AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 What? I see no inconsistency between my and your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 How exactly is a uniform loop reflecting light differently if its moving or not when its reflected from the inside of the moving uniform surface? You don't understand the very crux of it. If you accelerate a device that has emissions emating in two directions, one direction that, on that acceleration, becomes 'forward' of it and the other that becomes 'backward' of it, you're helping on their way those emissions that are moving forward of it, and hampering those that are moving backward of it (if you are happy to speak in those terms), in respect to meeting their receptor. Tomorrow is Sunday. Spend the time you would have spent in church before you became an ex-Christian (assuming you are not an imposter!) doing diagrams to ascertain the geometry of it. I assure you it works out as I have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 And yet it detects rotation even when the rotation is constant thus has no acceleration. Then show me your calculations and diagrams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 And yet it detects rotation even when the rotation is constant thus has no acceleration. Then show me your calculations and diagrams. It's very simple. When you rotate it you are 'helping' the emission of light in the direction (taking the tangent) or rotation, and 'hampering' the emission in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The light is IN the fibre. OK, lets put it in a way you understand. Replace the fibre with a tube that is 1km long and wound around a cylinder. Two ants enter the tube at opposing ends and crawl at exactly the same speed on the inside of the tube. If they crawl at the exact same speed they will meet at the 500m point. If that tube is rotating at a constant RPM they will still meet at the 500m point. If the tube direction is rotating in the opposite direction they will meet at the same 500m point. How exactly do they ever meet at some other point according to you? Because to get an interference pattern they must meet at different point which will be dependent on if the coil is stationary or rotating and if rotating it will depend on the direction. There is no acceleration, they are released when the rotation is 1RPM by a little door that opens when its at a constant rotation. The result will be the same regardless of what the rotation direction is and that is the same as when there is no rotation. That is what classical physics tells you. That is not what is observed. That is not what relativity predicts. Observation matches relativity. Your ideas are simply WRONG and do not match observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The problem is that he is using Eddington's calculations with total ignorance and trying to prove that Eddington had less than basic understanding. Eddington DID calculate the deflection of light around the Sun and he DID use M=1.47km. What you author fails to grasp is that M does not mean m. I don't know this particular saga (and who can blame me -- it doesn't turn up on Google, unless I am missing a trick in regard to search terms) so you will have to enlighten me. By "M does not mean m", I take it you are saying in your cloak-and-dagger way, that Eddington used the symbol M to express what Guy Burniston Brown interprets as mass? Well, please tell me more! The authors of your beloved paper simply did not understand the simple and basic principle on how those calculations were done. Author, singular. And please -- I reiterate -- tell me more. It was not for humour as you so quickly assumed. Which I'll add is a common theme with you. You claim to understand something yet you misunderstand so claim the concept is wrong. Then when its pointed out that you were mistaken, you revise and come up with a new concept of why its still wrong. You really are an absolutist. You absolutely believe you are 100% right. If it makes you feel better, I can repeat what I said earlier (in two separate posts) that I have made errors myself, on the subject of the Sagnac effect, and that such is very easily done. The rest of what you say is typically unsubstantuated and back-footish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The light is IN the fibre. OK, lets put it in a way you understand. Replace the fibre with a tube that is 1km long and wound around a cylinder. Two ants enter the tube at opposing ends and crawl at exactly the same speed on the inside of the tube. If they crawl at the exact same speed they will meet at the 500m point. If that tube is rotating at a constant RPM they will still meet at the 500m point. If the tube direction is rotating in the opposite direction they will meet at the same 500m point. How exactly do they ever meet at some other point according to you? Because to get an interference pattern they must meet at different point which will be dependent on if the coil is stationary or rotating and if rotating it will depend on the direction. There is no acceleration, they are released when the rotation is 1RPM by a little door that opens when its at a constant rotation. The result will be the same regardless of what the rotation direction is and that is the same as when there is no rotation. That is what classical physics tells you. That is not what is observed. That is not what relativity predicts. Observation matches relativity. Your ideas are simply WRONG and do not match observation. Sorry, mate, but the ant in one direction doesn't get the same push up its behind that the ant in the other direction gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Really? So you find it easier walking towards the front of a train travelling at a constant velocity than you do walking back because you have a "push" in the forward direction??? You are confusing acceleration for velocity me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Really? So you find it easier walking towards the front of a train travelling at a constant velocity than you do walking back because you have a "push" in the forward direction??? You are confusing acceleration for velocity me thinks. Look, on a train you are not constantly changing direction as you are when you are rotating. If you work it out in respect of the geometry, taking into accoun the change in angles, and the fact that light has no friction as does an ant walking on a surface, believe me it comes out as I say. Start off working it out with a four-mirror Sagnac device because here, the difference is at its most obvious. The first mirror shifts a little before the photon reaches it and as it does, it causes a change of angle in respect to any light that is to reach the next mirror, and so on. It's subtle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Look, on a train you are not constantly changing direction as you are when you are rotating. If you work it out in respect of the geometry, taking into accoun the change in angles, and the fact that light has no friction as does an ant walking on a surface, believe me it comes out as I say. Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? And on the same note, Earth is moving around the Sun at a speed of 67,000 mph, does this mean that a person on the "front" of Earth would have a harder time jumping than a person on the "back" of Earth? (Front and back along the line of motion around the Sun.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So when you walk East its easier than when you walk West. Makes perfect sense. I feel it all the time. I seem to recall Newton saying that F=mA +dF when travelling East and F=mA -dF when travelling West... Oh wait. No I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Look, on a train you are not constantly changing direction as you are when you are rotating. If you work it out in respect of the geometry, taking into accoun the change in angles, and the fact that light has no friction as does an ant walking on a surface, believe me it comes out as I say. Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? And on the same note, Earth is moving around the Sun at a speed of 67,000 mph, does this mean that a person on the "front" of Earth would have a harder time jumping than a person on the "back" of Earth? (Front and back along the line of motion around the Sun.) This can easily be explained. In Ptolemy's model... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 This can easily be explained. In Ptolemy's model... Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So when you walk East its easier than when you walk West. That's my question to Paradox as well, but I asked this: Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? Your answer is that it can be explained by the Ptolemy's model... So you answered your own question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Look, on a train you are not constantly changing direction as you are when you are rotating. If you work it out in respect of the geometry, taking into accoun the change in angles, and the fact that light has no friction as does an ant walking on a surface, believe me it comes out as I say. Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? And on the same note, Earth is moving around the Sun at a speed of 67,000 mph, does this mean that a person on the "front" of Earth would have a harder time jumping than a person on the "back" of Earth? (Front and back along the line of motion around the Sun.) Yes, this is true. Indeed, Nasa launch rockets so that the spin of the earth assists them in their projection. If you think that the spin of the earth amounts to a great deal of difference when you are walking, think again: we are hardly about to fly off at a tangent with every step we take; our velocity is too small in relation to gravity and friction! But be careful to sort the concepts out for what they are: I am talking about a beam of light striking the a mirror of a set of forur the first two of which are equidistant from the emitter. The light strikes the first mirror sooner for the beam going in the direction of motion than it does for the beam going in the other. It is simple goemetry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So when you walk East its easier than when you walk West. Makes perfect sense. I feel it all the time. I seem to recall Newton saying that F=mA +dF when travelling East and F=mA -dF when travelling West... Oh wait. No I can't. He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum. What I can tell you is that if you have a bit of chewing gum stuck to the rim of an old vinyl record on a record player, it is more likely to fly off in the direction in which the record is rotating than it is in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So when you walk East its easier than when you walk West. That's my question to Paradox as well, but I asked this: Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? Your answer is that it can be explained by the Ptolemy's model... So you answered your own question? Ptolemy considered the Earth to be stationary and the Universe rotated around it. Geocentricism basically. I was being a smart ass to Paradox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum. I think I missed that post. Isn't F=ma Newton's second law of motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So when you walk East its easier than when you walk West. Makes perfect sense. I feel it all the time. I seem to recall Newton saying that F=mA +dF when travelling East and F=mA -dF when travelling West... Oh wait. No I can't. He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum. What I can tell you is that if you have a bit of chewing gum stuck to the rim of an old vinyl record on a record player, it is more likely to fly off in the direction in which the record is rotating than it is in the opposite direction. That's called conservation of momentum. There is also the theory of conservation of angular momentum. Do you disagree with these non-relativistic concepts? Because if you don't then you'll know that the force required to move either with rotation or against it requires the same effort. If you don't agree with the conservation of momentum theories, is there any we actually have in common? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? Oh -- actually, depending on the interpretation of your word 'easier', the opposite will be the case: if you run against the earth's rotation, you get (eg.) half way round the earth sooner than if you run with it. The reason is that the earth's spin brings your destination towards you sooner than it does if you are running with the spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? Oh -- actually, depending on the interpretation of your word 'easier', the opposite will be the case: if you run against the earth's rotation, you get (eg.) half way round the earth sooner than if you run with it. The reason is that the earth's spin brings your destination towards you sooner than it does if you are running with the spin. Intuitively, I think it sounds insane. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Oh -- actually, depending on the interpretation of your word 'easier', the opposite will be the case: if you run against the earth's rotation, you get (eg.) half way round the earth sooner than if you run with it. The reason is that the earth's spin brings your destination towards you sooner than it does if you are running with the spin. Then you really don't understand conservation of angular momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 So when you walk East its easier than when you walk West. Makes perfect sense. I feel it all the time. I seem to recall Newton saying that F=mA +dF when travelling East and F=mA -dF when travelling West... Oh wait. No I can't. He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum. What I can tell you is that if you have a bit of chewing gum stuck to the rim of an old vinyl record on a record player, it is more likely to fly off in the direction in which the record is rotating than it is in the opposite direction. That's called conservation of momentum. There is also the theory of conservation of angular momentum. Do you disagree with these non-relativistic concepts? Because if you don't then you'll know that the force required to move either with rotation or against it requires the same effort. You are talking about the force *at a point* -- i.e. at a tangent. You seem to be forgetting the last paragraph I wrote in my post, in anticipation of this comment. You can forget any force required to emit lit. If you really want to think that there *is* a force required, the it is the same in both directions. But the angle required to correct its path, when the mirrors are rotating, is greater in one direction than it is in the other. DO THE F -- ING GEOMETRY!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum. I think I missed that post. Isn't F=ma Newton's second law of motion? Nope. It's Euler's formualtion of it based on a mistranslation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Nope. It's Euler's formualtion of it based on a mistranslation. Ah. --- So Newton was wrong too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts