Re: Four mirror Sagnac


<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193188661.739136.157800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Oct 22, 12:17 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1193068769.461704.194150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : On Oct 22, 8:29 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
inmessagenews:471C8969.9090201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:Androcles wrote:
: >
: > : >
: > : > : > In this animation of a four mirror Sagnac ring the phase is
shown.
: > : > Initially
: > : > : > the phase of the two beams is necessarily locked but when the
final
: > : > : > beam-splitter is reached and the two beams combined, still in
phase,
: > one
: > : > : > departs with velocity c+v and the other with velocity c-v.
Upon
: > : > reaching
: > : > : > the detector the two beams are necessarily out of phase.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/outofphase.gif
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Einstein's ridiculous assertion that "the velocity of light c
cannot
: > be
: > : > : > altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light"
and
: > his
: > : > : > crank theories are thus disproven by reality. Georges Sagnac
devised
: > his
: > : > : > interferometer and gave it to the world in 1913 while Einstein
was
: > : > : > developing his general theory of crackpottery. Sagnac
: > interferometers
: > : > are
: > : > : > put into daily use in aircraft, no engineer has ever made or
ever
: > will
: > : > make
: > : > : > any use of Einstein's drivel.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > To echo Newton's words said of Ptolemy, This is the story of a
: > : > scientific
: > : > : > crime. I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow
: > scientists
: > : > and
: > : > : > scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his
profession
: > that
: > : > has
: > : > : > forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an
: > important
: > : > area
: > : > : > of astronomy and history.
: > : > : > Einstein developed certain astronomical (and physical) theories
and
: > : > : > discovered that they were not consistent with observation.
Instead
: > of
: > : > : > abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations
: > from
: > : > the
: > : > : > theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the
: > validity
: > : > of
: > : > : > his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known,
this
: > : > practice
: > : > : > is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and
scholarship.
: > : > :
: > : > : A correct analysis:
: > : > :http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
: > : >
: > : > Assertion carries no weight.
: > : >
: > : > A correct analysis:
: > : > The blue and red rays leave the half-silvered mirror
: > : > together and in phase, yet by your own admission one
: > : > travels at speed c+v and the other by c-v, clearly shown by
: > : > your Fig 2 where df > db in the same time. (If the times
: > : > were unequal the rays would miss the centre of the mirrors
: > : > which are moving, shown by v.)
: > : > c+v = df/t
: > : > c-v = db/t
: > : >
: > : > Therefore they do not arrive at the viewing screen simultaneously
: > : > and fringe shift is observed, hence your analysis is pathetically
: > : > incorrect.
: > : >
: > : > A correct diagram:
: > : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/outofphase.gif
: > :
: > : The equations are based on OBSERVATION of interference fringes (thus
: > : phase relationship) from the Sagnac experiment on not the other way
: > : around ?
: >
: > Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of
: > natural phenomena (and experiment) and not the other way around,
: > yes.
: >
: > RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
: > RULE I.
: > We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true
: > and sufficient to explain their appearances.
: >
: > To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and
: > more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
: > and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. -- Sir Isaac Newton,
: > "Principia".
: >
: > Andersen claims SR can explain Sagnac, but SR says
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
: > which means, quite simply, that one cannot use c+v in
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
: > and that is Catch 22, img76 is derived from img22.
:
: Are you saying your equations agree with observation from Sagnac
: experiments but not Andersen's equations?
:
I'm saying read what Einstein wrote, it is Catch 22.
If you don't know what Catch 22 is, look it up.

Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What Andersen fails to realise is the isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's thought experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his thoughts.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
the two most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow
their indoctrination like lemmings. The worst is Roberts, he's totally
insane.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

Another is Schwartz, the self-styled "Uncle":
"BTW, you ***-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling
alley." --Schwartz


.

Quantcast