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

wrote in message
oups.com...

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
...
George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember
quite
vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME
OF
TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that this
refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too bad!

Sadly it seems you also lost my response to your comment,
the distance does alter Jim, the detector MOVES while the
light is in transit. In the experiment, the length is
known to change because we know the speed of rotation of
the table, the time is measured to change and when you
calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c.

"Time" is MEASURED to change?????
Say the path around the machine is 3 meter. Time for circuit of light
is
10^-8 sec. Now do a fast turn.

Let's assume 600 rpm, 10 rev per second.

The passengers would all be DEAD!

You said "Say the path around the machine is 3 meter".
That description fits the usual Sagnac experiment with
a spinning turntable of less than 1m diameter so that's
how I answered. No passengers. Again, if you give me
insufficient details, I may guess incorrectly.

Anyway, regardless of all that, the Sagnac experiment
measures the speed of the light of the source moving
on the turntable and gives a value of exactly what SR
predicts, c in vacuum or just the right amount lower
depending on the refractive index in fibre.

George, I am referring to the rotation of the aircraft ref the earth,
which you claim to be able to "time" (the difference in a photon doing
one rev of the attached sagnac machine) when the aircraft is proceeding
straight, and comparing to the "time" of that photon doing one rev when
the plane is changing direction- say 180degrees (half the circumference
of the sagnac) per HOUR!

An iFOG will do slightly better than that. The
thing you don't seem to grasp is that engineers
like me work on such devices for years finding
ways to eliminate errors and improve the
performance by doing things like modulating the
light beam and using configurations in which
noise cancels out.

Whatever your sagnac animation is doing, it is NOT comparing measured
times of photon circuits.

That is precisely what it does Jim, in some case by
direct measurement or sometimes by placing a delay
circuit into the optical loop and using a closed-loop
servo to null the difference. As I said:

In fact the technology is much better than the example
given above. If you had read the web sites on iFOGs we
were talking about, the best can measure a few tens of
degrees per hour. They can measure the rotation of the
Earth with a bit of care once properly calibrated which
is about 100,000 times better than above in a box only
a few cm across! Ring lasers are even better. You don't
seem to realise just how powerful modern technology has
become.

It is ASSUMED!

So how does the commercial kit know how fast it
is rotating if we humans only assume it? Where
do the numbers on the dial come from Jim? Why
don't the planes fall out of the sky?

Q: If the machine is set at 600rpm grounded, how many rpm is it doing
when the airframe to which it is attached is doing 1rpm
(Hint: either 601 or 599)

The Sagnac experiment I described in the lab was
doing 600rpm. In the case of an aircraft trying
to fly straight, an error in the iFOG might give
a drift of 20 degrees per hour. The stability is
around 1 degree per hour so if you measure the
offset for a given device and apply a fixed
correction, the plane won't deviate more than
1 degree off course in an hour (I'm ignoring
temperature effects).

http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP3000_5.04.pdf

The drift would usually be corrected by compass or
GPS. The role of the iFOG is primarily to provide
dynamic information with a fast response as part
of the autopilot but is quite adequate to control
a plane as a backup should say the GPS box fail.

So now the poor old sun has only managed 4.6 / .22 = 20 revs
around the galaxy :-( .....hardly seems fair.........

A galaxy is a very dynamic place, astronomy might
be as boring as a kid's roundabout if not :-)

George

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| George Dishman wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| George Dishman wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| ...
| George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember
quite
| vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the
TIME OF
| TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that
this
| refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too
bad!
|
| Sadly it seems you also lost my response to your comment,
| the distance does alter Jim, the detector MOVES while the
| light is in transit. In the experiment, the length is
| known to change because we know the speed of rotation of
| the table, the time is measured to change and when you
| calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c.
|
| "Time" is MEASURED to change?????
| Say the path around the machine is 3 meter. Time for circuit of
light
| is
| 10^-8 sec. Now do a fast turn.
|
| Let's assume 600 rpm, 10 rev per second.
|
| The passengers would all be DEAD!
| George, I am referring to the rotation of the aircraft ref the earth,
| which you claim to be able to "time" (the difference in a photon doing
| one rev of the attached sagnac machine) when the aircraft is
proceeding
| straight, and comparing to the "time" of that photon doing one rev
when
| the plane is changing direction- say 180degrees (half the
circumference
| of the sagnac) per HOUR!
| Whatever your sagnac animation is doing, it is NOT comparing measured
| times of photon circuits.
|
| How much did the 3m alter,
|
| 3m * 10^-8 = 300nm, or 10^-15 sec
|
| and how good
| is the watch that differentiated between periods stable and
rotating.
|
| Yellow light has a frequency of 5 * 10^14 Hz so 0.1
| of a fringe shift is 2 * 10^-16 sec. I have used
| interferometers and worked to a tenth of a fringe by
| eye without too much trouble. Electronics is far
| better.
|
| Hint; Your clocks (time) are trying to measure the difference
between
| the flight of a photon over 3m, and 2.999999999999999999999999999m
|
| 3.0m versus 3.0000003m and we can measure to better
| than 0.00000006m.
|
| The time is NOT measured to change! We do not posses the
technology to
| get anywhere near that accuracy.
|
| In fact the technology is much better than the example
| given above. If you had read the web sites on iFOGs we
| were talking about, the best can measure a few tens of
| degrees per hour. They can measure the rotation of the
| Earth with a bit of care once properly calibrated which
| is about 100,000 times better than above in a box only
| a few cm across! Ring lasers are even better. You don't
| seem to realise just how powerful modern technology has
| become.
|
| It is ASSUMED!
|
| So how does the commercial kit know how fast it
| is rotating if we humans only assume it? Where
| do the numbers on the dial come from Jim? Why
| don't the planes fall out of the sky?
|
| Q: If the machine is set at 600rpm grounded, how many rpm is it doing
| when the airframe to which it is attached is doing 1rpm
| (Hint: either 601 or 599)
|
| As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the
| correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against
| the horses head but using a gyroscope (or you could say a
| distant mountain if you were on a non-rotating planet).
|
| Nope. Sirius IS the distant mountain as far as our markers for
| direction go.
|
| Wrong Jim, find out before speaking. Look up "ICRF"
| and learn. In particular look up the defining source
| details and find the average red shift (z factor).
|
| Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of
| stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done
| before criticising.
|
| It will be 12 billion years before we know what is happening NOW
at the
| limit of our present vision. Might as well shop local!
|
| BTW: Do YOU think it likely that the Milky Way has only revolved
60
| times?
| It seems much more stable than that.
|
| Why do you think stability is related to the number
| of turns? I can't see why you think there would be
| a connection.
|
| Anyway, to add a bit of education, a galaxy isn't
| rigid so stars at different radii have completed
| different numbers of revolutions. The place is very
| dynamic, the Sun was only created 4.6 billion years
| ago and will die in a few more. The arms are shock
| waves that move round at a different speed to the
| stars in them, so saying "the Milky Way has only
| revolved 60 times" is an oversimplification. What
| I would say is that by using small radio sources
| billions of light years away as a reference (the
| 'mountain') we can now _measure_ the rotation of
| the galaxy (around Sag A*) directly using VLBI, and
| the value is the same as that obtained by measuring
| the Doppler shift of other parts of the galaxy
| relative to us. It's about 220 million years at
| the distance we are from the centre (about 28kly)
| and we also "bob up and down" through the plane
| roughly every 80 million years IIRC. These are not
| contentious figures Jim, I don't understand why you
| are sceptical.
|
| So now the poor old sun has only managed 4.6 / .22 = 20 revs
| around the galaxy :-( .....hardly seems fair.........
|
| Jim
Hey Jim!
Let him have enough rope to hang himself.

This is Sagnac:
Light starts at A, goes in opposite directions to mirrors at
B and C, meets itself at D.
+
A--\C
| |
B\--D

As it does so, the system revolves.

+
D--\B
| |
C\--A

So on the turntable, the light went from A to D
On the page it went from the top left, where the '+' is, to the top
left,
where the '+' is.
Speed of light on the rotating turntable, c.
Speed of light on the page, zero clockwise, 2c counterclockwise.
Let him have his time slow down, the observer on the page is
not allowed to see the speed of light be anything but c, so it is
his watch that slows down and stops.
Be careful not to look at fast Sagnac devices, your heart will stop.
Androcles.

|

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
. ..

George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that
matters.

That is ZERO.

No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of
the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters.
You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next!

Your basic physics is sadly lacking George.

If you think one mirror hits the next, it
is your understanding of the apparatus that
is sadly lacking Henri.

George, let me explain.

Good idea, it helps to flush out any misunderstandings.

You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the
movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the
speed of the observer relative to the source.

No. What I call the "lab frame" is an inertial frame
(not rotating) defined such that the central point of
the turntable is at rest. The easy way is to take that
point as the origin.

I have always said that the speed of the light in the
lab frame is the vector sum of the velocity of the
source and a vector describing the emission. The vector
sum points in the direction of the point where the light
must reflect off the first mirror so that it eventually
reaches the detector because only light that hits the
detector affects the output of the detector (you seem to
think that light that misses the detector defines the
output, a view I have never understood). The magnitude
of the resultant can then be determined by trigonometry.

In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed
is at right angles to the first mirror.
Its speed component towards the mirror is zero.

In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period!

The light is emitted at c from the source but will then
vary along the path as the radius varies between source
and mirror.

For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two
frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity.

For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the
analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed
is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output
cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames
must give the same result.

Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result.

Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about
a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything.
snip to clarify
No "explanations" Henri, show the maths that
gives you the predicted output.

Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version.

Perhaps you lost the plot, the question was what
does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null
result.

that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT
MIRROR'S FRAME.
The 'v' in 'c+v' is zero in that mirror's frame.

No it isn't. If you insist on using the second
mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather
odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is
as good as any other), then the speed of the light
is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be
determined) and v perpendicular to path. That
isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras.

Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE NEXT.

If that is to be your approach, you have to analyse
the first leg from source to first mirror in the
frame of the first mirror, then do a transform into
the frame of the second mirror before analysing the
second leg, etc.. You haven't accounted for the
transform effects. At the end of the day, the result
can be no different from either of the two methods
we discussed above - a null result.

The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit
that
hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it
is
still.

And you know from personal experience that moving the
beam sideways does not alter the fringes. You said you
had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we
have been over all this before.

Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null
prediction, and you need to start by identifying
how BaT differs from Ritz.

George, you have been trying to find a decent explanation for the
sagnac effect for years.

Trivial Henri, the speed of light is c in the
lab frame does it perfectly.

In a gaseous atmosphere, that might be true.

Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for
Maxwell's equations but in anything other than
a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index.
That's basic physics Henri, you must know that.

Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the
act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum

Irrelevant Henri, the speed is c in the lab frame
in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge
all you like, you cannot change that.

As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is
zero.

Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed
of light would be infinite in ANY medium.

I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of
an 'axis'

Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and
you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have
pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to
polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical
cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation
reducing the accuracy so think again.

Ritz died prematurely.

His theory is what it is and still predicts
a null result.

Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date.
I'm trying to do that for him.

Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's
theory predicts a null result.

George

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT
:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 04:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote

epsilon_0?
mu_0?
c?
k?


Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds.
What values do you now get for the two constants?
What do they imply?

This experiment cannot distinguish between SR and BaT. It
*can* distinguish between LET and SR or LET and BaT.

All four constants remain the same.

You don't know that. No such experiment has ever been performed.

Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT.

In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed
of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s).

And it is rotating with the galaxy

Very slowly, though the actual speed might be 10x faster.
The good news about the Earth's revolution is that we know
the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed
relative to that period should show up fairly readily.



Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'.

For all four constants?

How do you know the readings would be the same?

I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be.

.
Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply?

In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic
space is probably pretty desolate.

Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where
strange things happen to light.

OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the
"Wilsonian threshold density"?

Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3

Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to
be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom
is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into
1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3.

That's within the galaxy.

Yes.

Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29

These are all guesses anyway.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg)
would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at
this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but
still big enough to dominate the Solar System.)

For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ty_010307.html

Just guesses really.

No way to know without a lot of work and exploring. We can make
some guesses by establishing G = 6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)
and trying to weigh the Earth, then the Sun -- but there's a lot
of unknown stuff out there, not the least of which is "dark matter".

Presumably, that's what's being done here.


If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it
escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe

If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P
And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically
precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license.

http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written:

Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot.

OK, I'll bite.

OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space.

What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants?
Are they zero? What do they imply?

One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate
capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is
the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates.
Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.

That's right.
Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.

Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an
infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago,
extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity
of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the
microwave background radiation is everywhere!

If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not
"completely empty", then can your claim
"Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space"
have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere?

What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the
two plates is?

Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance.

Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.

Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds.
What values do you now get for the two constants?
What do they imply?

Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty
space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as
before.

I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'.
However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is
indeed constant.

This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that
observer.

Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel
at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove
that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you
can't prove it, then your theory is kaput.

Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the
ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real
test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been
possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.

What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory?

If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings
to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble.

According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to
keep the measured values constant.

According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories
specifically designed to explain such null results.

--
Timo

Ghost:
| One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a
parallel plate
| capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where
e is
| the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the
plates.
| Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.

Niemenem:
| Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an
| infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t
ago,
| extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the
vicinity
| of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the
| microwave background radiation is everywhere!

Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a needle.
Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a plate
(any area).
Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens?

Androcles.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
|
| Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought
the
| ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a
real
| test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been
| possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.

I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, I'll
only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship
games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out.
I've started the thread "Capacitors in space". This one has a silly
title.
Androcles.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 06:03:44 +1000, Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written:

Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:

One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate
capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is
the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates.
Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.

That's right.
Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.

Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an
infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago,
extends to tc),

You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates
them..

then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity
of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the
microwave background radiation is everywhere!

You could be right..... but there could also be a lot of empty space between
the 'photons' that make up starlight and the CMBR.


If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not
"completely empty", then can your claim
"Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space"
have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere?

That's why I have proposed the 'Wilson density threshold' below which the
interaction between photons and matter changes fairly abruptly.

Above the threshold density, matter constitutes a kind of aether, which
determines the equilibrium light speed in that region. The speed of any light
emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that
equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though.

Below the threshold, photons are large and engulf atoms, causing them to be
'dragged along a little'. The energy lost by the photon to the atom is a major
cause of the cosmic redshift although the photon's direction of travel is
virtually unaffected.

What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the
two plates is?

Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance.

Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.

Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds.
What values do you now get for the two constants?
What do they imply?

Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty
space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as
before.

I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'.
However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is
indeed constant.

This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that
observer.

Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel
at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove
that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you
can't prove it, then your theory is kaput.

Maxwell's equations are totally meaningless unless a speed reference is
provided.
For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium.

Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the
ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real
test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been
possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.

What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory?

I am always willing.
I have thought about this a great deal...and repeat what I just stated above.
Speed must have a reference.

Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers.
They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c
determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame.

That notion is in accordance with aether theories, which basically say that any
observer will always get the same value 'c' ""because his instruments change to
make it so""..


If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings
to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble.

According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to
keep the measured values constant.

According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories
specifically designed to explain such null results.

I think they all do that.



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 Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT

Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT.

In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed
of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s).

And it is rotating with the galaxy

Very slowly, though the actual speed might be 10x faster.
The good news about the Earth's revolution is that we know
the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed
relative to that period should show up fairly readily.

You are just reiterating the age old notion that ONE EARTH ROTATION is an
excellent time reference.

Very good Ghost. I'm sure if you had been around 10000 years ago you would have
invented the sundial and maybe designed stonehenge.

Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'.

For all four constants?

How do you know the readings would be the same?

I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be.

I don't either. But the fact that both of us don't see any obvious reason isn't
a proof that there isn't one.


.
Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply?

In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic
space is probably pretty desolate.

Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where
strange things happen to light.

OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the
"Wilsonian threshold density"?

Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3

Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to
be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom
is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into
1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3.

That's within the galaxy.

Yes.

Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29

These are all guesses anyway.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg)
would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at
this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but
still big enough to dominate the Solar System.)

For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ty_010307.html

Just guesses really.

No way to know without a lot of work and exploring. We can make
some guesses by establishing G = 6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)
and trying to weigh the Earth, then the Sun -- but there's a lot
of unknown stuff out there, not the least of which is "dark matter".

Presumably, that's what's being done here.


If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it
escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe

If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P

Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though.

And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically
precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license.

I am not trying to make money out of my programs.


http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906

[.sigsnip]


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 Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:44:13 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...

George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that
matters.

That is ZERO.

No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of
the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters.
You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next!

Your basic physics is sadly lacking George.

If you think one mirror hits the next, it
is your understanding of the apparatus that
is sadly lacking Henri.

George, let me explain.

Good idea, it helps to flush out any misunderstandings.

You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the
movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the
speed of the observer relative to the source.

No. What I call the "lab frame" is an inertial frame
(not rotating) defined such that the central point of
the turntable is at rest. The easy way is to take that
point as the origin.

I have always said that the speed of the light in the
lab frame is the vector sum of the velocity of the
source and a vector describing the emission. The vector
sum points in the direction of the point where the light
must reflect off the first mirror so that it eventually
reaches the detector because only light that hits the
detector affects the output of the detector (you seem to
think that light that misses the detector defines the
output, a view I have never understood). The magnitude
of the resultant can then be determined by trigonometry.

In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed
is at right angles to the first mirror.
Its speed component towards the mirror is zero.

In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period!

Well OK.
I shouldn't have said 'the rotating frame'. Just the mirror frame.

In the '1st mirror frame' the source's component velocity in the mirror
direction is zero.

You neglected to incorporate the mirror's velocity in your previous arguments.

In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that mirror. Its
velocity component towards the mirror is zero.

The light is emitted at c from the source but will then
vary along the path as the radius varies between source
and mirror.

Since the source is orbiting the first mirror, we have a transverse doppler
situation.


For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two
frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity.

Source speed doesn't enter directly into the picture.

For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the
analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed
is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output
cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames
must give the same result.

....and that argument applies to SR as well. So sagnac refutes SR.

The only one that explains sagnac is LET.

However I prefer my 'light axis' theory.

Now I can add that Sagnac is just a 'transverse doppler effect'....and you will
find that 'gamma' appears in the maths.


Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result.

Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about
a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything.
snip to clarify
No "explanations" Henri, show the maths that
gives you the predicted output.

Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version.

Perhaps you lost the plot, the question was what
does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null
result.

Ritz has no bearing on Sagnac for the above reasons.
In the frame of any component, the previous component moves in a circle...and
thus contributes no speed component to the beam.


No it isn't. If you insist on using the second
mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather
odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is
as good as any other), then the speed of the light
is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be
determined) and v perpendicular to path. That
isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras.

Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE NEXT.

If that is to be your approach, you have to analyse
the first leg from source to first mirror in the
frame of the first mirror, then do a transform into
the frame of the second mirror before analysing the
second leg, etc.. You haven't accounted for the
transform effects. At the end of the day, the result
can be no different from either of the two methods
we discussed above - a null result.

there are NO transforms.

The source orbits the first mirror. Sagnac is a transverse doppler effect.
I have finally provided you with a plausible answer.


The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit
that
hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it
is
still.

And you know from personal experience that moving the
beam sideways does not alter the fringes. You said you
had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we
have been over all this before.

All right . None of that matters now. I have found the answer.



Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for
Maxwell's equations but in anything other than
a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index.
That's basic physics Henri, you must know that.

Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the
act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum

Irrelevant Henri, the speed is c in the lab frame
in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge
all you like, you cannot change that.

SR just reiterates the aether concept.


As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is
zero.

Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed
of light would be infinite in ANY medium.

There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'.

There can be a 'speed of light relative to..'


Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and
you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have
pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to
polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical
cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation
reducing the accuracy so think again.

Ritz died prematurely.

His theory is what it is and still predicts
a null result.

Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date.
I'm trying to do that for him.

Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's
theory predicts a null result.

No, George.
I have now provided you with something to seriously ponder.
The Sagnac effect is based on transverse doppler....


George




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".