Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:07:14 +0100, "George Dishman"


It doesn't mean much until you learn what causes
interference. Your wheels are just a kiddie way
to calulate the phase difference so learn what
I explained to you above or you are wasting your
time.

Iv'e added another disgram to:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm

that should clear it up.

Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
Jerry's animation does that for you.

Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
......Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still be 100 lines around it
no matter how fast it spins.....

That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.

George




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
Jerry's animation does that for you.

Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
.....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....

That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.

Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
an animation. Learn to tell the difference.

I wrote it because you have proven yourself incapable of
understanding two lines of trivial algebra... actually,
for the Sagnac experiment, ONE LINE of trivial algebra,
since the implicit presumption in these threads seems to
be that extinction is irrelevant to Sagnac.

My code directly implements -all- the known mathematics
of Ballistic Theory that is relevant to the Sagnac
experiment.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"

: wrote:
:
: Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
: relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
: Jerry's animation does that for you.
:
: Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
: .....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
: be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....
:
: That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.
:
: Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
: an animation. Learn to tell the difference.

Inertial means unaccelerated uniform translatory motion.
Your simulation isn't inertial, learn to tell the difference.

On Oct 6, 6:52 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

ups.com...
: On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
: wrote:

:
: Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
: relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
: Jerry's animation does that for you.
:
: Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
: .....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
: be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....
:
: That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.
:
: Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
: an animation. Learn to tell the difference.

Inertial means unaccelerated uniform translatory motion.
Your simulation isn't inertial, learn to tell the difference.

I notice that you snipped content irrelevant to your comment.
Why is that OK for you to do, but you go all nasty when others
do it? That's known as a double standard.

Anyhow, Grandpa is NOT an inertial observer. An inertial
observer is not necessary for a Sagnac apparatus to be
capable of detecting rotation.

If an inertial observer were necessary, how could you
implement one in a commercial iFOG device?

Jerry

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:34:05 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
Jerry's animation does that for you.

Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
.....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....

That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.

Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
an animation. Learn to tell the difference.

I wrote it because you have proven yourself incapable of
understanding two lines of trivial algebra... actually,
for the Sagnac experiment, ONE LINE of trivial algebra,
since the implicit presumption in these threads seems to
be that extinction is irrelevant to Sagnac.

My code directly implements -all- the known mathematics
of Ballistic Theory that is relevant to the Sagnac
experiment.

Except you omitted the main feature.

It should be obvious that the source and detector for a particular photon are
not in the same position.

You really should be ashamed....

Jerry




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Oct 7, 2:18 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:34:05 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
Jerry's animation does that for you.

Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
.....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....

That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.

Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
an animation. Learn to tell the difference.

I wrote it because you have proven yourself incapable of
understanding two lines of trivial algebra... actually,
for the Sagnac experiment, ONE LINE of trivial algebra,
since the implicit presumption in these threads seems to
be that extinction is irrelevant to Sagnac.

My code directly implements -all- the known mathematics
of Ballistic Theory that is relevant to the Sagnac
experiment.

Except you omitted the main feature.

It should be obvious that the source and detector for a particular photon are
not in the same position.

You really should be ashamed....

No, it is YOU who should be ashamed. You are harping
on a trivial matter of programming convenience.

It so happens that by positioning source and detector
at the same point, that the counter-rotating beams are
guaranteed to meet with zero phase difference.

At other points, the counter-rotating beams will meet
with a constant phase difference which in general will
not equal zero. Unfortunately, the constancy of this
phase difference will not be obvious given the way in
which I have chosen to represent the waves.

To accommodate your request for source and detector
being separated, I will need to think a bit on how to
represent phase changes in a simple and intuitive
manner.

As usual, I will publish full source code so that you
can validate the correctness of my solution.

Ballistic Theory, of course, is already disproven.
You are just being desperately stubborn in trying to
seek any possible excuse, no matter how feeble.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Oct 6, 6:52 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Jerry" wrote in message
:
: ups.com...
: : On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: : On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
: : wrote:
:
: :
: : Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
: : relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
: : Jerry's animation does that for you.
: :
: : Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
: : .....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
: : be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....
: :
: : That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.
: :
: : Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
: : an animation. Learn to tell the difference.
:
: Inertial means unaccelerated uniform translatory motion.
: Your simulation isn't inertial, learn to tell the difference.
:
: I notice that you snipped content irrelevant to your comment.

You should have noticed I snipped content irrelevant to Dishpan's
"inertial" comment and left a comment pertinent to your arrogance,
shoving your own words back down your throat.
Learn to tell the difference.

: Why is that OK for you to do, but you go all nasty when others
: do it?

That's what you do.

: That's known as a double standard.

The same double standard that you have, yes. Fight fire with fire.

:
: Anyhow, Grandpa is NOT an inertial observer.

Ok, then simulate it:
// draw the line representing the source/screen
int radius = diameter/2;
double arcLength = currentStep * speedOfFrame;


// Revision 2.0
double angle = 0.0;
// was double angle = arcLength/radius but
// Grandpa doesn't see rotation any more.

: An inertial
: observer is not necessary for a Sagnac apparatus to be
: capable of detecting rotation.

Ok, then don't show it. shrug
:
: If an inertial observer were necessary, how could you
: implement one in a commercial iFOG device?

That's for you to simulate, but if you want to give it a try you'll
have to change to something like this:


class Animate extends TimerTask
{

// Revision 2:
// Simulate acceleration of plane

public void run()
{
double currentYPos;

if (currentStep maxSteps)
{
cancel();
}
else
{
if( accelerate_left ) // Rev 2, acceleration added
{
currentStep = currentStep + 1;
accelerate_left = 0; // turn off
acceleration
}
else
if( accelerate_right ) // Rev 2, acceleration added
{
currentStep = currentStep - 1;
accelerate_right = 0; // turn off
acceleration
}
// else do nothing, current step has no change

currentYPos = -amplitudeOfWaves *
Math.sin(2*Math.PI*(double)currentStep/(double)periodOfLight);
lightRays.addHistory(currentYPos);
}
repaint();
}

Then add two buttons for the user to steer the plane and a show a fringe
shift as it turns.

"Jerry" wrote in message
ps.com...
: On Oct 7, 2:18 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:34:05 -0700, Jerry

: wrote:
:
: On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"

: wrote:
:
: Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
: relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
: Jerry's animation does that for you.
:
: Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
: .....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
: be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....
:
: That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.
:
: Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
: an animation. Learn to tell the difference.
:
: I wrote it because you have proven yourself incapable of
: understanding two lines of trivial algebra... actually,
: for the Sagnac experiment, ONE LINE of trivial algebra,
: since the implicit presumption in these threads seems to
: be that extinction is irrelevant to Sagnac.
:
: My code directly implements -all- the known mathematics
: of Ballistic Theory that is relevant to the Sagnac
: experiment.
:
: Except you omitted the main feature.
:
: It should be obvious that the source and detector for a particular
photon are
: not in the same position.
:
: You really should be ashamed....
:
: No, it is YOU who should be ashamed. You are harping
: on a trivial matter of programming convenience.
:
: It so happens that by positioning source and detector
: at the same point, that the counter-rotating beams are
: guaranteed to meet with zero phase difference.

But they don't, you need an integer number of wavelengths
around the circumference for that, not an arbitrary 11 pixels/step.
You should not be working in pixels or steps anyway, but that's
forgiven on a first attempt.

:
: At other points, the counter-rotating beams will meet
: with a constant phase difference which in general will
: not equal zero. Unfortunately, the constancy of this
: phase difference will not be obvious given the way in
: which I have chosen to represent the waves.
:
: To accommodate your request for source and detector
: being separated, I will need to think a bit on how to
: represent phase changes in a simple and intuitive
: manner.
:
: As usual, I will publish full source code so that you
: can validate the correctness of my solution.

That's your attitude problem. In reality your code is
beginner material, no simulation engineer would write
pixels/step. We work in m/s and leave the final conversion
to screen coordinates to the paint() routine.

:
: Ballistic Theory, of course, is already disproven.

Again, attitude. You are pompous and arrogant.
You've not come close to disproving Einstein's first
postulate and never will, neither will you successfully
simulate his second postulate. Relativity theory, of course,
is already disproven.


: You are just being desperately stubborn in trying to
: seek any possible excuse, no matter how feeble.

You spend more time whining about how right you think
you are and flaming on usenet than you do on writing
decent code. That goes for Henri, too.

"Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:07:14 +0100, "George Dishman"


It doesn't mean much until you learn what causes
interference. Your wheels are just a kiddie way
to calulate the phase difference so learn what
I explained to you above or you are wasting your
time.

Iv'e added another disgram to:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm

that should clear it up.

Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
Jerry's animation does that for you.

Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
.....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still be 100 lines
around it
no matter how fast it spins.....

Right, that is what happens in ballistic theory.

That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.

Yet apparently beyond you.

George

"Jerry" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 7, 2:18 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:34:05 -0700, Jerry

wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:37:31 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:

Afraid not, it doesn't give any way to see the
relative phase of the two signals at the detector.
Jerry's animation does that for you.

Jerry' simulation is just another version of your idea.
.....Draw 100 lines around a wheel and there will still
be 100 lines around it no matter how fast it spins.....

That's pretty clever for a relativist actually.

Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
an animation. Learn to tell the difference.

I wrote it because you have proven yourself incapable of
understanding two lines of trivial algebra... actually,
for the Sagnac experiment, ONE LINE of trivial algebra,
since the implicit presumption in these threads seems to
be that extinction is irrelevant to Sagnac.

Jerry, you know that "extinction" doesn't mean what
Henry uses it for. Please keep correct astronomical
terminology in sci.astro :-)

My code directly implements -all- the known mathematics
of Ballistic Theory that is relevant to the Sagnac
experiment.

Except you omitted the main feature.

It should be obvious that the source and detector for a particular photon
are
not in the same position.

You really should be ashamed....

No, it is YOU who should be ashamed. You are harping
on a trivial matter of programming convenience.

It so happens that by positioning source and detector
at the same point, that the counter-rotating beams are
guaranteed to meet with zero phase difference.

In reality your simulation is correct, it
is the plane of the beam splitter that lies
on your line so it is a common plane and your
code is correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...rferometer.png

More importantly, Henry isn't talking about a
physical separation of the source and detector,
I believe he means that the location where the
wave hits the detector is not the same as that
where the wave left the source because the table
turned while the light was in flight. Of course
your code shows that but Henry doesn't understand
it. What I would suggest is that you could add
some marker dots, one static dropped when a
feature (say a zero-crossing) leaves the source
marking the point in the inertial frame where
it was emitted, two fixed on the point on the
wave moving with the red and blue lines in the
opposite directions and finally one where the
light returns to the detector.

To accommodate your request for source and detector
being separated, I will need to think a bit on how to
represent phase changes in a simple and intuitive
manner.

What you have done is fine, don't be thrown by
Henry's inability to understand it.

As usual, I will publish full source code so that you
can validate the correctness of my solution.

Ballistic Theory, of course, is already disproven.
You are just being desperately stubborn in trying to
seek any possible excuse, no matter how feeble.

Actually, I think he _genuinely_ doesn't understand
what you have shown this time.

George