Re: Sal the crackpot


Androcles wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:lotj13-i05.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> | > | Can you express them mathematically?
> | >
> | > IF (Ghost = "a phuckwit")
> | > THEN (Ghost will jump to conclusions)
> |
> | Fine. What are your hypotheses, then?
>
> Of what?
>
> | Or don't you want to commit yourself at this time?
>
> I've already stated my views in other posts.
>
> | Can't be too careful around here;
> | you might get lambasted by Uncle Al or something.
>
> Schwartz is a phuckwit, he doesn't bother me.
>
> What you want is a mathematical analysis of the diffraction
> grating, which the phuckwit Andersen says only measures
> wavelength.
> Standard texts will tell you wavelength is d.sin(theta), d being
> the spacing on the comb.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
> This isn't something special that only applies to light, it applies
> to water waves as well, and is dependent on the Galilean RELATIVE
> velocity of the wave and the comb.
> By moving the comb along the water tank, thereby changing
> the relative velocity of the wave wrt the comb, you change the
> angle of diffraction. Common sense tells you this doesn't change
> the wavelength, only the frequency. Therefore diffraction
> gratings do not measure wavelength, they show an angle such
> that theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) where
> f is the emitted freqency.
> f' is the OBSERVED frequency (see Doppler)
> c is the emission velocity of the wave,
> v is the velocity of the comb relative to the source,
> d is the comb spacing.
> If the value of c+v is known, you can calculate the wavelength.
> If the emitted frequency is known you can calculate c+v, the wavelength
> is c/f.
> Thus blue shift is proof of c+v for water waves, which is not a
> "relativistic" velocity as the term is used when discussing Einstein's
> crap, but is neverthless Galilean relativistic.
>
> My hypothesis regarding redshift of distant galaxies is beyond
> the scope of the present discussion, involving Planck's
> E= hf' = h(c+v)/\lambda which I can address when you've
> absorbed and understood diffraction and Sagnac; the
> phuckwit trolls Andersen, Lawrence, moortel and similar ilk
> will only confuse you with their textbook utterances and stupid
> attempts to trip me up.
>
>
> | Not that it matters; I have no hypotheses of my own, either.
> | I'm not doing science here.
>
> Ok, don't do science.
>
> | I'm doing engineering. Basically,
> | I'm trying to use existing theories (SR among them) to predict
> | effects.
>
> SR can't work, never has, never will. I've already explained why.
> Maxwell's equations will work if you accept that they were
> written by people that believed in aether, and will work in other
> media as well. They fail when the permittivity and permeability
> of aether vanishes with the aether, c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined
> and becomes source dependent.
> w = u+v, not (u+v)/(1-vu/c^2), and c' = c+v, not (1+1)/(1+1/1)

You see...
real ammeters lie when you try to measure the current of
the magnetic monopoles at the ends of an EM coupling
structure. So Androcles has invented the single terminal
ammeter. It has an adjustment screw you turn to make
its indication match his double-star theory.

Another invention is the photon-phone. When interferometers
show a coherence unexplainable by corpuscular propagation
models, the phones are installed between crucial points
on the path. That opens the possibility of a conspiricy
theory.
....And nobody doubts that conspiracy theories are faster
than light. :o)

Sue...

>
>
> | As it is, the above is a logical statement, yes. However, my
> | phuckwittery is probably not in the domain of physics. :-P
>
> Your choice. You asked me for explanation, I've given it.
> Listen to reasoned mathematics or listen to phuckwits with
> textbook answers.
>
> I'm a crank, relativity must be right, because of these carefully
> thought out and highly intelligent utterances:
> 1) "Androcles isn't paying any attention to what you are saying. He's
> only calling you names and ignoring what you say."
> 2) "This is simply insane. You know practically zero about the subject
> and yet you write... THIS?? Why even do you waste your time on this?"
> 3) "An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by
> zero or something equally trivial."
> 4) "It's WAY too simple-minded."
> 5) "[Any error] would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer."
> 6) "Diffraction gratings only measure wavelength"
> 7) "Sagnac only works because relativity is correct".
>
>
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html
> might
> | > help
> | > | > | > | as well; the analysis does have the problem of not
> | > compensating
> | > | > | > | for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a
> very
> | > | > | > | minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the
> same
> | > | > | > RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Define "electricity".
> | > | >
> | > | > NO! I deliberately chose that word to be deliberately vague, as
> you
> | > | > did with your "probably a minor artifact".
> | > | > Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or
> "artefact".
> | > | >
> | > | > Sagnac still works with two mirrors.
> | > |
> | > | I would use three, one half-silvered, in the standard
> | > | MMX configuration.
> | >
> | > That's up to you.
> | > Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".
> | > [rest snipped]
> |
> | Probably: not with certainty.
> | Minor: not major.
> | Art[ie]fact: An item that is not real.
>
> A speck of dust under a microscope is an artefact. It is also real.
> Time dilation is an artefact of symbol shuffling and an incorrect
> definition of time. It is NOT real.
>
> Artifact: something created by humans usually for a practical purpose
> In general, artefacts are unwanted, caused by accident, artifacts are
> deliberately created.
>
> |
> | In any event, I want to know what you want explained in
> | Sagnac.
>
> Then there is little point in discussing physics with you.
> If you are unable to understand the PoR and only wish
> to play the troll I'll quickly remedy that. Learn bull*** from
> the phuckwits instead.
> Androcles.
>
>
>
> Not that it matters; Sagnac neither proves nor
> | disproves straight SR; one might be able to work with a
> | variant of SR, of course, using Dirk's methods.
>
> Dinky is the ultimate phuckwit troll, worse than Andersen.
>
>
> It might
> | illustrate GTR. I'd have to work out what it does to nBaT
> | (my strawman theory).
> |
> | And of course I have no real Sagnac data, either. Some others might.
>
> Learn it from Dinky.
> Androcles.

.