sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 8 Mar 2006 06:29:23 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2006 07:49:43 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:11:47 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> >> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >> >The neat thing about the differential form is that
> >> >it is reasonable to assume homogeneity over an
> >> >infinitesimal distance ds. Variations are then
> >> >dealt with by the process of integrating.
> >>
> >> Not so easy George. 'o' becomes a function of distance.
> >> The only way to solve this kind of integral is via computer.
> >
> >In detail yes, but you can get a reasonable estimate
> >by using the average density along the path.
>
> Maybe....in most situations.

Consider what the integral along the line of sight
of the density means. Suppose ther were two
pockets along the line with perfect vacuum between,
would the distance between them matter? Treat the
inhomogenous medium as a series of pockets so
small each contains only one atom (or whatever).
Does the distance between them matter?

The effect should be independent of the distribution
along the line and only dependent on the total.

> >> L would vary with conditions in te pocket.
> >
> >The only thing affecting L would be the charge density
> >and L should be inversely proportional to that which
> >is why I included it above the way I did. You were right
> >to say I needed to correct the dimensions but L is
> >essentially a fundamental constant with 'o' taking care
> >of the pocket variation.
>
> There is still a dimensional problem.

Just change the units of L.

> >> H-aether does not radically change light
> >> speed over tens or even hundreds of LYs. It doesn't have to affect speed 
> >> very
> >> much to drastically alter brightness curves observed further down the 
> >> track..
> >>
> >> Star orbit speeds are never anywhere near 'c'. Light from different orbit
> >> phases travels at c+v and c-v wrt the orbit centre. It wouldn't take much
> >> change to bring both of these closer to 'c' and dramatically reduce the 
> >> size of
> >> the brightness curve at long distances.
> >
> >I think your feel for this is over-optimistic, certainly
> >anything over a couple of light years would give
> >multiple spectra for the pulsar we looked at and the
> >site mentioned the other day quotes figures in AU
> >which sounds about right. You need to do some
> >real work on that Henry, not just guess.
>
> The pulsar would have to be in orbit with a quite high peripheral velocity. 
> Its
> distance from the observer is also crucial to what the observer sees.

The pulsar we examined has a speed around 28km/s,
almost the same as Earth. That would vary as the
cube root of the mass of the system (known period)
so is pretty insensistive. The critical distance is only
3.5 light years, less than our nearest neighbour, so
you certainly need to almost eliminate the "+v" part
within a few light years.

> >> >>>> >I am not an interferometer - read your
> >> >>>> >question again  ;-)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Nothing wrong with my question George.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The question suggests _I_ could feel the difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> YOU COULD feel the difference. It is a huge effect.
> >> >
> >> >For a carousel rotating once every 400000
> >> >years? I don't think so.
> >>
> >> An interferomoter is sensitive to 1 in 10^12 or less.
> >
> >My bum isn't! An intereferometer could detect
> >it but I could not feel it.
>
> IIRC, the experiment involved running around the carousel in opposite
> directions. The difference is enormous, like I said.

Run round a static carousel in opposite directions and
the force against the rail is identical. Rotate it at a
speed of once every 400000 years and you won't feel
the difference unless you are a lot more sensitive than I.

> >> >> You have never answered it. You can only quote a disguised version of 
> >> >> the
> >> >> second postulate.
> >> >
> >> >The postulate describes the effect, the geometry
> >> >is the cause. You asked for the cause and that's
> >> >what I answered and have answered many, many times.
> >>
> >> Who are you trying to kid, George?
> >
> >Not kid, educate, but you choose to remain ignorant.
>
> Using a different geometry doesn't alter the basic question.

The Earth isn't round because we "use" spherical
trig., roundness is a property of the Earth and the
geometry of spacetime isn't Riemann because of
antything we "use", it is a physical property and it
is the cause that answers your question.

> >> >> The theories rely on the same: "light speed is determined by a property 
> >> >> of
> >> >> 'fixed' space rather than the source".
> >>
> >> No comment from George. He's too wrapped in geometry...
> >
> >My comment is two lines above Henry. The fact is
> >that they are mutually exclusive no matter how you
> >try to reword your claim to hide it.
>
> SR is just a subset of LET.

Wrong way round, LT is just a disguised version
of SR.

> It deals with the way 'contracted' frames see things in other contracted
> frames. I don't think Lorentz went that far.

He included contraction, he was aware of time
dilation but I don't think he consider mass increase.
In these groups, "LET" isn't what Lorentz proposed
but a name for whatever set of ad hoc phenomena
based on aether interactions are required to be
compatible with SR but with absolute simultaneity.

> >> >> You just don't want to accept that SR is just an aether theory.
> >> >
> >> >I don't accept things I have proved to be wrong.
> >>
> >> Well you haven't proved ME wrong.
> >
> >Yes I have, you cannot complete your program without
> >making a decision as to whether the light will move
> >symmetrically (SR) or asymmetrically (aether), those
> >are mutually exclusive which disproves your claim that
> >they are the same.
>
> Aether theory says that it will always be MEASURED as moving symmetrically
> whether it does or not.

And if you added rulers and clocks you could
demonstrate that, but you CANNOT complete
your program without making that decision,
the alternatives are mutually exclusive.

> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >        _____________________O__  |
> >> >>>> >  S ___/                          | screen
> >> >>>> >       \_____________________O__  |
> >> >>>> >                                  |
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >You get a fringe pattern. Now move
> >> >>>> >one loop along the fibre:
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >        _____________________O__  |
> >> >>>> >  S ___/                          | screen
> >> >>>> >       \__O_____________________  |
> >> >>>> >                                  |
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >
>
> >> >>
> >> >> It would have to be done precisely to maintain a perfectly constant
> >> >> tension.
> >> >
> >> >Use minimal tension to straighten the fibre,
> >> >reduce it in small steps measuring the
> >> >stretching of an elastic band, plot the
> >> >fringes and project the intercept at zero
> >> >tension.
> >>
> >> I would wind hundreds of turns around a 5 cm diameter former then roll that
> >> carefully from one end to the other, making sure no turns crossed over any
> >> others.
> >
> >All you need is a long flat surface to roll it along, e.g. a
> >pavement ;-)
> >
> >However, you might find you only need one turn.
>
> No you would need hundreds, tightly wound.

Proof please.

> >> It might be possible. With my help, you could still become famous George.
> >
> >Not me, the credit goes to the person who does the
> >experiment regardless of who suggests it.
>
> That was before everything here was recorded on google.

Letters between scientists have been recorded
for years, those who do the work get the credit.

> >> >Yes we do, it is what is need to make Sagnac
> >> >work. That was your original reason for
> >> >proposing it. Just work out the coefficient
> >> >from that.
> >>
> >> That will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that SR explains the the 
> >> iFoG
> >> effect but for the wrong reasons.
> >
> >No, no Henry, you use the known result to predict how
> >much slowing is needed to make _ballistic_ theory fit.
>
> Yes all right. It should tell us something.

It should give you one specific formula that will
match the result for any size and shape of
Sagnac setup. That's all you need to predict the
outcome of your experiment.

> >> But as I pointed out there are two separate effects.
> >> One relates to differential slowing due to drag, the other to the fact 
> >> that the
> >> average energy in the beams changes radius by different amounts due to 
> >> slightly
> >> different centrifugal forces.
> >
> >You only suggested the drag varied due to the centrifugal
> >forces but since it is proportional to c+/-v the static case
> >above with v=0 can measure it. If you want to add the
> >second effect, you need to provide the equation for that
> >too and then find a way to test for that. Again, the ball is in
> >your court.
>
> In the static case, a direct comparison of TWLS in a coiled fibre and in the
> same fibre straightened would tell us all we want to know about slowing due to
> drag.

It would but it is impractical. The fibres would be of different
length and the process of rolling and unrolling may change
the length. Keeping a constant number of turns and moving
their location should eliminate that and an interferometric
setup gives you the sensitivity you need. Putting an identical
turn in each fibre means you are not trying to create a pattern
with two beams moving at different speeds and means the
length of the fibres beyond the turns cancels out.

> That was why I prefer MY experiment to yours.

Do whichever you like, you're the one doing it, but
don't use the difficulties of doing yours as an excuse
for not doing my version.

> Note it cannot be assumed
> that light confined to a circular path is symmetrical across the wavefront. By
> htat I mean the energy maximum would be offset towards the outside rather than
> in the middle as in the straight line case. Do you see what I mean here?

I know what you mean, I believe the intensity is
constrained to have a Gaussian distribution in a
mono-mode fibre.

> The two effects are additive anyway. So a positive result would still have to
> be interpreted in terms of the two.

The second effect doesn't alter the speed cumulatively
so it won't affect your experiment. Any effect from the
static loops applies regardless of where it occurs along
the fibre so won't influence the measurents in my version.

George


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