Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:44:16 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 23 Oct, 22:46, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:42:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

ring
gyro too.
So what?

So for the interference pattern to extend several
wavelengths away from the in-phase fringe, each
photon must be at least several wavelengths long
(in your classical picture of a photon) and that
means it is periodic, it has cycles.

Yes.

So stop pretending it doesn't.

I have consistently put forward the idea of an 'intrinsic standing wave'
or similar.

Forget "ideas" and do physics instead, a standing
wave needs a signal propagating _towards_ the
source.

Paul, your model of a photon is just that of a moving 'sinewave'.... this is
crap...
BaTh requires that the front of the 'wave/particle' changes cyclically in some
way with each 'absolute wavelength' it moves.

I don't see anything outrageous about that.


Yes, you are an idiot.

For continuing to talk to you , maybe...but at least I get the right answer.

No you don't, your maths is just wrong. Saying
2+2 = 5 isn't right even if the answer you
expected was 5. Your maths should have been 2+3.

You can't do maths George. Let's face it....and you certainly do NO understand
basic physics.
You can't even acknowledge that a static point in a non-rotating frame moves in
the rotating frame.

You and Jerry are assuming that light is a wave traveling in a medium.
it is not.

Correct, but interference needs a periodic
characteristic and ballistic theory says it
moves. Waves in a medium is an ANALOGY, not
a MODEL. Get it yet clueless? Oh and by the
way, YOU introduced the analogy.

George, you are treating light literally as a moving sine wave. ...a water
wave...

That is what you see whan you measure an EM
siganl, such as a radio station, and ballistic
theory has got to be able to model that or it
fails. Ballistic theory is NOT limited to just
light, it has to be able oto accurately predict
EVERY type of EM propagated phenomenon.

Radio waves are different. They are composed of lots of photons. The 'wave' is
just a physical 'graph' of photon density.


and you will find your error, or look at Jerry's
version, she got it right.

Phase on arrival at detector is just [pathlength mod(wavelength)]

Sorry Henry, you are wrong, I have told you the
correct formula repeatedly.

Let me explain.

Both SR and BaTh accept that each element of the rays is emitted from a point
that is stationary in the non-otating frame. That is legitimate physics.
(neither Paul nor George will acknowledge that this emission point MOVES in the
rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating frame' argument)

SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that static
emission point. SR calculates the travel times of the rays around the ring and
finds those times to be diffferent because of the different path lengths. SR
says that this indicates a phase difference at the detector. (Note, SR ignores
the fact that the elements emitted simutaneously do not arrive simultaneously)

BaTh says that the rays move at c wrt the moving source from the (static)
emission point. They move at c+v and c-v (wrt the no-rotating frame) around the
ring. BaTh says the travel times are the same and elements emitted
simultaneously arrive at the detector simltaneously. BaTh says that the phase
of arrival of each ray is simply [pathlength mod (absolute wavelength)]. If the
phase of one is x degrees, that of the other is 360-x.

Both approaches produce the same answer.

Androcles wants to use frequency instead of wavelength and is yet to come up
with a prediction of fringe shift in spite of all his raving.

So which is more likely.

SR relies on an unproven postulate ie., MAGIC to adjust both light speeds to be
'c'. It requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. BaTh
uses logical physics, in assuming that wavelength' is constant in all
frames....since ALL lengths are absolute and contant in all frames.


George



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:09:54 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:15:57 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:50:56 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:


It does NOT matter if we are talking about BaTH, or SR or even waves
on a pond, the wave front maintains the same phase.

Light is NOT like waves on water. A source emits photon particles, not
squiggly lines.

Then why are you drawing squiggly lines in your simulations?

It's a graph....legitimate..

Your statement about phase makes even less sense now. You said:
the front of the ray is changing phase as it moves

How do you justify a 'front of the ray' when talking of photons? There
is a front end and a back end to a photon. There is not a 'front of the
ray'.

How do you justify saying that 'it'[whatever it happens to be photon,
ray or wave] 'is changing phase as it moves' when talking of photons?

Whether we are speaking of waves or photons; whether we are considering
BatH or SR, the 'front of the ray' can NOT possibly 'change phase as it
moves'. Under some conditions, an observer at a point, observing a
passing 'ray/wave/photon' might observe a wavelike phenomina and see a
variation in phase as the 'ray/wave/photon' passes. BUT that is NOT the
same as
the front of the ray is changing phase as it moves


By the way, WAVES have 'phase'. Particles do NOT have phase. If we are
speaking of phase of photons and, as you have insisted at time, photons
are not waves, then photons do not have phase to 'change as they move'.

Quote:

George, I thnk I now know the problem.

YOU are treating light as though it is a classical wave that obeys the
general wave equation: A= sin[2pi(t/tor-x/lambda]
This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the
case of water waves.
Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a
'moving sine wave'.
My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave
although it was intended to show the different path lengths.

The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. Photons are
complex particles and their leading edge cannot be regarded simply as 'a
moving point of constant phase'. The equation describing their wavelike
motion appears to be more like: A= sin[2pi(x/lambda].....but that needs
qualifying.... It seems to fit in with my 'standing wave' photon model.

The problem now is to investigate possible properties of photons that
might explain this type of behavior.
That is what I will be working on in future.

I'm going to cut the number of threads covering Sagnac. There's far too
much repetition.

In other words it is time for some new ad hoc changes to HWBaTH to resolve
the many contradictions that exist between your various statements.

Let me explain.

Both SR and BaTh accept that each element of the rays is emitted from a point
that is stationary in the non-otating frame. That is legitimate physics.
(neither Paul nor George will acknowledge that this emission point MOVES in the
rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating frame' argument)

SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that static
emission point. SR calculates the travel times of the rays around the ring and
finds those times to be diffferent because of the different path lengths. SR
says that this indicates a phase difference at the detector. (Note, SR ignores
the fact that the elements emitted simutaneously do not arrive simultaneously)

BaTh says that the rays move at c wrt the moving source from the (static)
emission point. They move at c+v and c-v (wrt the no-rotating frame) around the
ring. BaTh says the travel times are the same and elements emitted
simultaneously arrive at the detector simltaneously. BaTh says that the phase
of arrival of each ray is simply [pathlength mod (absolute wavelength)]. If the
phase of one is x degrees, that of the other is 360-x.

Both approaches produce the same answer.

Androcles wants to use frequency instead of wavelength and is yet to come up
with a prediction of fringe shift in spite of all his raving.

So which is more likely.

SR relies on an unproven postulate ie., MAGIC to adjust both light speeds to be
'c'. It requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. BaTh
uses logical physics, in assuming that wavelength' is constant in all
frames....since ALL lengths are absolute and contant in all frames.


Good luck.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:36:44 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:14:51 GMT, "Androcles"

: : wrote:
: :
:
: : The problenm is, you, George and Jerry are trying to analyse light in
: terms of
: : classical waves in a medium.
:
: Me? Don't include me, you are the crackpot with the crazy
: wavelength ideas. I've modelled your old bike chain with a rack.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rack.gif
:
: YOU are the crackpot who can't produce a result in spite of all your
ranting
: and raving....

Lying ****.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif
You are the one ranting and raving.


:
: The tick fairy added a tooth or two but it still has the same speed,
: I shortened the wavelength.
:
: : Jerry's program simulates two water waves moving
: : at different speeds around the ring.
:
: Androcles:
: "The source emits photons, you stupid old fart. Sagnac has a light
: bulb, not a radio transmitter." -- October 17, 2007 1:33 AM, SEVEN
****in'
: days
: ago, thread "GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY"
:
: Wilson to Dishman, October 16, "Light emits photon particles, not squiggly
: lines".

"Lying faux Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:38:59 +0100, "George Dishman"
"They are photons not sqiggly lines."

You couldn't spell "squiggly"; you are a lying about the date;
it was on the 20th, 3 days after you read it on the 17th.
The facts are there in writing, recorded by Google, sheep shagger,
you plagiarised MY approach.


:
: The problenm is, sheep shagging Wombat Wilson, Dishpan,
: Tusseladd and Jeery are trying to analyse light in terms of classical
: waves in a medium, but Androcles KNOWS better and has SAID so;
: Wombat Wilson like to keep his head firmly stuck in his arse!
:
: Anyway, boats bob up and down on water waves with a FREQUENCY.
:
: Can YOU answer the questio I puot to George. he could not.
:
: Why is energy transferred in one preferred direction in a water wave, when
the
: molecules of water move up and down vertically?

If the boat rises it gains potential energy. The preferred direction is up.
Ripples on water are omni-directional. What's so strange about that?
Read up on Christian Huyghens, so-called "physicist".

You'd do best to start here, and so would Tusseladd. Maybe you
can teach him.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html

When the spring is stretched or compressed it contains potential
energy (PE). When it is relaxed it has no energy, BUT... the mass
has maximum kinetic energy (KE). The total energy is constant and
conserved. It is EXCHANGED between the KE of the mass and
the PE of the spring. When the mass is not moving it has no KE,
but the spring has PE. This is a PHASE shift of 90 degrees.

A magnetic field is like the spring. It exchanges its field for an
electric field. The E-field and the B-field are NEVER "in phase",
that would mean both would be zero at the same instant in time.
That's what Maxwell's equations are saying.
Tusseladd doesn't understand energy is conserved. Explain it
to him.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm



:
: : My approach, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER says light PARTICLES do
NOT
: behave
: : according to classical traveling wave equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)]
: : ..why should they?
:
: You can use
: 1 Direct proof
: 2 Proof by induction
: 3 Proof by transposition
: 4 Proof by contradiction
: 5 Proof by construction
: 6 Proof by exhaustion
: but
: 7 Proof by "everybody knows"
: 8 Proof by "because I say so"
: are not acceptable, EVEN IF YOU SHOUT, you DUMB ****!
:
: It is NOT your approach, it is MY approach WHICH PRODUCES
: THE RIGHT ANSWER!
:
: Where is you calculation that shws fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL?

You can't even count, Wilson, let alone calculate a fringe shift
algebraically, and in any case your equation is wrong. I use c+v and
c-v which your equation does not contain as it should.
Just look at the pretty pictures instead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif
You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve)
are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other.
Move the detector further away and they will cancel completely, they
have different "wavelengths". They are in phase right up to the beam
splitter, Wilson, and past that they get out of phase.

Wilson (the lying ****) cannot count:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rack.gif

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:50:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
:
: Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
: My approach, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER says light PARTICLES do
NOT behave
: according to classical traveling wave equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)]
: ..why should they?
:
: You are indeed funny, Henri. :-)
:
: I like to make people laugh....It shows they are learning new things from
me...
:
: Wasn't your approach to count the number of wavelengths defined
: by the equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)] (in a wrong way, but anyway).
:
: Paul, I don't expect you to be able to understand the physical
significance of
: the traveling wave equation but to put it simply, it describes what
happens if
: you draw a sqiggly line on a piece of paper and move it sideways.

STILL cannot spell "squiggly" on the 20th.


: If you think a photon is just a 'moving squiggly line' then you're welcome
to
: the idea ...

No, Wilson, it is 'stationary squiggly line', a trace in TIME.


: but can you explain how one particular squiggly line and not
: another will cause electrons to be released from a metal surface when it
hits
: is?

The wiggly line is a trace in time showing where the field WAS.
The photon is an electric field. When the electric field gets to the
metal surface it pulls the electron.

:
: If this equation does not apply to light, what are you then counting?
:
: What is the _wave_length of your non wave?
:
: What IS your 'approach'? :-)
:
:
:
: Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
:
: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:36:53 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:36:44 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:

Wilson to Dishman, October 16, "Light emits photon particles, not squiggly
lines".

"Lying faux Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:38:59 +0100, "George Dishman"
"They are photons not sqiggly lines."

You couldn't spell "squiggly"; you are a lying about the date;
it was on the 20th, 3 days after you read it on the 17th.
The facts are there in writing, recorded by Google, sheep shagger,
you plagiarised MY approach.

: Anyway, boats bob up and down on water waves with a FREQUENCY.
:
: Can YOU answer the questio I puot to George. he could not.
:
: Why is energy transferred in one preferred direction in a water wave, when
the
: molecules of water move up and down vertically?

If the boat rises it gains potential energy. The preferred direction is up.
Ripples on water are omni-directional.

the energy moves in one direction...WWWWHHHHYYYY????

What's so strange about that?

Nothing. You again cannot answer th question...

Read up on Christian Huyghens, so-called "physicist".

You'd do best to start here, and so would Tusseladd. Maybe you
can teach him.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html

When the spring is stretched or compressed it contains potential
energy (PE). When it is relaxed it has no energy, BUT... the mass
has maximum kinetic energy (KE). The total energy is constant and
conserved. It is EXCHANGED between the KE of the mass and
the PE of the spring. When the mass is not moving it has no KE,
but the spring has PE. This is a PHASE shift of 90 degrees.

A magnetic field is like the spring. It exchanges its field for an
electric field. The E-field and the B-field are NEVER "in phase",
that would mean both would be zero at the same instant in time.
That's what Maxwell's equations are saying.

It is claimed that maxwell's equation have the E and B fiels in phase.


: It is NOT your approach, it is MY approach WHICH PRODUCES
: THE RIGHT ANSWER!
:
: Where is you calculation that shws fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL?

You can't even count, Wilson, let alone calculate a fringe shift
algebraically, and in any case your equation is wrong. I use c+v and
c-v which your equation does not contain as it should.
Just look at the pretty pictures instead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif
You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve)
are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other.
Move the detector further away and they will cancel completely, they
have different "wavelengths". They are in phase right up to the beam
splitter, Wilson, and past that they get out of phase.

equation please.....you do know what an 'equation' is, I presume...




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:36:53 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:36:44 GMT, "Androcles"

: : wrote:
:
: Wilson to Dishman, October 16, "Light emits photon particles, not squiggly
: lines".
:
: "Lying faux Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:38:59 +0100, "George Dishman"
: "They are photons not sqiggly lines."
:
: You couldn't spell "squiggly"; you are a lying about the date;
: it was on the 20th, 3 days after you read it on the 17th.
: The facts are there in writing, recorded by Google, sheep shagger,
: you plagiarised MY approach.
:
: : Anyway, boats bob up and down on water waves with a FREQUENCY.
: :
: : Can YOU answer the questio I puot to George. he could not.
: :
: : Why is energy transferred in one preferred direction in a water wave,
when
: the
: : molecules of water move up and down vertically?
:
: If the boat rises it gains potential energy. The preferred direction is
up.
: Ripples on water are omni-directional.
:
: the energy moves in one direction...WWWWHHHHYYYY????

It wouldn't be energy if it didn't. shrug
Are you asking why things move?


:
: What's so strange about that?
:
: Nothing. You again cannot answer th question...

What's to answer? The ****ing boats move up and gain
energy... What's your problem?



: Read up on Christian Huyghens, so-called "physicist".
:
: You'd do best to start here, and so would Tusseladd. Maybe you
: can teach him.
: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
:
: When the spring is stretched or compressed it contains potential
: energy (PE). When it is relaxed it has no energy, BUT... the mass
: has maximum kinetic energy (KE). The total energy is constant and
: conserved. It is EXCHANGED between the KE of the mass and
: the PE of the spring. When the mass is not moving it has no KE,
: but the spring has PE. This is a PHASE shift of 90 degrees.
:
: A magnetic field is like the spring. It exchanges its field for an
: electric field. The E-field and the B-field are NEVER "in phase",
: that would mean both would be zero at the same instant in time.
: That's what Maxwell's equations are saying.
:
: It is claimed that maxwell's equation have the E and B fiels in phase.

It is claimed that time dilation is real. So what?
It is claimed that God exists. So what?
It is claimed that haha-h-aether is real. So what?
It is claimed that uni****ation is real. So what?
It is claimed that Doppler shift doesn't exist. So what?
It is claimed that Wilson is a ****head. That claim is prove correct.


: : It is NOT your approach, it is MY approach WHICH PRODUCES
: : THE RIGHT ANSWER!
: :
: : Where is you calculation that shws fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL?
:
: You can't even count, Wilson, let alone calculate a fringe shift
: algebraically, and in any case your equation is wrong. I use c+v and
: c-v which your equation does not contain as it should.
: Just look at the pretty pictures instead:
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif
: You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve)
: are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other.
: Move the detector further away and they will cancel completely, they
: have different "wavelengths". They are in phase right up to the beam
: splitter, Wilson, and past that they get out of phase.
:
: equation please.....you do know what an 'equation' is, I presume...

You would not understand it, Wilson, you don't know the basics.
First learn to count, then learn what direction is.
lambda1 = c/nu
lambda2 = -c/nu

Just look at the pretty pictures instead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif
You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve)
are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other.

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:09:54 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:15:57 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:50:56 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:


It does NOT matter if we are talking about BaTH, or SR or even waves
on a pond, the wave front maintains the same phase.

Light is NOT like waves on water. A source emits photon particles,
not squiggly lines.

Then why are you drawing squiggly lines in your simulations?

It's a graph....legitimate..

Your statement about phase makes even less sense now. You said:
the front of the ray is changing phase as it moves

How do you justify a 'front of the ray' when talking of photons? There
is a front end and a back end to a photon. There is not a 'front of
the ray'.

How do you justify saying that 'it'[whatever it happens to be photon,
ray or wave] 'is changing phase as it moves' when talking of photons?

Whether we are speaking of waves or photons; whether we are
considering BatH or SR, the 'front of the ray' can NOT possibly
'change phase as it moves'. Under some conditions, an observer at a
point, observing a passing 'ray/wave/photon' might observe a wavelike
phenomena and see a variation in phase as the 'ray/wave/photon'
passes. BUT that is NOT the same as
the front of the ray is changing phase as it moves


By the way, WAVES have 'phase'. Particles do NOT have phase. If we are
speaking of phase of photons and, as you have insisted at time,
photons are not waves, then photons do not have phase to 'change as
they move'.

Quote:

George, I thnk I now know the problem.

YOU are treating light as though it is a classical wave that obeys the
general wave equation: A= sin[2pi(t/tor-x/lambda]
This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the
case of water waves.
Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a
'moving sine wave'.
My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave
although it was intended to show the different path lengths.

The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. Photons
are complex particles and their leading edge cannot be regarded simply
as 'a moving point of constant phase'. The equation describing their
wavelike motion appears to be more like: A= sin[2pi(x/lambda].....but
that needs qualifying.... It seems to fit in with my 'standing wave'
photon model.

The problem now is to investigate possible properties of photons that
might explain this type of behavior.
That is what I will be working on in future.

I'm going to cut the number of threads covering Sagnac. There's far
too much repetition.

In other words it is time for some new ad hoc changes to HWBaTH to
resolve the many contradictions that exist between your various
statements.

Let me explain.

Both SR and BaTh accept that each element of the rays is emitted from a
point that is stationary in the non-otating frame. That is legitimate
physics. (neither Paul nor George will acknowledge that this emission
point MOVES in the rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating
frame' argument)

in either theory, once the light has left the emitter, it doesn't matter what
the emitter does.

In one theory, (emission) the light travels at c with respect to the emitter
(whether or not the emitter is moving).
In the other, (SR) the light travels at c wrt the inertial frame of reference
which was co-moving with the emitter at the instant of emission (and wrt all
other inertial frames of reference).
In ET, the light moves at c+v wrt any inertial frames of reference, where v
is the velocity wrt the inertial frame of reference that was co-moving with
the source at the instant of emission.


SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that
static emission point.

Nope. It isn't 'magically adjusted' under SR. The value _measured_ for the
speed by the observer is independent on the relative velocity of the
observer, so all observers 'see' the light moving at c
_in_their_frame_of_reference_, but the light doesn't care how fast the
observer is moving. The light continues to move at the same speed,
independent of the motion of source or the observers.
The frequency/wavelength _measured_ by an observer IS dependent on the
relative velocity of the observer wrt the source because the KE of the light
is depends on the relative velocity of the observer wrt the source.

Ballistic theory says the velocity _measured_ by the observer is DEPENDENT on
the relative velocity of the observer to the source as is the energy and the
frequency. This leaves the wavelength as absolute.

The case of a rotating table is very simple in ballistic theory. Light
leaving in the direction of rotation is moving faster (from the lab's
viewpoint), but has further to go because the target is going away.
Light leaving in the direction opposite the motion is moving slower but has a
shorter distance to travel because the target is coming to it.
These cancel each other out and it takes the light exactly the same distance
to travel each path. That being true, there is no phase difference in the
arriving beams.


SR calculates the travel times of the rays around
the ring and finds those times to be different because of the different
path lengths. SR says that this indicates a phase difference at the
detector. (Note, SR ignores the fact that the elements emitted
simultaneously do not arrive simultaneously)

On the contrary, SR takes that into account. That IS part of the phase
difference seen.

BaTh says that the rays move at c wrt the moving source from the
(static) emission point.

The emission point is NOT static. There IS a point in the inertial frame of
reference that is co-moving with the source at the instant of emission that
can be related to a point in the laboratory's iFoR that was coincident with
the source at the instant of emission.
I am not sure which of these you are confusing with a 'static emission
point'.

The emission point can ONLY be considered to be 'static' in the rotating
frame of reference of the source. Of course that is NOT an inertial frame of
reference.

They move at c+v and c-v (wrt the no-rotating
frame) around the ring.

correct.

BaTh says the travel times are the same

correct.

and
elements emitted simultaneously arrive at the detector simultaneously.

correct.

and thus there is no fringe shift predicted by BaTH.

BaTh says that the phase of arrival of each ray is simply [path length
mod (absolute wavelength)]. If the phase of one is x degrees, that of
the other is 360-x.

Both approaches produce the same answer.

Both BaTH approaches predict NO fringe shift.


Androcles wants to use frequency instead of wavelength and is yet to
come up with a prediction of fringe shift in spite of all his raving.

Of no interest to me.


So which is more likely.


BaTH predicts no Sagnac effect. SR is consistent with Sagnac. There is no
question 'which is more likely' as BaTH is falsified by Sagnac.


SR relies on an unproven postulate ie., MAGIC to adjust both light
speeds to be 'c'.

You mistake the fact that all observers measure light as moving at c with a
mystical idea that the observation CHANGES the speed.
It doesn't.

I look at the sun at noon time. It is at zenith.
You look at the sun at the same instant of time. The sun is NOT at zenith for
you.
The sun doesn't magically adjust its position to allow you to measure it at a
different location in the sky.
The perspective of the person doing the measuring is what changes.

Light doesn't magically adjust its speed. The speed doesn't change at all.
The perspective of the person doing the measuring is what changes.



It requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt
the source.

NO! The distance to the target changes by +vt and -vt so the TIME for the
trips use the c+v and c-v factors.


BaTh uses logical physics, in assuming that wavelength' is
constant in all frames....since ALL lengths are absolute and contant in
all frames.

It is 'logical' to think a lot of wrong things when facts are selectively
ignored.


--
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

On Oct 24, 4:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:13:45 -0700, Jerry
wrote:





On Oct 24, 3:10 am, George Dishman wrote:
On 23 Oct, 22:32, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:

Incidentally, this also tends to suggest that the fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do
with the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING
rays rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving
rays...I know that sounds impossible...but is it?

Yes, for two reasons. The simpler is that if
you look at the arrangement of the beam
splitter, the remaining light goes back to
the lamp but the more robust is that there
would be a path length difference of nearly
a metre (the loop length) between the originated
light and that which has bone round the loop.
That grossly exceeds the coherence length for
a filament source so there is no way to form
fringes with a detectable contrast ratio.

I think that you have gone -way- over Henri's head with
mention of coherence length.

To Henri:

Early experimentalists such as Michelson and Morley, Sagnac
etc. used monochromatic sources only during the alignment
stages while setting up their interferometers. Actual
experimental runs were always performed with white light.
The reason for this is that white light creates a distinctive
pattern of a central bright white fringe surrounded by a
rapidly fading set of colored fringes. The advantage of this
is that the central fringe of equal path length is always
readily identifiable, whereas monochromatic light produces
uniform fringes in which it is virtually impossible to
determine the central fringe of equal path length.

The distinctive pattern of fringes formed by white light
enabled Michelson and Morley, who recorded their observations
visually, not to "get lost" while figuring out how far their
fringes were displaced from their fiducial marks. In the
Michelson and Gale experiment, which was a giant Sagnac
setup, the central fringe, in the absence of rotation, would
appear precisely midway between the two images of the slit.
This enabled them to calibrate their apparatus for zero
rotational velocity; it was thus not necessary for them to
halt the rotation of the Earth to get a zero reading, which
would have been somewhat impractical in the absence of divine
intervention (Joshua 10:12-15).

Note that I stated that the pattern of colored fringes
surrounding the central bright fringe fades rapidly. This is
because the spacing between the red fringes and the blue
fringes is different. Within a few fringe widths from the
central fringe, the colored fringes overlap until the fringe
pattern is no longer perceptible. Since each fringe represents
a half wave difference in path length to the two images of the
source slit, this means that the path lengths must be
precisely matched, otherwise it would be impossible to see any
fringes at all.

This distance to which the path lengths must be matched,
otherwise fringes are invisible, is known as the "coherence
length". The coherence length for white light is no more
than a handful of microns. Your notion that "fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do with
the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING rays
rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving rays"
is totally ridiculous to anybody who knows anything at all
about optics.

The sensible thing to do is use monochromatic light and tilt the top miror
slightly in order to produce an 'optical wedge' effect. That produces a
straight line fringe pattern rather than circles. Straight lines are easier to
count than circles and in the case of gyros, make the direction of an
acceleration easy to determine.

Jerry

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 24, 4:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:13:45 -0700, Jerry
wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:10 am, George Dishman wrote:
On 23 Oct, 22:32, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:

Incidentally, this also tends to suggest that the fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do
with the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING
rays rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving
rays...I know that sounds impossible...but is it?

Yes, for two reasons. The simpler is that if
you look at the arrangement of the beam
splitter, the remaining light goes back to
the lamp but the more robust is that there
would be a path length difference of nearly
a metre (the loop length) between the originated
light and that which has bone round the loop.
That grossly exceeds the coherence length for
a filament source so there is no way to form
fringes with a detectable contrast ratio.

I think that you have gone -way- over Henri's head with
mention of coherence length.

To Henri:

Early experimentalists such as Michelson and Morley, Sagnac
etc. used monochromatic sources only during the alignment
stages while setting up their interferometers. Actual
experimental runs were always performed with white light.
The reason for this is that white light creates a distinctive
pattern of a central bright white fringe surrounded by a
rapidly fading set of colored fringes. The advantage of this
is that the central fringe of equal path length is always
readily identifiable, whereas monochromatic light produces
uniform fringes in which it is virtually impossible to
determine the central fringe of equal path length.

The distinctive pattern of fringes formed by white light
enabled Michelson and Morley, who recorded their observations
visually, not to "get lost" while figuring out how far their
fringes were displaced from their fiducial marks. In the
Michelson and Gale experiment, which was a giant Sagnac
setup, the central fringe, in the absence of rotation, would
appear precisely midway between the two images of the slit.
This enabled them to calibrate their apparatus for zero
rotational velocity; it was thus not necessary for them to
halt the rotation of the Earth to get a zero reading, which
would have been somewhat impractical in the absence of divine
intervention (Joshua 10:12-15).

Note that I stated that the pattern of colored fringes
surrounding the central bright fringe fades rapidly. This is
because the spacing between the red fringes and the blue
fringes is different. Within a few fringe widths from the
central fringe, the colored fringes overlap until the fringe
pattern is no longer perceptible. Since each fringe represents
a half wave difference in path length to the two images of the
source slit, this means that the path lengths must be
precisely matched, otherwise it would be impossible to see any
fringes at all.

This distance to which the path lengths must be matched,
otherwise fringes are invisible, is known as the "coherence
length". The coherence length for white light is no more
than a handful of microns. Your notion that "fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do with
the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING rays
rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving rays"
is totally ridiculous to anybody who knows anything at all
about optics.

The sensible thing to do is use monochromatic light and tilt
the top miror slightly in order to produce an 'optical wedge'
effect. That produces a straight line fringe pattern rather
than circles. Straight lines are easier to count than circles
and in the case of gyros, make the direction of an acceleration
easy to determine.

You have COMPLETELY lost the point. Earlier, you made the stupid
and asinine speculation that "fringe production in a sagnac
interferometer [has] something to do with the phase relationship
between INCOMING and OUTGOING rays rather than the rejoining of
the two oppositely moving rays."

George's point was that since white light Sagnac interferometers
are perfectly functional, your speculation is dead in the water.

Hasn't it dawned on you yet that you are pontificating on matters
of which you are both ignorant and incompetent?

Henri Wilson's Lies
(1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program
(4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying
1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm
3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm
4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/history.htm
5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...enri/snips.htm
6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/accuses.htm

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

The sensible thing to do is use monochromatic light and tilt the top
miror slightly in order to produce an 'optical wedge' effect. That
produces a straight line fringe pattern rather than circles. Straight
lines are easier to count than circles and in the case of gyros, make
the direction of an acceleration easy to determine.

Henri, the image is a vertical line surrounded by fainter vertical lines.
The fringes are vertical lines because they are images of the slit.

Why would you think they are circles?

No wonder you are so confused about Sagnac. Your mind keeps running around in
circles.






--
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