"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:33:32 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
| .. .
|
| | | My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to
move
| at
| | c
| | | wrt the source/detector.
| | | ct = 2piR + alphaR
| |
| | In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be)
| doesn't
| | move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move
with
| | respect
| | to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a
day
| | (alpha).
| | As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to
downtown
| | Sydney
| | is c and the distance is ct. It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off
| the
| | Earth to make
| | that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.
| |
| | Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
| | understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going
on.
| Read
| | carefully.
|
| Ok, then read my replies carefully.
|
|
| | Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
| | Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.
|
| If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS
rotating
| in the
| opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting
my
| ring,
| crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun
| are
| two such rings.
| I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate
| definition
| for me to understand your intent at this stage.
|
| Of course the second ring is concentric. it is right next to the gyro
ring.
It can't be right next to, left next to, front next to or back next to, it
can only be above next to or below next to. There is no "of course"
about it, your descriptions are vague and imprecise. Just because
you know what you mean doesn't mean anybody else does.
| | At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite
directions
| around
| | the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
| |
| | What happens to the mark?
| | Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
|
| Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.
|
| The movement is only a couple of light wavelengths at the most.
| You can assume the movement is in a straight line and is just vt..
Are you saying ring microwave gyroscopes won't work?
I don't ASSUME anything, Wilson, especially when there is no need to.
You are less intelligent so can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
THE MARK MOVES AWAY AT V.SIN(T), EVENTUALLY RETURNING.
****ing physicists, hopeless at mathematics, clueless the lot of them.
|
| | By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.
|
| The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
| directions and continue forever.
|
| We are discussing a ring gyro in which total internal reflection occurs.
As far
| as this argument is concerned the rays move in straight lines.
Ok, so far I have read carefully and:
i) the mark is stationary and moves.
ii) the mark moves in a straight line.
iii) arcs are straight lines.
iv) the light reflects from total internal reflection by sqrt(2), you once
said.
v) the world is flat.
vi) You are upside down.
vii) You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
|
| You are not doing a very good job here with your specialising in teaching
| physics to engineers and mathematicians... or perhaps you are, this
| is typical of the kind of undefined crap we've come to expect of
| physicists. It is also why your programs are loaded down with constants,
| you fail to define them at the beginning, inventing them as you need
them.
| That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
| a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
| whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined
| throughout.
| I never write 3.141592653589790
| as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.
|
|
| Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
|
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
|
| In a ring gyro, the detector rides the ring.
The detector is not where the rays meet "in phase" going in opposite
directions, Wilson, or it wouldn't detect anything. First, one of the rays
has to meet a reflector "in which total internal reflection occurs" so that
it goes the same way as the other ray.
|
| | Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the
original
| | position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a
peripheral
| speed
| | of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from
you
| at c
| | and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
| | mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.
|
| I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
| When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
| they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
| and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
| "out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.
|
| In a ring gyro stuck in an aeroplane, the kids don't ever get off.
You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
They walk around in a circle at the tail, collide (in step) and
walk down the aisle of the plane at different speeds, one arriving
at the flight deck before the other. The captain sees which one
arrived first and knows which way his plane is rotating. It doesn't
work if he's at the tail.
|
| Here's some pictures of it:
|
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...RealSagnac.gif
|
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnacFixed.gif
|
| What in christ's name is that?
Georges Sagnac was not christ, you dumb *******.
You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
It is Sagnac's original sketch, animated by me.
|
| |
| | This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be
| misleading.
| | In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING
FRAME.
| | AND their wavelengths are the same.
|
| In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
| actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
| sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their ****ing
| teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact,
actually.
| You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
| I was being facetious when I said "you are more intelligent than the
rest".
Not at all, you were in fact actually correct for a change and that's a
fact, actually.
|
| |
| | | Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of
each
| | 'ray
| | | element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.
| |
| | We know that, but the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
| | for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not
| | stationary,
| | the Sun moves too.
| |
| | We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
| | Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated
nonrotating
| frame
| | perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
| |
| You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
| Engineers obviously aren't aware that rotation is absolute.
Aussie sheep shaggers obviously hallucinate an arc is a straight line, in
fact, actually.
In fact rotation is relative, actually, and that's a fact.