sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

 Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment Henri Wilson Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:37:38 GMT sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
 ```On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:16:53 -0000, "George Dishman" <[email protected]/* */> wrote: > >"Paul B. Andersen" <[email protected]/* */> wrote in message >news:[email protected]/* */ > > > >> Note also that: >> m*(c+v)^2/r = m*c^2/r + 2*m*c*v/r + m*v^2/r > >My back-of-envelope went like this. >Henry can include an arbitrary constant >for the 'coefficient of friction' and >time in contact (for multiple discrete >reflections) so omitting m and r for the >moment: > > (c+v)^2 = c^2 + 2*c*v + v^2 > >For v << c that simplifies to c(c+2v) >(though the validity of that might be >questionable when the total speed >approaches zero). > >Including an arbitrary constant k for >the 'coefficient of friction' and >factors ommitted, if initially the >speed is c+v then > > delta_v = -k*(c+2v) > >> Of course the centripetal forces are different. >> But not much. >> Let us assume that there is a friction slowing >> you down, and that the slowing during one revolution >> is proportional to the centripetal force, we can write: >> Slowing when going with the rotation: >> delta_vf = k*1000.20001 N >> Slowing when going in the opposite direction: >> delta_vb = k*999.80001 N >> Now we know that to explain the Sagnac in an >> I-FOG, the difference between the two speeds >> must be in the order of 2v. > >Paul, if the mean speed of a beam is c and >it starts at c+v it must obviously finish >at c-v. Doesn't that mean the delta needs >to be 2v for each beam and 4v for the pair? > >If so, the factor k above obviously needs to >be 1. The beam that starts at c+v finishes >at (c+v)-(c+2v) = -v while the other ends at >(c-v)-(c-2v) = +v. > >> thus, in our analogy: >> delta_vf - delta_vb = k*0.4 N = 2v = 0.002 m/s >> k = 0.005 m/Ns >> delta_vf = 5.001 m/s >> delta_vb = 4.999 m/s >> >> See? >> For the difference to be big enough, you would >> have to slow down to half the speed. >> >> In an I-FOG with a much smaller v/c ratio >> it would be even worse. >> >> The very idea is idiotic beyond belief. > >I thought he was pulling my leg at >first, it turned out he was serious. > >>>>>>>I have shown that to be wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>You have shown nothing whatsoever. Post the results >>>>>>of your experiment. If you do manage to prove it wrong >>>>>>then you have shown ballistic theory to be wrong. >>>>> >>>>>The light beams DO NOT experience the same 'centrifugal' forces in both >>>>>directions. Right or wrong, George? >> >> Wrong. >> The centrifugal forces do not depend on velocity >> (neither speed nor direction), and it is tiny. >> It is however correct that the centripetal forces >> are very slightly different. >> >> To explain the Sagnac, the light would have to slow >> down to a fraction of it original speed in an I-FOG. >> It doesn't. >> >> Face it, Henri. >> The Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. >> No way out. > >I did warn him several times but he never >even attempted the calculation. There's a >big difference between his handwaving and >a scientific explanation. Why don't you ask Paul to set up our light fibre 'coil experiment' as a PhD exercise. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ```
 Current Thread Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, (continued) Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Message not availableRe: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Paul B. Andersen Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson <= Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Jeff Root Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Jeff Root