On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:36:39 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
:
: You can have a truce as soon as you explain how there are
: 14 wavelengths going ccw and 10 going cw in rayphases.exe
: when in fact 12 are emitted in each direction.
: Hint:
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif
:
: This shows two identical oscillators moving away from a common point at
: different speeds.
Yep, in the non-rotating frame they do have different speeds, c+v and c-v.
The start point isn't moving. They have identical frequencies, different
speeds and travel different distances in the same time.
They have the SAME frequency in the source - or rotating - frame.
Therefore they have doppler shifted and different frequencies in the
non-rotating frame.
Any engineer who has heard a train whistle go past should know that.
That's what
a different speed is.
In rayphases.exe your two oscillators have different frequencies, 0.7 Hz
and 0.5 Hz.
that's correct. They are doppler shifted in the nonrotating frame.
If you increase the speed to your fake maximum 0.005 then
there are 18 crests blue, a frequency of 0.9 Hz and 6 red crests,
a frequency of 0.3 Hz.
Look, a kiddy jumping up and down on a bus doesn't change the frequency,
it changes the leap forward along the road as the bus increases speed.
That's right.
If you change either the frequency of a moving oscillator or its speed, the
distance between wavecrests IN THE REST FRAME also changes.
In Sagnac, the frequency of both rays remains the same in the SOURCE frame.
Both their speeds AND frequencies are altered by the same proportion in the
rest frame....making their wavelengths absolute and invariant. (since
wavelength is speed/frequency)
: Their wavelengths are different....
Of course they are different, there are exactly the same number of
them in two different distances, you knee-jerking moron.
(knee jerk, knee jerk)
: as my definition of wavelength states.
Your definition of wavelength is absurd. You are a ****ing idiot.
.....if it's so absurd, why have you used it in your little demo?
: You are using the source frame.
WRONG!
It is NOT wrong. YOU HAVE SHOWN THE WAVES EMANATING FROM TWO COMOVING SOURCES
WITH DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES. YOU HAVE DRAWN WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FRAME OF THE
SOURCES.
THE POSITION OF YOUR SOURCES DOES NOT MOVE.
That gif is drawn ENTIRELY in the non rotating frame.
In the rotating source frame the cw and ccw wavelengths
are mirrot images of each other, as are the frequencies and
the distances from the source.
: In a sagnac ring, the two identical oscillators move away at the SAME
speed
: 'c'......
Yep.
: so your illustration is not relevant to Sagnac.
You have the wrong frame and YOU are irrelevant, you ****in'
useless loose cannon.
: In the frame of an observer moving away from the point at v,
Observers are either in the rotating frame or the non-rotating
frame, they are not "moving away". You are ****in' hopeless.
[garbage snipped]
I can see you are nowcopletely lost.
: (24 in each direction)
: Then you can apologise to all the people you've tried to deceive.
:
: This is basically how light behaves in a sagnac ring:
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
Same bull****, different wave shape. The wheels have
different frequencies. If the speed were increased to
your fake 0.01 the kiddy jumping up and down on the bus
wouldn't be able to move, that's ridiculous. You have an
aetherialist's model, not a ballistic one at all, you STOOOPID crank.
You should have studied physics instead of house wiring....
: : You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect,
: when
: : analysed in the rotating frame.
:
: Of course I'm correct.
:
:
: tell us all about it then.
: Where's you equation?
Look it up, I gave it to you. shift = d.sin(v/c)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac/RLG1.gif
Hahaha!
No that's not it...but it IS related...
:
: No way, it's war between us until YOU surrender. You are up against
: a British bulldog. I've got my teeth in your arse and I'm biting.
:
: You don't frighten me...I suppose you still think Britannia Rules The
Waves.
Don't ask me for a truce, I demand unconditional surrender or war continues.
YOU ARE WRONG!
"Land of Hope and Glory............''
....that's why it has turned black....
:
: You thought about it after you read it somewhere and probably still
: don't really understand why, and the only place you read it is in
: MY writings, you JEALOUS *******.
:
: Come on! Tell us all about Coriolis and Sagnac.
I did and its on my web page, you jealous ignorant *******.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
It's wrong.
It shows the nonrotating frame. The effect is only relevant in the rotating
frame.
: I want YOU to tell Tom why his bullet analogy is wrong.
I don't give a **** what you want. That arsehole is a total
clown anyway.
I'll give you a clue.
Robert sat on the source and fired machine guns in opposite direction around
the rotating 4 mirror Sagnac apparatus. He concluded that from his point of
view, the bullets went around it symetrically and so must end up arriving at
exactly the same time and at the same rate. Therefore there could be no phase
shift according to BaTh.
What he didn't and still doesn't know is that the paths of inertially moving
objects are CURVED in rotating frames. The CURVED paths of bullets are slightly
different. The angles of reflection at each mirror is compounded at each
reflection.
The bullets arrive at the detector at the emission rate but are out of phase.
THAT IS HOW AND WHERE THE CORIOLIS FORCE CONTRIBUTES TO SAGNAC. THE PATHS ARE
CURVED IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
: YOU can tell Fecal Jeckyl, Tusseladd, Jeery and Humpty that *I* am right.
:
: I agree you ARE right....but I doubt if you know why.
You are too late for that, I've already drawn the gifs.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
It should be drawn using the rotating frame....in which the mirrors remain
still and the light paths are permanently curved.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm