A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » The Theory of Relativity
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , , , , , ,

Thee proper way to simulate and validate the Sagnac Effect



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 24th 07 posted to sci.physics.relativity
guskz@hotmail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,544
Default Thee proper way to simulate and validate the Sagnac Effect

FIRSTLY:

If light has no mass and is instead a reverbation of it's medium. Then
one could rotate wave reflectors (mirror simulation) in air or water
and record the sagnac effect on sound or water waves....the wave
reflectors (mirrors) disturb the medium thus possibly the ether.


SECONDLY:

If the ether is an energy field then it could resemble a field of
carrier waves.

Modulate a radio carrier wave to travel in both directions of rotating
reflectors (material from satellite dishes) as in a Sagnac model. Then
record if there's any phase latency between both modulations.

If the Sagnac has ZERO ***OR*** a similar effect to light then the
Sagnac experiment CANNOT validate the existance of an ether for it
cannot validate the existance of air, water or a carrier wave.

Ads
  #4  
Old October 26th 07 posted to sci.physics.relativity
guskz@hotmail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,544
Default Thee proper way to simulate and validate the Sagnac Effect

On Oct 25, 8:59 pm, The TimeLord
wrote:
wrote:
FIRSTLY:


If light has no mass and is instead a reverbation of it's medium. Then


Light has no mass, because experiment shows that for photons, E=p*c.
Since E^2=p^2*c^2+m^2*c^4, we get m=0 for photons.


Not me but many in this newsgroup dispute it, such as Uncle Al and
have other experiments that show the opposite.

Alos, Mass vs no mass almost similar to particle(photoelectric) vs
wave experiments.

one could rotate wave reflectors (mirror simulation) in air or water
and record the sagnac effect on sound or water waves....the wave
reflectors (mirrors) disturb the medium thus possibly the ether.


The experiment has been already done by Fizeau. It confirms the SR
explanation of the Sagnac effect.

You should also notice that there is no correlation between sound
waves and water waves to light waves, other than the fact that all are
waves. Sound and water require a medium to propagate the wave, whereas
light is its own medium (no aether needed).

You concluding by going backwards, no ether then we can't compare it
to those, where as the point is to prove there is no ether...and yes
there are other experiments that show no ether....once again your
going backwards by only stressing this (same as electron some
experimetns show it's a particle others a wave).

Example: Lets deny Einstein's photoelectric experiment and Nobel prize
for it because another shows it's a wave.



SECONDLY:


If the ether is an energy field then it could resemble a field of


It's not. The aether doesn't exist. Ether on the other hand is a class
of chemicals that have nothing to do with light.


I would agree if it were but a little effect on the world we live in.
For ages of belief on the Ethereal universe where the multiple heavens
reside and the highest of the True North belonging to THEE most high.
[...]

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!



  #5  
Old October 26th 07 posted to sci.physics.relativity
guskz@hotmail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,544
Default Thee proper way to simulate and validate the Sagnac Effect

On Oct 25, 9:36 pm, " wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:59 pm, The TimeLord
wrote:

wrote:
FIRSTLY:


If light has no mass and is instead a reverbation of it's medium. Then


Light has no mass, because experiment shows that for photons, E=p*c.
Since E^2=p^2*c^2+m^2*c^4, we get m=0 for photons.


Not me but many in this newsgroup dispute it, such as Uncle Al and
have other experiments that show the opposite.

Alos, Mass vs no mass almost similar to particle(photoelectric) vs
wave experiments.

one could rotate wave reflectors (mirror simulation) in air or water
and record the sagnac effect on sound or water waves....the wave
reflectors (mirrors) disturb the medium thus possibly the ether.


The experiment has been already done by Fizeau. It confirms the SR
explanation of the Sagnac effect.


You should also notice that there is no correlation between sound
waves and water waves to light waves, other than the fact that all are
waves. Sound and water require a medium to propagate the wave, whereas
light is its own medium (no aether needed).


You concluding by going backwards, no ether then we can't compare it
to those, where as the point is to prove there is no ether...and yes
there are other experiments that show no ether....once again your
going backwards by only stressing this (same as electron some
experimetns show it's a particle others a wave).

Example: Lets deny Einstein's photoelectric experiment and Nobel prize
for it because another shows it's a wave.



SECONDLY:


If the ether is an energy field then it could resemble a field of


It's not. The aether doesn't exist. Ether on the other hand is a class
of chemicals that have nothing to do with light.


I would agree if it were but a little effect on the world we live in.
For ages of belief on the Ethereal universe where the multiple heavens
reside and the highest of the True North belonging to THEE most high.


Example: No earthian test has shown any ether or any God or even
clearly a big bang, thus can we conclude none exist?



[...]


--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sagnac Effect question David The Theory of Relativity 10 December 22nd 06 02:16 AM
Simple explanation of the Sagnac effect. Peter Kinane The Theory of Relativity 15 December 24th 05 08:43 PM
Sagnac effect and the GPS satellites morpheus Current Physics Research (Moderated) 0 December 7th 03 06:11 PM
Sagnac effect Lasse Physics - General Discussion 3 November 9th 03 04:36 PM
The sagnac effect. Starblade Darksquall Physics - General Discussion 1 October 22nd 03 08:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Actress - Magazine Subscriptions - Internet Advertising - Loans - Loans