In an attempt to refute the points that I made in my applets demonstrating the incompatibility of Ballistic Theory with the results of the Sagnac experiment, Henri Wilson presented the following Visual Basic animation:

Henri Wilson's animation as of October 21, 2007. 
(Warning: This being an EXE file, you run this at your own risk. Please make sure that your virus scanner is up-to-date.)

Along with this animation, Wilson presented the following explanatory comments: 

The toothed wheel represents a snapshot of BOTH rays when they are in phase at the emission point. The teeth represent absolute wavelengths. It is not shown moving because the positions of the teeth at that instant is independent of light speed. 

The red and blue lines show the rays moving at c+v and c-v. They travel for the same time and meet at the detector together. 

If you vary the ring rotation speed via the combo box, you will see that the phases of the rays when they reunite are not the same.

If you want to argue against this approach, I remind you that it gives the experimentally verified answer.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/82eb53d622e08782

Later, Henri provided an inconsistent alternative, verbal description of his "model", which I have illustrated in my applet as "Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2". The salient features of this alternate model are:
1) Photons have an intrinsic oscillation of an unknown nature.
2) During the absolute time interval defined by one period of that oscillation, an identifiable point in the photon body moves through a 'spatial interval' at c with respect to the source.
3) The absolute distance it moves in the source frame is its 'wavelength'.
4) The said wavelength is the same in all frames.
5) The front of a BaTh photon oscillates once every absolute wavelength traveled.
From this verbal description, Paul Andersen deduced the following wave equation:
   phi(t,x) = (2pi.c/l)t  (in the source frame)
An outstanding feature of this alternate model, is that the phase doesn't depend on x; all the photons in a ray have at any time the same phase.

Either way, the two alternative Wilsonian views of wave propagation  bear no resemblance to reality.

Return to Home

Henri Wilson's Wheel Model as of Oct. 30, 2007
(Warning: This being an EXE file, you run this at your own risk. Please make sure that your virus scanner is up-to-date.)

After seeing the above program in action, I wrote the following:
Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled? Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.

Not only do you believe in tick fairies, you have a model that allows determination of one's motion in absolute space. The frequency asymmetry should be apparent in inertial motion as well as in rotational motion. One need only measure the frequency of emitted light in different directions, and one should be able to determine one's absolute motion in space. Only a warped aetherist could conceive of such a scheme!

In addition, I wrote:
Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute" in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame. The wavelength of the forward ray (viewed from the source) does not equal the wavelength of the backward ray.

Your model postulates an absolute space (the stationary frame) and implies that inertial motion within this absolute space can be detected. All you need is to replace your rigid circle with a flexible belt and to straighten out a section of the belt. Follow the source as it travels along the belt and compare the forward and backward rays emanating from the source.

It was very apparent from Henri's total lack of understanding, that it was time for another animation. I have, as indicated above, "straighten[ed] out a section of the belt [so that one may] follow the source as it travels along the belt and compare the forward and backward rays emanating from the source".

In his response to the original version of my animation below (which had only the first and second lines), Henri wrote, "I think you got the top one right...there appear to be the same number of wavelengths between the source and the wheel spots ......but the rotating frame example is nonsense." 

Well, of course the appearance of the source frame is nonsense, because Henri's entire theory is nonsense!

Elsewhere, Henri wrote, "The leading edge of a photon goes through 1 cycle of intrinsic oscillation when it travels a distance of 1 absolute wavelength. In my animation, one gets the impression that this requires the 'frequency' of the intrinsic oscillation to be different in the two rays....AND IN THE NON-ROTATING FRAME THAT IS TRUE...but in the source frame it is not true."

So... I added a third and a fourth line to my animation. Given Henri's statements, I presume that the third line is what Henri thinks should be seen in the source frame... This leads to the question, whatever happened to the photon phases between the stationary and source frame views?

On the other hand, if Henri thinks the fourth line is correct, why, that is nothing but a restatement of my Source Frame animation on the second line, but without the tracking lines that made the ridiculousness of this proposal obvious even to Henri. How does Henri solve the problem of going from the starting state to the ending state without a difference in frequency and wavelength between the left and right photons?