Re: Sagnac Threads United

On Nov 8, 5:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:01:26 -0800, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 7, 4:58 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:41:29 -0800, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Amazing. Your method of computation yields inconsistent results,
you ADMIT that you are having trouble with inconsistent results,
yet you insist that your method of computation must be correct
despite it's yielding inconsistent results...

Amazing....you arguments are consistently inconsistent....
and still no answer.

Henri, you have been utterly incapable of getting your approach
to agree in the rotating and stationary frames. What further do
I need to say? You're shooting your own foot quite adequately.

It isn't as simple as that.
The plain fact is, the rotating observer doesn't know that
the 'point in nonrotating space at which a particular photon
is emitted MOVES in his rotating fame.

The observer's movement is a combination of rotation, which is
absolute, plus linear motion, which is not. Both you and the
rotating observer agree on measurement of the rotary component
of the observer's movement, but disagree on the linear component
of the observer's movement.

Unless you believe in absolute frames, your opinion on the
linear component of the observer's movement is no better than
his opinion.

Crank, the only inertial non-rotating frame required and
involved is that of the ring. Is that so hard to understand?

Henri, you have repeatedly failed to apply your computational
approach to yield a consistent picture of what happens in
rotating and stationary frames. Is that so hard to understand?
Very simply, your approach fails.

What do you claim is the correct distance?

The distance traveled by a particular photon is 2piR+vt...
IN BOTH R AND NON-R FRAMES

As Yoda said, THAT is why you fail!

Does your counterclaim allow you to compute the correct times?
If no, then shut up already and focus on figuring out why you
are wrong!

You are wrong Crank. You don't even know what your own theory
says about this.
See:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

I have not been arguing about "my own" theory. I have been
arguing about (1) pure Emission Theory, as well as (2) BaTh.
The totally consistent conclusions that I reach are that (1)
pure Emission Theory predicts negative results in the Sagnac
Experiment, and that (2) Ballistic Theory in its present
incarnation is self-contradictory and violates the PoR.

Amazing. Your method of computation yields inconsistent results,
you ADMIT that you are having trouble with inconsistent results,
yet you insist that your method of computation must be correct
despite it's yielding inconsistent results that do not match
what is observed in ANY of our multiple animations.
My method of computation yields consistent results which matches
what we BOTH observe in both of our animations, yet you insist
that my consistent computations must be incorrect and your
inconsistent computations must be correct because your method
of computing makes more sense to you than the correct method.

My metapplied to the rotating frame uses the exactly the same
diagram and theory as yours does:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (swap 'start'
and 'end')

On the contrary. The presentation in MathPages is consistent.
Yours is self-contradictory.

Why should the observer prefer marking up the other ring
over the ring on which he is standing?

Crank, you seem unusually dense today. The whole point of
using an interferometer is TO MEASURE THAT SMALL DISTANCE
'vt'. It can't be done with a ruler.

Attempt to switch subjects noted.

see above, I am not mixing frames.

Then why do you get inconsistent computations?

You wrote: "...there seems to be a conflict between the BaTh
analyses for the rotating and non-rotating frames. In the
rotating frame... t = 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) for the travel
times of the photons in each ray... I cannot reconcile this with
the analysis in the non-rotating frame, where the travel times
appear to be the same but path lengths are different..."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/09213e6ce3c...

I have not as yet....but I will.

Keep trying. The only self-consistent approach demonstrates
that BaTh cannot be reconciled with the results of the
Sagnac experiment.

I'm not confused. I recognize the problem.

You KNOW that something doesn't make sense, yet you won't
accept that there is something wrong with the way you are
performing your computations?

It DOES make sense.

The approach that makes sense demonstrates that BaTh is
inconsistent with the results of the Sagnac experiment.
You don't want that to be true, of course, so I expect
you to persist indefinitely.

I've made my point in multiple spots. You insist on being
stupid in multiple spots.

No you haven't. You refuse to accept that the start point
MOVES in the rotating frame for the simple reason that is
ridicules everything YOU, ANDERSEN and DISHMAN have been
claiming for years.

Your computational approach is self-contradictory. You have
been unable to resolve a major discrepancy between rotating
and stationary frames. Your calculations don't even match
the results of your own animation. Why should I take anything
you say seriously?

The above experiment reveals his error. Rotation is absolute,

...but linear motion is not.

which means one can detect one's own rotation

...but not the linear component of one's motion.

Correct.
One is only interested in one's instantaneous linear
motion in the inertial ring frame.

Wrong. The source observer has no reason to defer to
your opinion as to the "preferred" frame.

I have not mixed frames.
The above experiment is perfectly legitimate.
..and it reveals your basic misinterpretation of the whole process.

Then why do your computations yield inconsistent results?

Who is refusing to answer?

Jerry
Henri Wilson's Lies
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm

.

Relevant Pages

  • tell Alexandra its guilty checking in favour of a replacement
    ... Some pigs roll, frame, and boil. ... consistent. ... Ghassan cancels, then Endora mostly consists a correct steam ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Sagnac Threads United
    ... Your method of computation yields inconsistent results, ... In the rotating frame, the emitted light appears to travel at c ... rotating observer agree on measurement of the rotary component ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
    ... somewhat surprising fact that the phase shift in an I-FOG ... is independent of the index of refraction of the fibre. ... Well done, Henri. ... >from the fibre frame to the inertial frame, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR says, "The Earth is the Centre Of The Universe".
    ... Since there aren't any frames of reference in your demo, ... Henri. ... I don't disagree with your simulation. ... | in said frame of reference also is c, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wilsonian EM Control Frames.
    ... Local "EM Reference Frames" around each planet ... the spacecraft enter and leave the local EM Reference Frames ... "Any experimental apparatus creates its own EM reference frame. ... Uh huh...sure, Henri. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast