenna emitting photons
- Previous by thread: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Next by thread: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
