Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Nov 2005 16:17 On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:15:57 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:bjs7o191qvl13872uhaun8nrc61nfploht(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:12:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles(a)MyPlace.yep> >> wrote: > >>>If grandpa gets on that ride, he's not going to see any fringe shift. > >Henri, _that_ is what I have been trying to explain >to you for the past many months. Perhaps "Androcles" >can explain it better, he seems to share your ideas >on light propagation. He doesn't read my posts BTW. I don't think he reads much of any post. > >The following might be useful for you in explaining >the nature of the experiment to him. There seems >little point discussing it if he thinks the detector >and/or source is off the turntable. > >>>Well, see, you have to ..never mind, I SAID it was suitable for 8yo kids, >>>not dumb Wabos who think Grandpa is going to ride that carousel. > >http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP-4000_6.04.pdf Very neat. > >Grandpa is in the little box with no holes for light >to enter or leave. The carousel is the bit on the top >of the tank that turns. > >>>Wabo thinks Grandpa is going to ride that fuckin' carousel, Wabo is >>>fuckin' >>>crazy. I don't know why Wabo changes my experiment to suit himself and >>>then >>>says I'm wrong, except Wabo IS crazy. >>> >>>I say Grandpa watches the carousel, Wabo says in the real world Grandpa >>>rides the carousel. >>> >>>Picture of grandpa riding the carousel: > >How it works - see page two > >http://www.kvh.com/pdf/ECoreTech.pdf Unfortunately it says nothing about number of turns and path length. I gather the path is quite long. >The blocks marked "laser" and "detector" are actually >a single integrated component. A photodiode is built >on the rear of telecomms laser diodes so they can be >run at the lowest current needed to produce the light >output in order to maximise their life. In the iFOG >the phase modulator produces an AC component on the >photodiode output which is measured by the synchronous >demodulator to give the rate-of-turn output while >the DC part is used to stabilise the laser intensity. > >Obvious point: if the laser and detector are a single >component, then if one is "on the carousel", so is the >other. I know that, Androcles doesn't. > >Just for reference, more detail and equations: > >http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html Quite amusing, eh.....the bit about using c instead of c/n. That is about the same ratio as using c+v instead of c. quite amusing.... >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".
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Nov 2005 16:19 On 24 Nov 2005 00:01:52 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 22 Nov 2005 21:27:55 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: >> >> > >> >George Dishman wrote: >> >> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >> >> news:2d67o1pq903b4eikhdbu2qik79ptjggotf(a)4ax.com... >> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >> >> > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> No, I am saying Ritz predicts displacement is proportional >> >> to angular acceleration which is what you said above, >> >> "fringe movement proportional to da/dt" assuming you mean >> >> 'change of displacement' when you say 'movement'. >> >> >> >> If Jim used 'fringe displacement' it would clear up what >> >> he meant. >> >> >> >> George >> > >> >Verb or noun?Displacement indicating motion, or position (stationary >> >after motion)? >> >There is "displacement" occurring while the airframe rotates, and the >> >(new position) "displacement" (eg 2 o'clock). >> >It seems that your sagnac has additional electronic gadgetry which >> >defaults the 2 o'clock to 12 o'clock, once the new heading stabilises. >> > >> >Jim G >> >c'=c+v >> >> Yes Jim, we must get our definitions right or we talk at cross purposes. >> >> I suggest we use: >> OUTPUT: The final reading on some kind of instrument of current rotation angle >> from the calibrated zero. (static or dynamic) >> DISPLACEMENT or SHIFT: the distance between current fringe position and the >> zero position. (static) >> FRINGE MOVEMENT: the actual transient process when fringes are changing >> displacement. (dynamic) >> >> The fact is, fringes remain displaced but static during periods of constant >> rotation speeds. The amount of displacement is proportional to rotation speed. >> Movement occurs only during periods of acceleration. > >Sounds overly complicated to me. >The addition of the rotational velocity of an airframe to c is VERY >small. The rotation of the sagnac (650rpm whatever), which is enhanced >by the mirroring, magnifies this difference, resulting in a situation >where the position where the beams interdict becomes discernible. >Sagnac WORKS! It is the interpretation of WHY it works is the issue. You are a bit behond us Jim. It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. > >Jim G >c'=c+v 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".
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Nov 2005 04:40 On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:04:24 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles(a)MyPlace.yep> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:s7bco1lfcp9evd0dobah9289ifmu5424em(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:15:57 -0000, "George Dishman" >> According to Ritz (and you and I) the "time'' required by light to travel >> from A to B DOES equal the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A, if >> the >> source and mirror are mutually at rest. In that case, OWLS = TWLS = c. >> Einstein's definition of clock synching is actually ABSOLUTE synching. He >> got >> the right answer for the wrong reasons. >> >> Light initially travels at c wrt its source. Einstein apparently knew >> it.... > > >Of course he knew it, and it travels at c-v wrt the mirror. >OWLtime = x/(c-v), OWLspeed = c-v. > >Then it travels back to the source. > >OtherWLtime = -x/(v-c), OtherWLspeed = v+c. > >TWLtime = -x/(v-c) + x/(v+c) > >One way light SPEED = total distance moved / total time taken. >Total distance moved is Source (A) to Mirror (B) = x >Total time taken is x/(c-v). > >Two Way light SPEED = total distance light moved / total time taken. >Total distance moved is Source (A) to Source (A) = 0. >TWLS = 0. > > >> but he also knew he could derive more money and fame from his 'hoax'. > >You are losing it, you old goat. Get a brain retread next time you have your >ears lowered. > t = -x/(v-c) will NEVER be equal to x/(v+c) > >Androcles >Sometime I'm a complete success. Wilson did NOT EVER come close to proving >Einstein wrong, Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein. >TWLS <> OWLS. > .....losing his marbles completely I would say. No idea at all.... 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".
From: jgreen on 27 Nov 2005 03:13 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 24 Nov 2005 00:01:52 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 22 Nov 2005 21:27:55 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >George Dishman wrote: > >> >> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > >> >> news:2d67o1pq903b4eikhdbu2qik79ptjggotf(a)4ax.com... > >> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> >> > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> >> No, I am saying Ritz predicts displacement is proportional > >> >> to angular acceleration which is what you said above, > >> >> "fringe movement proportional to da/dt" assuming you mean > >> >> 'change of displacement' when you say 'movement'. > >> >> > >> >> If Jim used 'fringe displacement' it would clear up what > >> >> he meant. > >> >> > >> >> George > >> > > >> >Verb or noun?Displacement indicating motion, or position (stationary > >> >after motion)? > >> >There is "displacement" occurring while the airframe rotates, and the > >> >(new position) "displacement" (eg 2 o'clock). > >> >It seems that your sagnac has additional electronic gadgetry which > >> >defaults the 2 o'clock to 12 o'clock, once the new heading stabilises. > >> > > >> >Jim G > >> >c'=c+v > >> > >> Yes Jim, we must get our definitions right or we talk at cross purposes. > >> > >> I suggest we use: > >> OUTPUT: The final reading on some kind of instrument of current rotation angle > >> from the calibrated zero. (static or dynamic) > >> DISPLACEMENT or SHIFT: the distance between current fringe position and the > >> zero position. (static) > >> FRINGE MOVEMENT: the actual transient process when fringes are changing > >> displacement. (dynamic) > >> > >> The fact is, fringes remain displaced but static during periods of constant > >> rotation speeds. The amount of displacement is proportional to rotation speed. > >> Movement occurs only during periods of acceleration. > > > >Sounds overly complicated to me. > >The addition of the rotational velocity of an airframe to c is VERY > >small. The rotation of the sagnac (650rpm whatever), which is enhanced > >by the mirroring, magnifies this difference, resulting in a situation > >where the position where the beams interdict becomes discernible. > >Sagnac WORKS! It is the interpretation of WHY it works is the issue. > > You are a bit behond us Jim. > It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? Is it "behind" or "beyond" Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why it works) What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or hirdygirdy. The reference point in time AND position, could not be determined, from the information (as regards the emission and receival of the light) Jim G c'=c+v
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Nov 2005 15:46
On 27 Nov 2005 00:13:23 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 24 Nov 2005 00:01:52 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: >> >> >> You are a bit behond us Jim. >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. > >Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? >Is it "behind" or "beyond" Maybe you are 'behind' in some areas and 'beyond' in others. >Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and >George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why >it works) Actually I sent it to him. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe George seems to have disappeared since I sent him my latest sagnac animation. That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. >What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or >hirdygirdy. >The reference point in time AND position, could not be determined, from >the information >(as regards the emission and receival of the light) It is a very complicated problem The SR (actually LET) analysis is vastly oversimplified and wrong. What my demo shows is that two opposite beams which leave the first 45 mirror at right angles DO NOT meet up at the same point even though the BaTh says their travel times are equal (in the opoosite directions). > >Jim G >c'=c+v 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". |