In questions about light traveling around in rings, Sal and others,
mentioned the Sagnac Effect. In reading about that experiment, it
isn't clear to me exactly what the experimental setup is. For
example, let's say we setup a disk with an optical path in four
segments. A laser beam is emitted at node 1, reflects off mirrors at
nodes 2, 3, 4 and returns to an interferometer back at node 1.
Although Einstein didn't explicitly state this hypotheses in SR,
both his theory and Newton's include a hypothesis that the velocity of
light (speed and direction) depend on the velocity of the light
source, with Einstein hypothesizing that the speed is constant and
only the angle of the emitted beam depends on the velocity of the
light source.
In the Sagnac experiment, how do they compensate for this change in
angle of the emitted light, and off each reflected surface? Do they
adjust the laser, mirror and detector angles relative to the platform
as a function of the rotational velocity so the effect doesn't show up
in the interference pattern so that the only thing that is observed is
phase shifts that depend on the rotational speed? Or is this a
calculation that is performed to remove this angle dependence on
velocity when analyzing the phase shift as a function of rotational
velocity of the platform.
Thanks,
Dave Seppala

"David" wrote in message ...
| In questions about light traveling around in rings, Sal and others,
| mentioned the Sagnac Effect. In reading about that experiment, it
| isn't clear to me exactly what the experimental setup is.


It is not a experiment, but a common piece of technology.


| For
| example, let's say we setup a disk with an optical path in four
| segments. A laser beam is emitted at node 1, reflects off mirrors at
| nodes 2, 3, 4 and returns to an interferometer back at node 1.

Yes.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm



| Although Einstein didn't explicitly state this hypotheses in SR,
| both his theory and Newton's include a hypothesis that the velocity of
| light (speed and direction) depend on the velocity of the light
| source,


WRONG!
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" - Albert Idiot Einstein.

Einstein explicity states his stupidity.
Sal is just another ****wit.

The constancy of the speed of light in each frame of reference logically results in compound light speeds (c+v)(c-v) for all frames in uniform motion relative to an observer. This is the de facto explanation for the Sagnac effect. No other is required.






with Einstein hypothesizing that the speed is constant and
| only the angle of the emitted beam depends on the velocity of the
| light source.




| In the Sagnac experiment, how do they compensate for this change in
| angle of the emitted light, and off each reflected surface? Do they
| adjust the laser, mirror and detector angles relative to the platform
| as a function of the rotational velocity so the effect doesn't show up
| in the interference pattern so that the only thing that is observed is
| phase shifts that depend on the rotational speed? Or is this a
| calculation that is performed to remove this angle dependence on
| velocity when analyzing the phase shift as a function of rotational
| velocity of the platform.
| Thanks,
| Dave Seppala

David wrote:
In questions about light traveling around in rings, Sal and others,
mentioned the Sagnac Effect. In reading about that experiment, it
isn't clear to me exactly what the experimental setup is. For
example, let's say we setup a disk with an optical path in four
segments. A laser beam is emitted at node 1, reflects off mirrors at
nodes 2, 3, 4 and returns to an interferometer back at node 1.
Although Einstein didn't explicitly state this hypotheses in SR,
both his theory and Newton's include a hypothesis that the velocity of
light (speed and direction) depend on the velocity of the light
source, with Einstein hypothesizing that the speed is constant and
only the angle of the emitted beam depends on the velocity of the
light source.

Both Einsten had Newton held particle views of light which
models dielectrics very poorly

In the Sagnac experiment, how do they compensate for this change in
angle of the emitted light, and off each reflected surface? Do they
adjust the laser, mirror and detector angles relative to the platform
as a function of the rotational velocity so the effect doesn't show up
in the interference pattern so that the only thing that is observed is
phase shifts that depend on the rotational speed? Or is this a
calculation that is performed to remove this angle dependence on
velocity when analyzing the phase shift as a function of rotational
velocity of the platform.

Just use wave models that represent the dielectrics properly.

Abstract
The interaction energy between two dissimilar non-ionized
molecules or atoms is calculated in fourth-order perturbation
theory and dipole approximation. The interaction Hamiltonian
involves the charge distribution with the complete Maxwell
field and not only the Coulomb interaction between charges.
At close separations between the two systems (still large
compared with molecular diameters) the interaction energy
is of course that corresponding to the London force. However,
for separations large compared with the characteristic
wavelengths associated with transitions within the molecules
the London force is modified considerably. In the case of two
molecules in the ground state this modification was first found
by Casimir & Polder. If one of the molecules is in an excited
state new effects appear at these large distances. The energy
of interaction depends on the orientation of the transition moment
in the excited molecule with respect to the vector displacement
between the two systems. In both transverse and longitudinal
orientations the potential law is considerably stronger than the
R-7 of the ground state-ground state interaction. For transverse
orientations there is an unmodulated R-2 energy dependence
which though very weak individually could give rise to considerable
effects when the excited molecule is in a macroscopic
environment.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RSPSA.286..573M

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Searc h

Reinterpretation of fizeau's experiment with moving medium in...
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f3c.pdf

Sue...

Thanks,
Dave Seppala

David wrote:
In questions about light traveling around in rings, Sal and others,
mentioned the Sagnac Effect. In reading about that experiment, it
isn't clear to me exactly what the experimental setup is. For
example, let's say we setup a disk with an optical path in four
segments. A laser beam is emitted at node 1, reflects off mirrors at
nodes 2, 3, 4 and returns to an interferometer back at node 1.
Although Einstein didn't explicitly state this hypotheses in SR,
both his theory and Newton's include a hypothesis that the velocity of
light (speed and direction) depend on the velocity of the light
source, with Einstein hypothesizing that the speed is constant and
only the angle of the emitted beam depends on the velocity of the
light source.

Both Einsten had Newton held particle views of light which
models dielectrics very poorly

In the Sagnac experiment, how do they compensate for this change in
angle of the emitted light, and off each reflected surface? Do they
adjust the laser, mirror and detector angles relative to the platform
as a function of the rotational velocity so the effect doesn't show up
in the interference pattern so that the only thing that is observed is
phase shifts that depend on the rotational speed? Or is this a
calculation that is performed to remove this angle dependence on
velocity when analyzing the phase shift as a function of rotational
velocity of the platform.

Just use wave models that represent the dielectrics properly.

Abstract
The interaction energy between two dissimilar non-ionized
molecules or atoms is calculated in fourth-order perturbation
theory and dipole approximation. The interaction Hamiltonian
involves the charge distribution with the complete Maxwell
field and not only the Coulomb interaction between charges.
At close separations between the two systems (still large
compared with molecular diameters) the interaction energy
is of course that corresponding to the London force. However,
for separations large compared with the characteristic
wavelengths associated with transitions within the molecules
the London force is modified considerably. In the case of two
molecules in the ground state this modification was first found
by Casimir & Polder. If one of the molecules is in an excited
state new effects appear at these large distances. The energy
of interaction depends on the orientation of the transition moment
in the excited molecule with respect to the vector displacement
between the two systems. In both transverse and longitudinal
orientations the potential law is considerably stronger than the
R-7 of the ground state-ground state interaction. For transverse
orientations there is an unmodulated R-2 energy dependence
which though very weak individually could give rise to considerable
effects when the excited molecule is in a macroscopic
environment.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RSPSA.286..573M

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Searc h

Reinterpretation of fizeau's experiment with moving medium in...
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f3c.pdf

Sue...

Thanks,
Dave Seppala

"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

[...]
I've never seen an aether, have you?

"Sue..." wrote in message ups.com...

[...]

I've never seen an aether, have you?

If one pictures the four node device in a none rotating state, then
light is released, and then the device is rotated after the light is
released, the light will not target precisely the second node. The
same occurs if the device is rotating at the time that the light is
released, and the rotation is stopped prior to the light reaching the
second node.

Therefore it is noted that if the device has a constant rate of
rotation, this also determines the appropriate angle in which the light
will always target each node properly, and continue to do so.

The time taken for the light to move from one node to another is
dependent of the whether there is rotation of the device, and what the
rate of rotation is if rotation is present.

By understanding properly the dimensions of Space and Time, it becomes
clear as to how, despite the fact that the device may be rotating, that
the light still happens to move at the appropriate angle from one node
to get to the next node. You simply have to view the situation, four
dimensionally.

"THE_ONE" wrote in message ps.com...
| If one pictures the four node device in a none rotating state, then
| light is released, and then the device is rotated after the light is
| released, the light will not target precisely the second node. The
| same occurs if the device is rotating at the time that the light is
| released, and the rotation is stopped prior to the light reaching the
| second node.
|
| Therefore it is noted that if the device has a constant rate of
| rotation, this also determines the appropriate angle in which the light
| will always target each node properly, and continue to do so.
|
| The time taken for the light to move from one node to another is
| dependent of the whether there is rotation of the device, and what the
| rate of rotation is if rotation is present.
|
| By understanding properly the dimensions of Space and Time, it becomes
| clear as to how, despite the fact that the device may be rotating, that
| the light still happens to move at the appropriate angle from one node
| to get to the next node. You simply have to view the situation, four
| dimensionally.


Babbling bull****.

Sorcerer wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message ps.com...
| If one pictures the four node device in a none rotating state, then
| light is released, and then the device is rotated after the light is
| released, the light will not target precisely the second node. The
| same occurs if the device is rotating at the time that the light is
| released, and the rotation is stopped prior to the light reaching the
| second node.
|
| Therefore it is noted that if the device has a constant rate of
| rotation, this also determines the appropriate angle in which the light
| will always target each node properly, and continue to do so.
|
| The time taken for the light to move from one node to another is
| dependent of the whether there is rotation of the device, and what the
| rate of rotation is if rotation is present.
|
| By understanding properly the dimensions of Space and Time, it becomes
| clear as to how, despite the fact that the device may be rotating, that
| the light still happens to move at the appropriate angle from one node
| to get to the next node. You simply have to view the situation, four
| dimensionally.


Babbling bull****.

I'm sure it is to you.

There are those who think, and there are those who know.
Those who think, can achieve understanding by putting all the pieces
together.

Those who know, can't assemble the pieces, because it their skill to
simply collect vast numbers of units of knowledge.
The knowledgeable are therefore skillful at maintaining the disassembly
of the big picture.
To them, an assembly is nothing but Babbling bull****.

THE_ONE

"THE_ONE" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "THE_ONE" wrote in message ps.com...
| | If one pictures the four node device in a none rotating state, then
| | light is released, and then the device is rotated after the light is
| | released, the light will not target precisely the second node. The
| | same occurs if the device is rotating at the time that the light is
| | released, and the rotation is stopped prior to the light reaching the
| | second node.
| |
| | Therefore it is noted that if the device has a constant rate of
| | rotation, this also determines the appropriate angle in which the light
| | will always target each node properly, and continue to do so.
| |
| | The time taken for the light to move from one node to another is
| | dependent of the whether there is rotation of the device, and what the
| | rate of rotation is if rotation is present.
| |
| | By understanding properly the dimensions of Space and Time, it becomes
| | clear as to how, despite the fact that the device may be rotating, that
| | the light still happens to move at the appropriate angle from one node
| | to get to the next node. You simply have to view the situation, four
| | dimensionally.
|
|
| Babbling bull****.
|
| I'm sure it is to you.
|
| There are those who think, and there are those who know.

Yeah, I know and you don't think.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm