Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: tominlaguna on 16 Oct 2009 11:08
I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was
started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion
from this new starting point.
Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber
optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest
paper provides a more detailed account of that work.
Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the
FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is
proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its
motion. Most people that I have discussed this with believe that Dr.
Wang has demonstrated that his design can detect translational motion.
I disagree. They measured the acceleration of the fiber section from
zero to some constant velocity.
The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a
phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are
experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect
that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon
itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac
interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and
Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of
Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way"
Sagnac system of devices known as GPS.
A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example:
Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler
located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car
is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant
velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at
the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while
the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first.
The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration
throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of
Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal
distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the
acceleration of the receiver.
Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was
describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal
with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices
are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to
them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal
transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary
receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to
adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is
accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang
experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow
fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others
in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms
in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they
concluded it was not. Post has written about this.
Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain
Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is
denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips
(1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two
of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission
model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of
other experiments.
In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
c +/- v� all with respect to the mirror.
Regards,
Tom Miles
From: Dono. on 16 Oct 2009 11:31
On Oct 16, 8:08 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
> light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
> after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
> and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
> will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
> c +/- v… all with respect to the mirror.
> Regards,
> Tom Miles

If the speed is ANYTHING but c, the model fails BOTH the Sagnac and
the Ives experiments.

From: Androcles on 16 Oct 2009 11:39

<tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:to2hd5pm6nvm8qdul7kecjf5do7imn1ng5(a)4ax.com...
>I missed the opportunity to comment on this subject when a thread was
> started by Jonah Thomas last month. I hope to continue the discussion
> from this new starting point.
> Sue posted a link to a Wang & et al paper which describes their fiber
> optical gyro (FOG) experiments. That paper has been superseded by:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf. This latest
> paper provides a more detailed account of that work.
> Figure 3 of the new Wang paper shows that when a linear section of the
> FOG is moved in translation, there is a fringe shift that is
> proportional to the length of that section and the speed of its
> motion. Most people that I have discussed this with believe that Dr.
> Wang has demonstrated that his design can detect translational motion.
> I disagree. They measured the acceleration of the fiber section from
> zero to some constant velocity.
> The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" is a
> phenomenon peculiar to situations when the source and/or receiver are
> experiencing acceleration. There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect
> that phenomenon, but they should not be confused with the phenomenon
> itself. Examples of the devices are: the passive Sagnac
> interferometer devices of Sagnac, Pogany, Michelson-Gale, and
> Dufour-Prunier; the active Sagnac interferometer devices of
> Macek-Davis, Stedmann, modern laser gyros; and finally the "one-way"
> Sagnac system of devices known as GPS.
> A simple analogy of the phenomenon can be understood by this example:
> Assume you have a long freight car, 100 feet long. There is a dueler
> located at each end with identical guns, ammo and skill. If the car
> is stationary with respect to the rails or moving at a constant
> velocity and both fire their guns at the same time, they both die at
> the same time. But, if the train happens to accelerate forward while
> the bullets are in flight, the guy at the rear of the car dies first.
> The same thing would occur if the car was experiencing acceleration
> throughout the gun fight. That, in my opinion, is the phenomenon of
> Sagnac. Bullets are flying in two directions covering an equal
> distance of 100 feet, but one arrives sooner than the other due to the
> acceleration of the receiver.
> Paul Anderson was describing a type of device while he thought he was
> describing the effect. The generalized Sagnac effect does not deal
> with enclosed areas and angular velocity; several detection devices
> are based on those criteria, but the phenomenon is not exclusive to
> them. Saburi in 1976 demonstrated that there was a radio signal
> transit time difference east-west between two earth-stationary
> receiver/transmitters. The GPS network is corrected each day to
> adjust their clocks so that the one-way transmission of signals is
> accurate due to the Sagnac effect. Paul also suggested the Wang
> experiment was a modified Fizeau experiment. They used both hollow
> fibers and solid cross-section fiber and got the same readings. Others
> in the past, Pogany and Harress, investigated the use of glass prisms
> in the Sagnac set-up to determine if it was a Fizeau effect, and they
> concluded it was not. Post has written about this.
> Tom Roberts erroneously states that the ballistic model cannot explain
> Sagnac. I will acknowledge that the "re-emission" ballistic model is
> denied by the Sagnac results. Tolman (1912) and Panofsky and Phillips
> (1961) describe three ballistic models. Waldron (1977) describes two
> of the three: the ballistic model of Ritz/Waldron and the re-emission
> model. The re-emission model fails in explaining Sagnac and a host of
> other experiments.
> In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
> light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
> after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
> and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
> will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
> c +/- v. all with respect to the mirror.
> Regards,
> Tom Miles

Correct. Very good analysis. One tiny flaw...
Newton's corpuscles of light model, today called photons, predates
Walter Ritz by 250 years.
Of course a FOG cannot in any way be related to Einstein's relativity,
since that specifically states light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body and a FOG isn't empty space.
Hence Andersen's and Roberts' arguments are non sequitur.

For amusement only:
If the duellists shoot arrows at each other at v feet per second
and the train accelerates at g fps/second, how far apart should
the duellists be to guarantee one of them survives?






From: tominlaguna on 16 Oct 2009 11:43
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Oct 16, 8:08 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
>> light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
>> after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
>> and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
>> will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
>> c +/- v� all with respect to the mirror.
>> Regards,
>> Tom Miles
>
>If the speed is ANYTHING but c, the model fails BOTH the Sagnac and
>the Ives experiments.

I suspect you are referring to the passive type of interferometer
devices. In that case, you are wrong: whatever the speed of the
initial ray of light, components going in each direction after
splitting will have the same speed, be it c or u. The outcome is the
same. As a practical matter, since the sources in the experiments you
cite are not in motion with respect to the device, the speed will be
c.
From: Dono. on 16 Oct 2009 12:01
On Oct 16, 8:43 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 16, 8:08 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> In the Ritz/Waldron model, a mirror is not a new source, and therefore
> >> light may or may not be reflected at c with respect to it. Its speed
> >> after reflection is based on any relative motion between the source
> >> and the mirror. If there is no relative motion, the reflected photon
> >> will be moving at c; if there is relative motion, v, its speed will be
> >> c +/- v… all with respect to the mirror.
> >> Regards,
> >> Tom Miles
>
> >If the speed is ANYTHING but c, the model fails BOTH the Sagnac and
> >the Ives experiments.
>
> I suspect you are referring to the passive type of interferometer
> devices. In that case, you are wrong: whatever the speed of the
> initial ray of light, components going in each direction after
> splitting will have the same speed, be it c or u. The outcome is the
> same. As a practical matter, since the sources in the experiments you
> cite are not in motion with respect to the device, the speed will be
> c.



Prove it . Show the math.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |