Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:50:37 +0100
Henri Wilson wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:24:18 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:05:32 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Androcles is correct for once. Sagnac is NOT understood.
The classical explanation - which is also SR's - is the same as that which would apply to a sound based sagnac interferometer in still air.
Right. The speed of light is isotropic c in an inertial frame. The speed of sound is isotropic c in the air frame.
So you do understand the Sagnac experiment. Then you also understand why the emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
Paul, you are behind the times.
Does that mean that you no longer understand the Sagnac experiment? The laws of nature have yet again changed?
I understand it better than anyojne. I have discovered the real reason for the fringe shift.
It fully supports the BaTh.
Quite. The REAL reason is of course that interferometers are governed by previously unknown laws of nature newly discovered by Henry Wilson.
As this great genius has taught us, the laws of nature are different for different phenomena.
Paul .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: Androcles
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- References:
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- Prev by Date: Re: A small conservation of energy puzzle
- Next by Date: Re: A small conservation of energy puzzle
- Previous by thread: Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- Next by thread: Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
