sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

 Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment Henri Wilson Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:44:37 GMT sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
 ```On 18 Apr 2006 01:51:12 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:56:58 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Henri Wilson" wrote in message >> >news:2ns642hejgojl73da96a6s1q3ip1l85dt7@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> No George. You are using the wrong model entirely. >> > >> >No Henry, I'm not using any model at all. >> > >> >> According to my version of the BaTh, the doppler shift represents the >> >> instantaneous relative velocity at the time of emission. >> > >> >Doppler shift is the difference between the frequency >> >at the target and the frequency emitted. It is a >> >formula that applies to sine waves. To analyse an >> >abitrary waveform you need to convert it into a set >> >of sines with amplitude and phase and you do that by >> >using a Fourier transform. Then you can apply your >> >Doppler equation to the frequency of each sine >> >component. You can also process the phase information >> >which would include any dispersion due to the ISM but >> >that's beyond what we need. To find the waveform >> >received you reverse transform the doppler shifted >> >signals. >> > >> >Now if you do that and apply your Doppler formula >> >f' = f * (1+v/c) to a signal with pulsed modulation >> >then what you will find is that the pulses are >> >separated at the receiver by the same time as they >> >were separated at the source minus a small amount >> >due to the distance moved by the source towards >> >the receiver and that time is constant regardless >> >of distance. That means the speed of light is the >> >same for all pulses. >> >> What the hell are you talking about? > >Fourier analysis. Look it up on the web. I know what fourier analysis is George. I spent years investigating musical instrument sounds. It doesn't apply to photons according to the BaTh because each one possesses only ONE pure frequency...which remains constant during their lifetimes (except when extinction occurs) > >> Look George, this is really simple. >> >> When a photon leaves its source it moves at c wrt that source. It moves at >> c+v >> wrt an observer moving at -v wrt that source. > >Ballistic theory says when energy in the form of >light leaves the source, it does so at that speed. At c wrt the source. Why that is so is the type of thing physicists should be looking at instead of lapping up Einstein's crap. >> If the source is accelerating then to first order it moves at c+v1 wrt the >> observer, where v1 is the average speed of the source wrt the observer during >> the (finite) time interval of emission. > >OK so far. That is enough to allow you to work >out the Doppler shift. > >> The observer will see that photon >> doppler shifted by 1+v/c, no matter what his distance from the source. > >Wrong, from the above postulate, you get the >equation (1+v/c)/(c^2-da) If you use the wrong model... Why don't you continue with MY model George. Can you not understand that clasical wave theory doesn't apply in this case? >> > >> >Careful, I don't claim photons really shrink, what >> >I said is that in order to comply with ballistic >> >theory, YOUR model of photons would need to shrink. >> >> and I explained why they don't have to shrink according to the >> BaTh > >Whatever, the Doppler equation is set by your postulate. Intrinsic photon frequency doesn't change with time. Observed 'frequency' is just f(1+c/v) at any distance. >> >> In addition, my approach matches the exerimental evidence. >> > >> >Your Doppler equation requires the speed of the light to >> >be independent of the speed of the source. >> >> What the hell are you talking about now? > >It is maths Henry, you don't seem to be able to do >maths. If you apply your Doppler equation 1+v/c to a >pulsed waveform, the pulses travel at equal speeds. >For an accelerated source that means they travel >at the same speed regardless of the speed of the >source at the time of emission. George here is an analogy that you should be able to understand. Consider a line of heavy traffic traveling along a highway. There are regions where the vehicles speed up or slow down and therefore become bunched to a lesser or greater degree. According to yourYOUR theory, the lengths of the vehicles also changes when this occurs. Can you not see the stupidity of this George? >> >No, what we are saying is that you have correctly >> >applied ballistic theory and from it derived an >> >equation for the Doppler shift. >> >> but only of the pulse arrival rate... > >No, try applying it and you will find it is impossible >the separate the terms. > >> >So far, so good. >> >Now if you want to know what frequency will be seen >> >at the receiver for a spectral line in the source >> >you are gating, then you apply the same equation. >> >> This is where you are completely missing the point. > >No, it's where you cannot do the maths. What maths. Intrinsic FREQUENCY = CONSTANT LAMBDA = CONSTANT !!!!!! That's my maths... Do you know what you get when you fourier analyse a pure sine wave George? >> >That gives you the received frequency, and you >> >cannot alter that equation without changing you >> >pulse timing since a pulse produced by the gate is >> >simply a combination of harmonics of the Fourier >> >analysis of the pulse shape applied to each source >> >frequency. >> >> George, The wave structure of the pulse is of no concern. Only its total >> energy >> is considered in determining observed brightness. > >The energy contained in the pulse arrives at a time >that is determined by the Doppler equation. Learn >how to do the maths and you can check for yourself. The doppler energy increase of the photons is negligible compared with the pulse bunching effect due to c+v. >> >> The intrinsic energy of a photon does not normally alter with time. > >OK, conservation of energy is entirely reasonable. > >> The correct BaTh energy equation is E = h(c+v)/lambda > >No it isn't, the emission speed is c relative to the >source, not c+v. Yes. In the source frame E= hc/Lambda In the observer frame it is E = h(c+v)/lambda. (same lambda) >> >What I am saying is that once you say the speed >> >is c+v then the frequencies are fully determined >> >by that and you don't have any more options. >> >> George, individual photon frequencies are determined solely by c+v. > >No they aren't, the Doppler equation derived from your >postulate includes a (d-c^2) term. Unless you learn >some basic maths Henry, you are not going to be >able to do physics at all. I have explained the effect of this term with my coiled spring model. You can simply drop that term and use the average speed during the (finite) time of emission. > >> Pulse >> arrival rate is determined by the variation of v with time as the source >> orbits >> its companion. > >Pulse arrival rate is also determined by the Doppler >equation so the two methods must give the same >answer or your theory is self-contradictory. the acceleration term should be included in the pulse arrival rate. > >> >> You say that each end of a photon will move at >> >> different speeds because of the source's acceleration. Therefore their >> >> 'lengths' and 'wavelengths' should also change in a manner that is >> >> identical to >> >> that of the pulses in which they happen to reside. You therefore claim >> >> that >> >> brightness should be 100% correlated with doppler shift. >> > >> >No, it's the other way round. I am saying that: >> > >> >(a) considering a pulse under ballistic theory tells >> > you the Doppler equation >> >> Well the length of the pulse would indicate doppler, yes > >I was thinking of the separation of the pulses but >both factors must be the same. I have agreed with that all along...but note the total light energy in each pulse is not affected by its change in length. >> >(b) applying the Doppler equation to a line in the >> > source tells you its received frequency >> >> If a doppler shifted line of a source is observed in terms of wavelength, we >> would have to know the velocity range of the photons making up that line >> before >> we could say anything about the frequency of arrival of the photon's SPATIAL >> periodicity. > >The Doppler equation tells you the received centre >frequency given the transmitted centre frequency. >You can find the wavelengths from the speeds. Now this can become complicated depending on which model is used. Jim and Androcles differe from me somewhat. They say frequency is the criterion here. My 'moving sawblade' model uses wavelength. My 'oscillating tooth, sawblade model' is different again. >> >(c) "bullets from a gun" is a poor analogy but if you >> > insist on using it, you need to match the analogy >> > to the physics of ballistic theory that you have >> > already worked out, so your photons will have to >> > change frequency and wavelength but not energy as >> > they travel if they were emitted by an accelerated >> > source. >> >> George, no matter how the source might be accelerating, each photon will be >> emitted with just ONE SINGLE speed wrt the observer. That speed will not >> normally alter. > >I am assuming the photon keeps its speed of c+v, >extinction is another matter but you need to sort out >the simpler situation first. Yes ignore extinction. The speed remains at c+v wrt the observer. >> >What you say from here on assumes you can arbitrarily >> >design photons but that ignores the physics, you have >> >already said enough to determine the frequency and >> >wavelength of photons. >> >> I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the fact that your whole belief >> system is wrong. > >You are ignoring the fact that ballistic theory determines >the Doppler equation and you cannot then choose another >one as well. I have given you the maths. lambda=constant. > >> > >> >What you haven't determined is how the energy of a >> >photon varies with a change of frame from the source >> >to the target. >> >> Here it is again: >> >> E= h(c+v)/lambda...where hc/lambda is the energy in the source frame. > >E = hc/lambda is the energy in the source frame is >correct from consideaton of black body radiation. >You have yet to derive the other equation from a frame >change. If you move towards a black body I suppose the energy impinging on you increases by the doppler term SQUARED. Both the number arriving per second and the energy they convey increases by 1+v/c. >> >Below critical distance, your green >> >curve is actually correct for the velocity curve >> >and the intensity curve should be the product of that >> >with the change of energy per photon due to frame >> >dependence. >> >> You have lost the plot completely now George. > >It's just maths Henry. If you don't understand Fourier >analysis, you are going to be out of your depth George you are free to spend the rest of your life analysing pure sine waves for all I care. >George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. ```
 Current Thread Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, (continued) 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, Kadaitcha Man 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, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson 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, Jerry Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Eric Gisse Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman