Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #404016
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?

From	HGW <hw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?
Date	2017-01-05 08:22 +1100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<o4jp36$1gi9$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <3f0bf807-9c1a-4321-bd10-2ebf557e204d@googlegroups.com> <o4f0pc$5vs$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d9affb56-1437-48ff-8dc5-da6e41c0480e@googlegroups.com> <o4gkst$k9e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <o4ig81$lvl$1@news.albasani.net>
Show all headers | View raw
On 04/01/17 20:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 03.01.2017 17:52, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 03/01/17 13:14, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:03:28 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>>> On 02/01/17 20:10, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Computer animation is NOT difficult, if you have a clear
>>>>> understanding of what
>>>>> it is that you want to illustrate. The animation in my second link
>>>>> took LESS
>>>>> TIME to create than my detailed explanation of your rayphases output
>>>>> in the
>>>>> first link:
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTmVSTUl3cGlzc2s
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcdzhsazFMZVo3cUE
>>>>>
>>>>> You *claim* that I did not understand what I was animating in my
>>>>> second link.
>>>>> I challenge you to spend *one evening*, just as I did, to illustrate
>>>>> how,
>>>>> according to BaTh "theory", the Sagnac affects the two dimensional
>>>>> spread of
>>>>> light from a high speed rocket zooming over a flat terrain. I will
>>>>> be very
>>>>> surprised if you can come up with anything that significantly alters
>>>>> the
>>>>> conclusions that I draw from my second link.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the source frame, JUST AS I HAVE ILLUSTRATED, a light pulse
>>>>> will radiate
>>>>> outward in a spherical shell. As you ask, "What else could it
>>>>> possibly do?"
>>>>
>>>> In the top one, you have drawn the pulse radiating out symmetrically
>>>> from the point on the ground not from the moving source. You really do
>>>> not have a clue about this. How could anyone be as stupid as you?
>>>
>>>    *** THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU HAVE ILLUSTRATED IN RAYPHASES!!! ***
>
> So Ralph has finally realized
>>
>> I told you 'rayphases' is misleading and to forget about it. It gives
>> the impression that something is oscillating as it moves around the ring
>> when the intention is to show how a different number of wavelengths
>> exists between the emission and receiving points. What moves around the
>> ring is more like a FIXED sine wave...but that model is misleading too.
>> For instance, considering two toothed wheels rotating in opposite
>> directions at different speeds produces NO phase difference.
>>
>> There reason this stuff is hard to even visualize,
>
> . . is that what you are trying to visualize is
> self contradicting nonsense.
>
> It is quite simple to visualize a Sagnac ring,

It is quite simple if you use the wrong theory.

>> let alone animate, is
>> that the emission and receiving points do not exist at the same instant.
>> Light cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator and it is only the fact
>> that the path lengths differ which really matters. The Galilean
>> space/time lengths contain different numbers of absolute wavelengths.
>
> This is utter nonsense.
> Look at this animation:
> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html
> Here is a particular run: (emission theory)
> https://paulba.no/temp/Paths.pdf
> The paths of the wave fronts from they leave the half-silvered mirror
> to they hit it again are drawn.
>
> 1. There never are any waves along those paths, so how can you count
>     the number of wavelengths along those paths?
> 2. The waves are obviously _always_ between the mirrors, and you
>     can only count the number of wavelength in the wave.
>     And when counting wavelengths, t = constant.
> 3. The wave fronts with phase zero are moving along the paths,
>     and since the transit times around the ring are equal for
>     both wave fronts, both paths will meet each other simultaneously.
>     When the two wave fronts with phase zero meet each other.

That is what an uninformed person would say. Light simply doesn't work 
like that. It cannot be regarded as something that oscillates as it 
travels....which makes your explanation quite ridiculous.

BaTh's explanation of the four mirror situation is similar to that of 
the ring gyro. The path lengths are different, and contain different 
numbers of the absolute 'wavelengths' possessed by light.
The best way to understand what is really happening is to realize that 
any two elements which arrive together at the receiver have traveled 
different distances to get there. That means there is a different number 
of wavelengths in each path. During the time it took for them to go from 
source to receiver, which is equal for both rays, more waves enter the 
receiver from one side than the other.
Note the path lengths are the same ONLY when there is no rotation. They 
change ONLY during an acceleration.
What do you think that change involves, Paul? I'll tell you. It means 
individual 'wavelengths' flow from one path into the other.

>> The same applies to http://www.scisite.info/paths.jpg
>
> Here is a more sensible drawing of the waves.
> https://paulba.no/temp/Sagnac.pdf
> Would you claim that there are additional waves along the paths
> like you have drawn?

It is wrong. You are assuming light has a frequency.  The frequency is 
in the source not the light itself and so the wavelength is always the 
same in the source frame no matter how the source moves...unless of 
course you accept Einstein's aether theory.

The simple truth is that there are more identical wavelengths in one ray 
than the other...and they all must pass through the receiver during the 
transit of a particular element from source to receiver.

> Try to repeat your drawing for a four-mirror ring, and see
> how nonsensical it becomes when the paths are not along the waves.

I have done that. http://www.scisite.info/sagnac.jpg

>> In actual fact, the waves are Doppler shifted in the frame of the source.
>
> According to emission theory, obviously not! They are Doppler shifted
> (the frequency) in the non rotating frame, where the source is moving,
> but not in the rotating frame, where the source is stationary.

It is an imaginary shift. Such things are features of rotating frames. I 
thought you would have learned that by now..
Thread

csiph-web