Re: Simple Sagnac


sal wrote:
> Hey, Sock, who's your puppeteer?
>
>
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:59:15 -0700, bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> > sal wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:32:21 -0700, bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Leaving out the + or - wrt is what caused your time to come out the
> >> > same in both directions.
> >>
> >> No, it's not. It's assuming the signal moves at C/N relative to the
> >> cable (rather than C relative to the fixed frame), combined with vector
> >> addition of velocities, which leads to the time coming out the same in
> >> both directions.
> >
> > Ah, so you found your error, And I assume you will correct it on your web
> > site :)
>
> Ah, so you intentionally misunderstand.

Not sure what you are talking about here but I don't intentionally
misunderstand things. It is not my intention to be a troll. I commend
you for the effort you have put into building your site. I was just
trying to correct a few things that I knew were not quite right. It
wasn't meant as an attack. Sorry if it came off as one.

As for my being a crank, I do not claim that there is anything wrong
with relativity. And I am not the only one that said there were a few
questionable things about your page. Bill Hobba questioned the use of
SR with a rotating system. Your own page says that you can not sync
clocks in a rotating frame. That should have been a clue that
something was wrong. What you have done is show why SR can't be used
in rotating frames. Bilge and Dirk also raised some questions. Are
they puppets as well?

> That was the reason that a purely Newtonian argument with fixed signal
> speed relative to the cable which leads to no Sagnac ... it wasn't any
> "mistake" on my web page, nor any mistake in relativity.

The reason it was a mistake is because you claimed to be viewing things
classically from the stationary frame. Making the "fixed signal speed
relative to the cable" is right out of relativity, and frame jumping to
boot.

> Whoever your puppeteer is, you're boring.
>
> **plonk**
>

I have no puppeteer. Bruce S Richmond

>
> --
> Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

.

Relevant Pages

  • Sarfatti Star Gate Chronicles March 21, 2009
    ... Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity are all about ... you are weightless in an inertial frame in Einstein’s theory. ... inward attractive gravity force of magnitude acting on a freely- ... “Think of assembling meter sticks and clocks into a cubical lattice ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple Sagnac
    ... The use I made of relativity ... we know that acceleration, ... frame, or a "momentarily comoving reference frame". ... I didn't mean "a single clock is out of sync ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)