Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:20:06 +0100
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:50:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Unlike Einstein worshippers, I still believe there are scientific questions to
be answered.
Like how an interferometer works?
Paul
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: Hexenmeister
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- References:
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- Prev by Date: Re: Spaceship Question
- Next by Date: Re: Spaceship Question
- Previous by thread: Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- Next by thread: Re: The H&K Flying Circus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|