Re: Simple Sagnac


"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.03.15.54.07.760229@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > Your statement about the inability of Newtonian mechanics to explain
| > Sagnac is backwards. Sagnac has often been used in this group in
| > attempts to show that light travels at c+v or c-v in a moving frame.
|
| Which just shows the level of silliness in some of the arguments in
| this group.

Yours among them.
|
|
| > Why else would it take different times to go in opposit
| > directions around the ring ;) To claim that the single clock is out
| > of sync with itself is really grasping at straws. Some might even
| > say that is absurd ;)
|
| SR is intuitively unappealing. That's not news.

Don't be silly, I've had plenty of fun with it. Of course it's
appealing.
Watching you struggle trying to put the x coordinate into
tau(x',0,0,t) has been hilarious.
If x' =x-vt and x = 0, what is tau (-vt, 0,0,t)?

[snip the rest, funny as it was]

Androcles

.

Loading