Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:00:16 -0800
On Nov 4, 4:43 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:16:02 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Nov 3, 7:41 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:52:47 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
no answer, Crank?
Your statement had no relevance to the issue at hand.
Hahahahaha!
You mean, 'it makes a mockery of your SR explanation'....
No, I meant that your comment was irrelevant.
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.
That's a big statement.....almost certainly wrong...
OK. I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring. Where is the
rotation center?
...anyway you do in this case. It's the centre of the ring...
OK. I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring. Where is the
rotation center?
you can calculate
Without knowing your rotation center, you CAN'T calculate.
You know where the centre of the gyro is, Crank.....no problem
there....
OK. I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring.
Where is the center of my large rotating ring?
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.
So you believe 'size' is absolute do you crank.... :)
OK. I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring.
Where is the center of my rotating ring?
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.
You are making a fool of yourself Crank....
My theory produces the right answer whether you like it or not....
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.
......No use talking crap to me....
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."
This highlights the difference between a linear and a rotating
situation. The fact is, you CAN calculate everything you need
to know about your own rotation.
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.
Stop talking nonsense Crank. We are dealing with rotating.
My analysis works in both the rotating and non-rotating frames.
OK. I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring.
Where is the rotation center?
MEASURE the source to circle distances in the stationary frame
and the source frame. THEY WILL BE THE SAME. They will both
equal c
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.
well then, if MY answer is nonsense so is that of SR....
Nope. Your model is nonsense, period.
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?
Crank, your analogy is ridiculous. In this instance, I'm not
just in a closed box. I'm in a toriodal tube.
OK. I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring.
Do you have enough information to answer this question?
If you don't have this information, how can your model
predict anything?
crap....
Give up?
I've made minor internal changes to my animation.
My animation is NOW for a large rotating ring.
Now answer the question.
**************************************************************
* 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?
I'm way ahead of you....
Nope.
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
- From: Jerry
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Next by Date: Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
- Previous by thread: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Next by thread: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
