Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:48:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/rese...Review1997.pdf


Hm.
Be aware that a ring laser is quite different from a Sagnac ring.
In a Sagnac ring, the source (laser) and the detector is fixed to the ring.
The phase difference between the two waves depend on the angular
velocity, but the phase difference is constant at a constant rotation.
That is, the fringe does not move, it is the position of the fringe
that give the information about the rotation.
A fibre-optic gyro is a Sagnac ring.

But a ring laser is just that - a laser arranged as a ring.
(Actually a square or a triangle). In a normal laser,
a wave is bouncing back and forth between two parallel mirrors.
So there are two waves going in opposite directions within
the laser. We get a standing wave pattern, like a pearl necklace,
within the laser.
In a ring laser, there are also two waves going in opposite
directions within the laser, and we get the same standing
wave pattern. But this time, the "necklace" have no ends,
it is a ring. Note that there is no localized source;
the whole ring is lasing.
The important point is that if the apparatus is rotated,
the "necklace" will NOT rotate along. So the detector,
which is fixed to the apparatus and rotating along with it,
can actually "see" the "pearls" in the "necklace" passing by.
So in a ring laser, the phase difference between the opposing
waves are continuously changing. Or the fringes are moving
with a speed proportional to the rotation, if you like.


Are you sure of that?

Yes.

They are not based on the sagnac effect then.

The problem with the fibre-optic gyro is that to measure
the rotation, you have to compare the position of the fringes
to their position when the gyro was not rotating.
So the gyro must be calibrated when the gyro is known not
to rotate. (Not very easy on a rotating Earth). And
the calibration will drift with temperature, etc.


It is easy to compensate for those.

The ring laser do not have this problem.
(Of course it has to be collimated to lase at all.
But any laser must.)
Because of its very principle, it is inherently more
precise that the fibre-optic gyro.

That's why ring lasers are used in the inertial navigation
system in planes. These gyros are so sensitive that when
the INS is started, it takes only ten minutes before it has
have figured out how the plane is oriented. It does that
by comparing the rotation around the three axes due
to the rotation of the Earth.


That isn't very clear.

Maybe not.
What I tried to say is that the INS is aligned when
the plane is stationary on the ground.
A "strap down" system have three laser gyros, one
for each of the three axes fixed to the plane.
Imagine it is standing on equator, heading north.
The gyros will then detect rotation around the roll axis only,
and none around the other axes. If it is heading east,
the rotation will be around the pitch axis only.
So no rotation around the yaw axis means latitude zero.
The ratio of rotation around the pitch and roll axes will
give the heading.
If the plane is on the north pole, the rotation will be around
the yaw axis only.
So in short, the rotation around the yaw axis give the latitude.
The rotation around the pitch and roll axes give the heading.
And this takes only ten minutes. The earth rotates only 2.5 degrees
during that time.
Impressive, eh? :-)

Like much of modern technology, yes.



I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an
entirely different principle to the four mirror type.

I don't think you will discuss ring lasers because they so
obviously falsifies the BaT.

We are discussing sagnac.
Your statement above shows these aren't basd on sagnac.

I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before
because you were unable to refute my arguments.

In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all
the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms
which are the sources of the light, are moving fast relative to
each other. BaT falsified.

It is YOUR theory that each atom is a source.
Other don't believe you.
Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about.

FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which
reflect at infinitesimal angle.
We aren't going to get anywhere multiplying zero by infinity.

Not unless you know some math, of course.
Hint: limits.
What is sin(x)/x for x = 0?

Irelevant.


And light in a mono-mode fibre is never reflected.
It's a wave guide.
BaT falsified.

There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles.

So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh?

I think by now you will have realised that it fully supports the BaTh and
probably refutes SR.

Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT.
No question about it.

My diagram clearly show the opposite.
Path lengths change during acceleration. Wavelength is absolutely constant
according to the BaTh. Therefore fringes will MOVE during angular acceleration
and will NOT move during constant rotation.

Sagnac disproves SR.

Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes
will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens.

Of course it is.
But I have in a much shorter time proved that according
to the BaT, the phase relationship between the two waves
will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation.
That is NOT what happens.
The BaT falsified.

You haven't proved that at all.
You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this.
You haven't a clue.
Study my diagram again.

And you never refuted my proof.
You fled it by claiming that interferometers works
in an entirely different manner than physicists think.
You are unable to explain _how_ you think it works, thought.
All you know is that it works in some mysterious way which
make the fringes appear at different positions even when
the phase relationship between the two waves are the same.

A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature
for every new phenomenon that must be explained away.

The sagnac effect occurs when the apparatus is experiencing angular
acceleration. The reason is that, during light transit time, successive
components are displaced by a little more than they would be under constant
rotation.
The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used.
Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small
variations in light speed do not make any significant difference to the result.


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:15:38 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:51:54 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight"



When are you going to realize its time to leave these arseholes in the
dust?
They are not educable, you can't learn anything from them.
Faith cannot be argued with.

I have woken up to that.
Total waste of time.

****-can them. Look out for students wanting real help and give
them guidance. That way you'll be a useful member of society instead
of a mental institution nursing assistant, and have more time to spend
on research when not playing golf.
Androcles.

Even talking to idiots can be productive sometimes.
Thanks to George (who is not as dumb as the rest but more persistent and
stubborn) I have solved the sagnac riddle.


HW.

Sagnac riddle? What riddle?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e=source&hl=en
(August 4th,2005)

All you had do to was ask.
Three months struggling with Dish, 5 minutes from me.
You are very stubborn, H.

Your explanation does explain why the fringe DISPLACEMENT changes only
during
an angular acceleration of the apparatus.

If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift.
It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to
change from f1 to f2 for there to be a shift in phase.
In this diagram (the best I have available right now)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iffraction.png
imagine the frequency through one slit is f.(c+v)/c and through
the other slit is f.(c-v)/c.
The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over.
There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration.




The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation
speed.
Of course.
Androcles.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:32:04 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:55:51 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:

My threebody program can do those things.

Show us. Let's see your figure of 8.
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html

I would have to feed in the exact starting parameters.

Clearly displayed by Butikov...


However it would soon become unstable on any real computer simulation..

Oh, so your program is chaotic then?
I sure you said "My threebody program can do those things."
Let's see you do those things. Or are you just blowing smoke?

My program comes up with all kinds of wierd motions.
Starting parameters are crucial.

True for all differential equations and well-known.
http://www.wolfram.com/products/math.../ndsolve.html/
This animation shows the application of the new numerical method of lines
algorithm for solving the Korteweg-de Vries equation demonstrating the
nonlinear interaction of solitary waves. Excellent spatial resolution is
achieved efficiently in this example by use of a pseudospectral
discretization method.

http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html

Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's.

Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result
stops changing.

0- 11.38

1- 3.37

6- 6.68

11- 11.38 (again)

Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge
quickly.

This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql.


But even if I fed in the exact values, the figure of 8 would soon
disappear. No
computer is sufficiently accurate to maintain it.

I understand completely. I've been telling you that for months, but you are
too stubborn to listen. You just go on insisting your program is the best.


Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just
a
program designed to trace that 8 shape.


That sounds like professional jealousy of professor Butikov.
You remind me of Tom Roberts. He hallucinates too.

C'mon, H. Put your skills where your mouth is, your program will
be better than Butikov's.

I can easily write a program that will do exactly what his demo does...but
it
wont be based on GMm/r^2

Mine is based on Kepler's equation. I KNEW your program could not work, 20
****in' years ago. Actually I knew 40 years ago, but had no computer of my
own then. I was pounding away on a 110 baud teletype in numbered BASIC, it
was all there was.


I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative like Dishman.
I was hoping you'd show you how to get an RR-Lyrae curve the
way you showed you the solution to the Sagnac "riddle" that I
posted last August.

Is R Leo the type of curve you mean? That's quite straightforward.

That's too slow. It's not even a Lyra, the fundamental is 1 year.

Jovian-sized planet in Venus-sized orbit. Say you discovered it and call it
Wupiter if you like. There's another big planet with a 3 to 4-month period
closer to the star, Mercury sized orbit. Call that one Waturn or Weptune or
Wooranus, only please don't call it a Wilson Cool Heavy. I'm not kidding,
either. We are not going to find Earth sized planets without much finer
data, but we can be pretty certain about the bigger ones.


If you want to see the reason why sagnac supports the BaTh see:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg


I've seen it before. (Yawn)

If you want to know how to suck eggs, make a small hole at each end and blow
into one of them.

Androcles.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis

Ok. Anything to oblige.
Andersen, you have convinced me.
Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
understand why your statement is nonsense.
Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
I'm sure it will happen again.

Androcles.

"Paul B. Andersen" paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis

Ok. Anything to oblige.
Andersen, you have convinced me.
Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
understand why your statement is nonsense.
Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
I'm sure it will happen again.

Androcles.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:27:37 GMT, "Black Knight" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:15:38 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:51:54 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight"



When are you going to realize its time to leave these arseholes in the
dust?
They are not educable, you can't learn anything from them.
Faith cannot be argued with.

I have woken up to that.
Total waste of time.

****-can them. Look out for students wanting real help and give
them guidance. That way you'll be a useful member of society instead
of a mental institution nursing assistant, and have more time to spend
on research when not playing golf.
Androcles.

Even talking to idiots can be productive sometimes.
Thanks to George (who is not as dumb as the rest but more persistent and
stubborn) I have solved the sagnac riddle.


HW.

Sagnac riddle? What riddle?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e=source&hl=en
(August 4th,2005)

All you had do to was ask.
Three months struggling with Dish, 5 minutes from me.
You are very stubborn, H.

Your explanation does explain why the fringe DISPLACEMENT changes only
during
an angular acceleration of the apparatus.

I left out the 'not'.
Your explanation does NOT explain......


If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift.
It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to
change from f1 to f2 for there to be a shift in phase.
In this diagram (the best I have available right now)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iffraction.png
imagine the frequency through one slit is f.(c+v)/c and through
the other slit is f.(c-v)/c.
The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over.
There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration.

Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac.





The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation
speed.
Of course.
Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:27:29 GMT, "Black Knight" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:32:04 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:55:51 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:

My threebody program can do those things.

Show us. Let's see your figure of 8.
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html

I would have to feed in the exact starting parameters.

Clearly displayed by Butikov...


However it would soon become unstable on any real computer simulation..

Oh, so your program is chaotic then?
I sure you said "My threebody program can do those things."
Let's see you do those things. Or are you just blowing smoke?

My program comes up with all kinds of wierd motions.
Starting parameters are crucial.

True for all differential equations and well-known.
http://www.wolfram.com/products/math.../ndsolve.html/
This animation shows the application of the new numerical method of lines
algorithm for solving the Korteweg-de Vries equation demonstrating the
nonlinear interaction of solitary waves. Excellent spatial resolution is
achieved efficiently in this example by use of a pseudospectral
discretization method.

http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html

Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's.

Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result
stops changing.

0- 11.38

1- 3.37

6- 6.68

11- 11.38 (again)

Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge
quickly.

This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql.


But even if I fed in the exact values, the figure of 8 would soon
disappear. No
computer is sufficiently accurate to maintain it.

I understand completely. I've been telling you that for months, but you are
too stubborn to listen. You just go on insisting your program is the best.

That is an entirely different program.
This one is my 'three body' animation.

The other is my variable star simulation.



Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just
a
program designed to trace that 8 shape.


That sounds like professional jealousy of professor Butikov.
You remind me of Tom Roberts. He hallucinates too.

C'mon, H. Put your skills where your mouth is, your program will
be better than Butikov's.

I can easily write a program that will do exactly what his demo does...but
it
wont be based on GMm/r^2

Mine is based on Kepler's equation. I KNEW your program could not work, 20
****in' years ago. Actually I knew 40 years ago, but had no computer of my
own then. I was pounding away on a 110 baud teletype in numbered BASIC, it
was all there was.

You are talking about two entirely different programs A. I have programs that
do all kinds of things.

Nothing wring with basic....

I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative like Dishman.
I was hoping you'd show you how to get an RR-Lyrae curve the
way you showed you the solution to the Sagnac "riddle" that I
posted last August.

Is R Leo the type of curve you mean? That's quite straightforward.

That's too slow. It's not even a Lyra, the fundamental is 1 year.

Jovian-sized planet in Venus-sized orbit. Say you discovered it and call it
Wupiter if you like. There's another big planet with a 3 to 4-month period
closer to the star, Mercury sized orbit. Call that one Waturn or Weptune or
Wooranus, only please don't call it a Wilson Cool Heavy. I'm not kidding,
either. We are not going to find Earth sized planets without much finer
data, but we can be pretty certain about the bigger ones.


If you want to see the reason why sagnac supports the BaTh see:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg


I've seen it before. (Yawn)

I don't think you have.


If you want to know how to suck eggs, make a small hole at each end and blow
into one of them.

Androcles.





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:15:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
.....

You said it.

Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It
expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation.

IOW, no position change (back to zero).


BUT!!!!
The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous
fringe shift during steady rotation.

IOW, a constant position change. (offset remains constant).


Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!!

So, you are saying that BaT predicts the fringes will shift during a-
acceleration and return to original position when contant a-velocity is
reached while SR predicts the fringes will move during acceleration and
maintain a constant position when a constant velocity is reached?

In otherwords BaT predicts return to original position upon ceasation of
acceleration while SR predicts return to original position upon
ceasation of rotation.

If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the
difference.

Also, a light ring gyro should measure angular acceleration rather than
angular position.

Idiot. Learn the facts.

tiodI.

Facts are that in a BaT universe, the sagnac device would only show fringe
shift when accelerating. Fringes would go back to zero when velocity was
constant.

YOU said it correctly. Now you are backpeddling.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Black Knight wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis

Ok. Anything to oblige.
Andersen, you have convinced me.
Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
understand why your statement is nonsense.
Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
I'm sure it will happen again.

Androcles.



Ouch!
You really got me there, Androcles.

Since you say so, I am sure my statement must have been nonsense.
But which statement are you referring to?
Would you quote it please, so we can laugh at it together?

Paul

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 06:10:53 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 15 Nov 2005 06:55:28 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
snip

snip uncommented parts

As you said of Maxwell's
Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c"
and the magnetic fields still exist and are still
governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame.

Maxwell's equation applies to a wave that is symmetrical around an axis.

No, Maxwell's Equations apply to the interactions of
electric and magnetic fields regardless of symmetry.
You can define a set of boundary conditions and they
will tell you how the fields evolve thereafter. For
example the waves produced by applying a sine wave
voltage to a metal sphere will differ from those
produced by a flat plate or a long wire. Maxwell's
Equations apply to the fields regardless of the shape
or motion of the source.

That's rubbish George.

I suggest you open a textbook and find out ho Maxwell's
equations are used.

George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.

The wavefront above for the laser was 1.1mm in diameter.
Open a basic textbook and see if you can find out how
Maxwell's Equations would predict that would evolve.
Breaking it into infinitesimal parts was your choice.

george, I'l try to make this even more simple. You are still have trouble
understanding it. Below is a laser beam with a infinitesimally wide diagonal
element drawn through it.

| |
| |
| |
/
/
| |
| |

So tell me, how does an element of infinitesimal width stretch all
the way across a beam which is 1.1mm wide? What you don't
seem to follow is that if you are going to analyse the evolution
of the wavefront using infinitesimal elements, you have to break
the wavefront into an infinite number of such elements and then
integrate over the whole set.

Tell me George, does that element show any tendency to shoot off in the
diagonal direction?

The element doesn't move at all, it produces a contribution to the
fields in the space around it and you integrate the contributions
from all such elements to find the field at some new position. You
really should open a textbook sometime.

Of course not! Why? Because it is not a light beam. It is not governed by
Maxwell's equations. It is infinitesimal. It is nothing.


and its axis remains vertical.
There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally..

Their path length is that of the diagonal, that's all that matters.

There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally..

We are only interested in the direction of their motion, not
their orientation. That direction is diagonal as Einstein said
and you illustrated proving him right.

Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so
how are you going to resolve that ;-)

George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.

Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part
of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal
elements, find another way to do your math.

See above.

According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source
frame. I think you are being deliberately difficult.

I think you are deliberately avoiding addressing what I am
saying. If you deal with ONLY one point source then it
disperses. If you shine a laser on a pinhole much smaller
than the wavelengh, then diffraction at the edges gives you
spherical waves emanating from the hole. In order to keep
the narrow beam, you need a pinhole larger than the
wavelength and you have to model the wavefront as
a large number of small elements and integrate.

You know I am right.

I can see you don't have any clue how to use Maxwell's
Equations and you don't seem to be aware of the
relationship between aperture and dispersion.

George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.

Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part
of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal
elements, find another way to do your math.

The wavefront is horizontal.

In the laser frame that is correct, so your "infinitesimal
elements" have to be aligned horizontally and you have
to integrate over them.

According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source
frame.

No, according to me, the wavefront from a point source
(such as ONE infinitesimal element) would disperse in
all directions in the ALL frames. To model a laser you
MUST include all the elements across the finite width
of the beam in some way.

George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways.

It draws a straight line.

Does the pen lean over?

I don't care, now repeat the sideways motion but this
time also move it away from you at the same time. It
moves diagonally and for the same amount of sideways
motion the line is longer than the first time, that fact
is all that Einstein uses. The line isn't a pen, but then
it wasn't the pen the first time either so your stuff
about "the light isn't light anymore" is just
meaningless nonsense.

George, hold the pen vertical then move it sideways and upwards.
That's what Einstein tried to do....

No Henri, you have utterly failed to understand what he did.
What he siad is that the length of the line drawn by the pen
along the diagonal is longer than that drawn vertically. He
is of course entirely correct as you have illustrated.

What's this 'the diagonal'?

The diagonal line being drawn by this single pen you
introduced into the discussion.

There is an infinite number of diagonals involved.
...and of course each one is longer than the vertical.
Plain Pythagoras.

Exactly, and plain Pythogoras is what Einstein was using.
I can't believe how much effort you are putting into trying
to hide that simple fact.

snip
Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri,
what are you raving about.

The speed of the diagonally moving indinfitesimal points has never been
measured George.

I said the speed of light, not of "indinfitesimal points" (sic).

You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been
measured

Where? I said the speed of light had been measured.

and found to be c. That is not true and you know it.

TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and
you know it, and that is what I said.

There is NO wave moving along any diagonal.

The ant is still an ant.

a vertical ant....in all horiziontally moving frames, at any instant.

That's the point you are missing.,,the 'instant' bit.

I'm not missing it at all, I agreed it the first time you said it.
I am waiting for you to explain why you think the direction
of the axis affects the length of the path.

If you take a movie shot of ants crawling up a pole while you flash past in
your car, do their bodies appear vertical or diagonal on each frame?

I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path.

It affects what is supposed to be moving along each diagonal.

Nope, what comes out of a laser it is still light whether you
move your hand or not. I am still waiting for you to explain
why it affects the length of the path because if it doesn't
it is irrelevant.

George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.

The beam (wavefront) is 1.1mm wide for the laser example
above. All beams have a finite width Henri.

I don't care what you laser is.
Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical
lines.

The field is continuous over the width. Your approach of
breaking it into a large number of finite segments is
giving you problems.

Work out what happens to each one of those.

By your own argument, none of them exists since they
are infinitesimal. That is nonsense of course but if you
want to use that argument in the moving frame, it also
applies in the laser frame.

According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source
frame.

No, according to Maxwell's Equations, a point source produces
spherical wavefronts.

Nobody has tested the polarization of a sideways moving, vertical light beam.
There is no actual diagonal beam to test it on.

I'll see if I can find the WMAP map. The details of the
interaction of moving matter and light are complex, and
your ants don't explain it well, but it remains a powerful tool.

You are trying to change the subject.

Just pointing out that your assertion is nonsense.

Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving
frames, but the light whose location is represented
by those points is still light, the ants are still ants.

and they are still vertical at any instant in all frames.

How does that affect the path length of the 1.1mm disc
shaped wavefronts?

George, I think you are trying to tell me that the wavefronts are lined up like
this in the moving frame:

_
_
_
_
_

or this:

\
\
\
\
\

They do neither,

They remain like this:

_
_
_ -
_
_

In all frames.

No, what I am saying is that you can integrate over all the
inifinitesimal elements to apply Maxwell's Equations (ME)
and the result tells you the direction power will flow. If you
start with a horizontal wavefront and apply ME then the
wavefront will move vertically like this which is obviously
wrong:

_
_
_ ^
_ |
_

In all frames.

What you will find is that the result in the moving
frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving
diagonally towards the top right.

\
\
\ -
\
\

Try to work out what the wavefronts look like inside
the laser as they bounce between the mirrors and
you should finally understand.

It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2)

You know there has never been such a measurement, George.

The speed of light has been measured many times
Henri, I have no idea why you are denying that.

HoHohahaha!

George, TWLS has been measured and found to be consistent and precise

Exactly what I have been saying throughout. If you are
now admitting I was right, I fail to see why you keep
claiming it has never been measured.

George, what you are refering to is not light and its speed has certainly never
been measured, either OW or TW..

What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if
you move your hand while holding it.

It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames.

It is light in all frames. The beam is also vertical in all frames.
The difference is that the wavefronts are propagating in the
diagonal direction.

Which part of "constant" escapes you?

None.
The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants
escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed.

The fact that they find the same values means the speed must be
the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to
the postulate.

But we know they are not thsame.
The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds.

Do we? That is YOUR competing postulate and the point is that
it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined
by the constants.

Energy and momentum for example. Been here before?

Energy and momentum are properties of energy and momentum, not of photons.

I'm not even going to waste my time on that one.

Why not?

Because properties are like adjectives that apply to nouns,
you are trying to apply an adjective to an adjective. If I say
a brick is hot, then temperature is a property of the brick.

You have wasted a lot more time worshipping the hoaxer Einstein.


snip nonsense

Snip what you don't want to hear.

Snip what has no scientific content, like the comment above.
If all you can do is toss insults around, you are obviously
unable just justify your assertions, you reduce them to
religious claims, and there is no point in taling about it any
farther.

Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical
while the wavefronts should be horizontal.

Consider the laser beam to be infinitesimal in width....or at least much
smaller than a wavelength of the light used.

Then it would produce spherical wavefronts and wouldn't
be a laser at all. The width must be many wavelengths for
the beam to have a small dispersion so let's consider the
beam to be 1.1mm in diameter.

It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in
all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does.

Think about shining a laser onto a pinhole. The width is
very important in a classical analysis.

I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not
constitute 'wavefronts'.

The points on the graph aren't infinitesimal, they are purely
mathematical points of zero size. They represent the "very
very small pieces" of the actual wavefront, or isn't that what
you mean, it is what you have been saying.

Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'.

Same thing Henri.

Not the same George.

Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus.

Even if the laser beam is wide, only an infinitesimally thin section will move
up any diagonal line....far too thin to be a light wave.

Each circular disc wavefront sweeps out a tube with
elliptical cross section with a major axis of 1.1mm.
Maxwell's Equations must describe the evolution of
that wavefront or they are invalid.

The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph.
It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties.

Let me remind you of what you said above:

The wavefront is horizontal.

That horizontal line is merely a mathematical trick, it
marks the highest field strength in a region but the
field is actually a sine wave filling the volume of the
beam. That propagating sine wave is what is called
light (both fields of course but I'm keeping it simple
here).

Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin.
That was what was worrying them.

Maxwell's equations apply to waves moving in one direction.

Nope, they apply to the evolution of the fields whether there are
waves involved or not and they apply in all frames. Think of a
mexican wave in a stadium. You can describe the overall effect
using a wave equation but you can also define the behaviour of
one person solely in terms of the movement of those around him.
You can then produce a wave by defining the starting condition
for everyone at some instant and then using the individual
behaviour to evolve the next state and so on. That's how they
work. A plane wave is just one solution.

According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all
diagonal directions, in the source frame.

No, according to Maxwell's Equations, the field from any
single one of your "infinitesimal elements" would disperse
in ALL frames. It is the interference between the infinite
number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the
wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing.

George