[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:53:16 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:59:37 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:10:36 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Right now I don't have the time or facilities George.
>>>>Then it obviously can't be of any importance
>>>>to you and the rest of us can see that the idea
>>>>is nonsense.
>>> I can see it is not nonsense even without experimental proof.
>>If you worked out the maths, you would know better.
> I could easily come up with a few equations that would support the theory. 
> I
> would have to speculate about some pretty odd values though, eg, for 
> photon
> mass and 'drag coefficient' of light moving at grazing angle around a 
> fibre.

You start by writing down hte equations so the
'drag coefficient' would be "mu". Once you have
those, you don't even need to speculate about
the values, as I said before, you work them out
from what is needed to match the Sganac result.

>>>>>>> >b) Because, if the light doesn't slow to a stop
>>>>>>> >   before it reaches the end of the fibre, it doesn't
>>>>>>> >   produce enough effect to match the experiment
>>>>>>> >   as I told you a few posts back:
>>>>>>> You obviously still don't understand this simple experiment.
>>>>>>Of course I understand it, I invented it because
>>>>>>you were incapable of coming up with anything
>>>>>>practical yourself.
>>>>> In YOUR version, the coil had to be moved from one end to the other. 
>>>>> In
>>>>> mine,
>>>>> nothing moves and both beams travel though exactly the same length of
>>>>> fibre in
>>>>> opposite directions....much better that yours.
>>>>Last time we talked, I thought you were also
>>>>moving the coil but using a scope to measure
>>>>the time difference. You'll find it almost
>>>>impossible to control systematic changes
>>>>unless you use that sort of technique.
>>> well you didn't study my latest experiment thoroughly. Nothing has to be
>>> moved.
>>> The coil is fixed at one end.
>>> D_____________________________
>>> S_O___________________________|
>>> Light from a single source is split into two beams that go in opposite
>>> directions around the loop. The beam from S that passes through the coil
>>> first
>>> will move at reduced speed for the rest of the trip. That from D will 
>>> move
>>> at c
>>> for most of the trip.
>>> The return of the two beams can be detected with one device capable of
>>> resolving any phase diference between the two.
>>How do you remove any systematic phase difference
>>in the measuring instrument?
> There is only ONE detecting instrument. How can it have a phase difference 
> wrt
> itself.

You are comparing the phase of light from one end
of the fibre with light from the other. At least
you would need a two-channel scope and you then
need to address the difference in propagation
times between the channels within the instrument.

>>The simple way is to
>>move the loop along one arm and measure the slope
>>of the phase difference as a function of distance.
> Very funny.
> You obviously don't have a clue.

I am speaking from experience.

> You are looking for extremely small differences in time. You would distort 
> the
> coil if you moved it.

Your equations will tell you how much, and you
don't know if the coil is 'distorted' when you
first make it. Move it from end to end in small
steps then move it back again in small steps and
do that whole process a dozen times. Produce a
scatter plot and see what the shape is (hopefully
from your point of view a straight line) then do
a best fit of a line. The residuals (rms error
from the line) gives you a way of assessing
random errors without which you have no way to
judge confidence.

Anyway, you need to do that to eliminate basic
systematic factors like differences between your
instrument channels and more esoteric
considerations like anisotropic refractive index.
Your results have to stand up to scrutiny and
unless you can show you have thought about these
problems and designed the experiment to get round
them you will waste your time.

>>You can also measure the speed of the light exiting
>>the fibres.
> In this instance, all we are looking for is a difference in arrival times.
> Why change the aim of the experiment?

See later.

>>> I have also introduced my photon
>>> axis, idea.
>>Which also has no effect on the time taken for
>>the light to get round the loop. You can introduce
>>all the ideas you want, unless they affect the
>>measurement they are irrelevant.
> You have this funny idea that light behaves like frictionless ball 
> bearings
> rolling around a toroidal tube.

You have this funny idea that light behaves like
ball bearings. I am just saying that if they did
then the direction of the spin axis of the bearing
doesn't affect the time it takes to travel from one
end of the tube to the other.

>>> You people on the other hand offer no explanation except that which
>>> applies to
>>> sound in air.
>>It is explained by SR perfectly. You[r] choice to
>>remain ignorant of that is of no concern.
> That is not an explanation. ...

Your choice as I said.

>>You'll never know whether there is one or
>>if I'm pulling your leg unless you do the
>>calculation yourself. Bottom line Henry,
>>unless you can show that your effect would
>>precisely explain the Sagnac Experiment
>>to within about 2 parts in 10^12 (IIRC the
>>paper I cited) then ballistic theory is
>>falsified, and to do both Paul and I have
>>shown the speed of the light would fall to
>>a stupidly low level, easily detected in
>>your experiment above.
> How would it have been detected.

With enough gentle kinks in the fibre, it
would take light hours to get through
transatlantic cables.

>>Remember I don't have to prove you wrong,
>>you are claiming a previously unrecognised
>>effect and it is for you to prove it exists
>>at exactly the necessary level to give the
>>result in every Sagnac experiment ever
>>performed regardless of the details of the
>>setup. Until you achieve that, ballistic
>>theory remains falsified.
> Sure. ...If the RI of glass is ignored :)

Still making that mistake? I corrected you
twice, the RI cancels out in the Sagnac
setup. You'll find the proof on the web.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>