Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Jeckyl on 16 Sep 2007 22:10 "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message news:5l63sfF6l1frU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem > news:13eqchm6i2ehk27(a)corp.supernews.com... >> "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message >> news:gL5Hi.105433$xp6.2039(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... >>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm >> >> Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright. >> >> You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac. >> >> And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop it before >> the beams return to the source .. I wonder why), and shows the ballistic >> theory prediction that the pulses will meet the source at the same place >> at the same time and so with no phase difference, which does not give the >> observed results (Sagnac refutes ballistic theories and support SR ad >> ether theories). > > From my point of view you are the one that don't understand > what Sagnac's "invention" is. Your point of view appears flawed > This is plain simple. > Sagnac is a direct measument of the speed of light taken > by an observer moving at "2v". No .. its a means of calculating rotation by looking at the interference patterm from two beams of light going in a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction > Let's look at the setup: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sagnac_interferometer.png I know the set up .. but lets see what you have to say... > The beam of light (the source) is stationary. No .. it rotates with the plaform > The detector is stationary. No .. it rotates with the plaform > The 4-mirrors rotate rigidly. No .. they rotate with the plaform The whole thing is rigid on a platform and the platform rotates .. light source, mirrors and detectors and all. If that platform is fixed on the earth, then it measures the rotation of the earth (which has been done) Looks like you don't understand the Sagnac setup [snip conclusions from incorrect initial premises]
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 17 Sep 2007 04:03 "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message news:5l5tu8F6iqssU2(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> > escreveu na mensagem news:W3eHi.108551$6t7.5398598(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> I have you seen his MMX-mirror orientation on >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html > > > The only reason why the mirror is oriented at 180 degrees > from that is because that's the only way to put the detector > outside the experiment. > > Like here, for the very same reason: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sagnac_interferometer.png That is a correct one. The first 90 degrees reflection goes "up". With the same orientation of Androfart's mirror, that relection goes *down*. Show me a half-mirror that can make that kind of "reflection". > > A 180 degrees rotation doesn't add nothing new, or > different. > > For any layman the Androcles's picture is far better > because avoids any confusion for the reader. > > It looks like that you are very short in arguments, > like Dono, and so on. I can't add you to crackpot coloring rule, since you're already in it. Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 17 Sep 2007 04:19 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:PY2dnaiNvLtHKXDbnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote > in message news:W3eHi.108551$6t7.5398598(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:jL2dne36r5nz_XDbRVnyjQA(a)pipex.net... >>> >>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:1189959957.966451.172440(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Sep 16, 8:27 am, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message >>>>> news:gL5Hi.105433$xp6.2039(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... >>>>> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm >>>>> >>>>> Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright. >>>>> >>>>> You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac. >>>>> >>>>> And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop >>>>> it before the beams return to the source .. I wonder why), >>>> >>>> Androcles obviously misunderstands the Sagnac experimental >>>> setup, and believes that interference fringes are formed on a >>>> screen mounted in the stationary inertial frame. The c+v >>>> and c-v beams would arrive at the stationary screen out of >>>> phase with respect to each other, whereas beams emitted at c >>>> would alway arrive in phase at the stationary screen. >>> >>> He did at first but some time ago, this was discussed >>> in some detail. He posted an analogy of kids on a >>> roundabout being watched by grandad on the ground. If >>> you search for the phrase "grandad is on the roundabout" >>> you should find the thread. >>> >>> If you see some of his other illustrations, he also fails >>> to grasp the mirror orientation. He shows the light >>> reflecting continuously round a loop which is the ring >>> gyro configuration, he has a 90 degree error in the beam >>> splitter orientation. >> >> I have you seen his MMX-mirror orientation on >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html > > Yep, and so simple too. > > See how many errors you can find here: > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm At first sight it seems that gb6726 must have made an adequate assessment. I am beyond the stage of wading through the content of Androfart's intestines. > > The obvious one is his rotating box and 'spirograph' > picture compared to the correct configuration: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sagnac_interferometer.png That's Androfart alright. What he *cannot* do wrong, he *does* wrong. Dirk Vdm
From: Dono on 17 Sep 2007 10:11 On Sep 17, 1:03 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > I can't add you to crackpot coloring rule, since you're > already in it. > > Dirk Vdm :-) -:)
From: Jeckyl on 17 Sep 2007 18:44
"JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message news:5l7j8bF6oahvU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem > news:13es33ajmcq075d(a)corp.supernews.com... >> "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2(a)clix.pt> wrote in message >> news:5l67lfF6kvn6U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> escreveu na mensagem >>> news:13eroh42drigfe6(a)corp.supernews.com... [snip] >> Its a means of calculating rotation by looking at the interference >> patterm from two beams of light going in a clockwise and anti-clockwise >> direction > > Yes, I understand that. Basically it's the classical interpretation of > the Sagnac's interferometer. It IS the Sagnac's interferometer > First I was wrong about the setup. Now with the correct setup, I have > no problem to see the problem and use a rotating coordinate system > to came up with that classical result. [snip] > > I agree, Sagnac's setup measures rotation. Plain classical. You mean that SR and classical ether would give the same results. Ballistic/emission theory is refuted > But shouldn't we expect something more then classical ? Not when it is correct. Just like MMX gives expected results for SR and Ballaistic theory, but not classical ether. > I have no problem to understand that the speed of light is > independent of the source's velocity. Good > The hard to understand (and believe) is that the speed of > light is independent of the observer's velocity, which can't > be seen in any classic problem. > > So I would like to ask you a question, please. > If we do the same Sagnac's experiment by means of the > use of sound waves, instead of light waves, shouldn't we > get exactly the same result, Yes (if it could be done in practice) .. just like you would with a classical ether. Sagnac doesn't refute SR or classical ether .. it refutes emission theory MMX doesn't refute SR or emission theory .. it refutes classical ether. Together those two experiemtns refute classical ether and emisisons theories. We are left with SR (and its equivalents like LET). |