Re: Sagnac laser speedometer


"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20090929155255.1eb4348a.jethomas5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

After studying the Wang experiment

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222

....

The reasoning behind this is precisely the same as that for the
Sagnac and Wang experiments. There may be something about them that
says that the logic works for circular motion but not for linear
motion. If so, that part of the explanation appears to be pretty
implicit. I don't see why the same story wouldn't work for linear
motion too.

Does the Sagnac explanation work for both cases? Does it work only
for one case, and if so why? Or is it wrong and some other
explanation works better?

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" -
Albert Einstein, writing the only words he got correct.

So make an interesting model of your interesting idea, see if it has
any interest to others and if you disagree with the laws of mechanics,
your model is of no interest. Sagnac obeys the laws of mechanics.
There is no "Sagnac explanation", there are only idiot explanations
from idiots that mumble "light waves". Start waving a light.

OK. The Sagnac experiment gives an observable result. The result obeys
the laws of mechanics, whatever they are. People try to explain how it
is that this fits the laws of mechanics, and every explanation I've seen
so far says that because of the rotation, the distance the light travels
in one direction is longer than the distance the light travels in the
other direction because of the rotation. Typically the explanations go
on to claim that the difference in distance results in a difference in
arrival time for the light.

So the typical idiot is babbling his typical nonsense... what's new in that?
You are the one with the great new idea for a speedometer that interests
you, where is your animated sketch?
Oh, and the laws of mechanics (whatever they are) are Einstein's SR laws
of mechanics, whatever SR is and whomever Einstein was.

The Wang experiment also gives an observable result and so obeys the
laws of mechanics, whatever they are. It found that under the conditions
they tested, the observable effect depended entirely on the length of
the rotating cable and the speed that it rotated. The area it surrounded
made no difference at all. I say this is compatible with the traditional
Sagnac result, that when the path is glued to a turntable then you
increase the difference between the distances travelled in two
directions by increasing the area. But the way the Wang experiment
arranged their rotation, the area was irrelevant. Wang was right that
what matters is speed and distance, and in the traditional Sagnac
experiment area increases speed.

But how does it work? Paul B Andersen did some math.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/853957e5e78d54f9

His calculations depend on relativity so you might reject them for that
reason, but often SR calculations come out the same as you'd get without
them -- I will use them. And I will assume he got them right because I'm
not ready to learn enough relativity to check somebody else's work and
confirm they did it correctly.

I will assume he got them wrong because Andersen is a fuckin' idiot, proven
liar
and well-known Norwegian troll.
I will further assumed you are totally gullible.

<crap snipped>
You're not ready to learn enough sqrt( (c+v)(c-v) / c^2) to check somebody
else's work.




.

Loading