Re: Simple Sagnac

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:34:13 +0000, Androcles wrote:

>
> "sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.25.15.11.10.44873@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Here's a (relatively) simple view of the Sagnac effect:
> |
> | http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html
> |
> | Comments welcome, of course!
>
>
> Sure, I'll comment.
>
> You don't reply to what you have no answer for and your point of
> view is illogical.

Hmmm? What didn't I reply to that you feel I have no answer for?

I don't read the whole newsgroup, certainly. And I don't reply to
things that don't interest me, that's true. But I surely _did_ reply
to the last post of yours I saw which was in answer to anything I
posted. Did you not see that response? Or did you object to some of
the cuts I made to your 650 line (totally mis-wrapped) post before I
replied?

But in turn, _you_ didn't reply to the simple question I asked at the
end of my last response to you. Rather than jab at you for ignoring
the question, though, I'll just repeat it here: How do you deal with
the Sagnac effect in emission theory? You've surely thought about
this before now, since Sagnac's been known since 1913 and discussions
of the effect have been floating around the newsgroup just about
forever; I'm curious what you concluded.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

.