"Androcles" wrote in message
k...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Androcles" wrote in message
k...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Androcles" wrote in message
k...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
But you know all this, it's just a smokescreen to
hide the fact that you now know that ballistic light
cannot explain the phase shift measured by the
photodiode in an iFOG because it is fused to the
light source.
It certainly can, ...
Go ahead then, show the derivation and you will win
the argument.
I already did. You have such a pathetically short attention span,
being an absolute idiot, that you can't read or understand plain English
or mathematics.
All your posts assumed the detector was
not on the turntable. This is typical and
from just four days ago and you said "I see
now what the problem is, you both think the
detector is moving." so you certainly hadn't
posted a valid analysis before that.
Two frames of reference, you need two detectors to compare
them.
All your posts assumed there is only one detector.
That is correct, there is only one detector. It
is mounted on the back of the laser diode.
This is typical and from just right now ago you said
"All your posts assumed THE detector was not on the turntable"
so you certainly hadn't posted ANY analysis before that.
Albert Michelson is one observer, Georges Sagnac is
the other. The phase is not the same from one to the other,
or between any pair of mirrors.
Commercial iFOG devices have just one detector and
give an output which is proportional to ratation
rate, there is no MMX structure in them.
http://www.kvh.com/pdf/aiaa98.pdf
Gives a lot more details.
Wilson owes me a case of Glenlivet that you are ethically bound
to pay half of on his behalf.
If you are referring to your recent argument about
"in phase in one frame, not in phase in another"
then you lost. I can't comment on any previous bets
you may have made, and I am not part of your bet,
but if you feel I should be, you owe me a bottle
too.
"Androcles" wrote in message
k...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...rferometer.png
No indication of what is turning. That's MMX, not Sagnac.
MMX, no shift.
Now assuming that the source, mirrors and screen
are all on the turntable, should there be a beat
frequency on the screen?
Nope.
...
I see now what the problem is, you both think the detector
is moving. Just think of it as the light strobing on and off.
...
No but the photodetector on the end of a fibre ring
gyro is, and it is "on the turntable". That's where
this conversation started.
I don't know where you get that idea from. The photodetector
that is on the turntable is MMX, not Sagnac, and no fringe shift
is observed.
Grandpa stands beside a carousel, the two kids climb aboard,
start beside him, and walk around it in opposite directions.
They cross on the opposite side and meet again with a small
offset from grandpa, caused by the rotation of the carousel.
It doesn't matter whether they walk in 4 straight lines along chords
or a curve around the perimeter.
Henri insists Grandpa rides the carousel, and I am NOT
getting on it. I rather suspect he got that idea from listening
to you, judging from your insistence above.
He hasn't a hope in hell of programming a Sagnac model
with Grandpa riding along. The kids meet where they started
on the carousel, they do not meet at Grandpa.
We both knew the detector is moving.
That depends on which detector you mean, Michelson or Sagnac.
Henri and I are discussing Sagnac only, it
has only one detector.
As you
said, "The kids meet where they started on
the carousel, ..." but Grandpa is riding on
it too, so they reach him at the same time.
You are a ****.
I see you cannot refute the point.
Ritz predicts no time difference in the
Sagnac configuration.
You are a ****.
I see you cannot refute the point.
You haven't posted
any derivation since then in sci.astro that
says anything different and I agree with
everything above, Ritz predicts a null
result and is consequently falsified. That's
also what Henri's program shows.
You are still a snipping, arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
**** without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics ...
You were unaware the detector was on the turntable
in the Sagnac experiment. Now you imagine it has two
detectors instead of one. You got the beam splitter
at 90 degrees to the correct orientation. You didn't
understand the implication for coherence length. You
thought signals that reached a point on a mirror in
phase as seen in one frame would be out of phase as
seen from another. Henri or I had to correct you on
all those points so the evidence speaks for itself.
snip diversion
George