Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:22:49 +0100
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:15:15 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:20:05 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
>>>> §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
>>> Thankyou. It is indeed worth framing. Maybe you can understand it better that
>>> way. Note, I have reinstated the important sentence you snipped.
>> But I didn't snip the really hilarious part:
>> §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
>> § When the photon reaches the source/detector after encircling the ring, the §
>> § source/detector is located at a different point on the NON-ROTATING CIRCLE §
>> § REPRESENTING THE ring and is moving in a slightly different direction. §
>> § The difference is very small...but that's what the ring gyro is designed to §
>> § detect. §
>> §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
>>
>
> Yes that is correct.
> The source is located at a slightly different point on the non-R circle. The
> small diifference between the start and end point positions is vt...which is
> what the interferometer is designed to measure.
The interferometer is desogned to detect a phase difference between
two waves, and that's all it does.
> Forget the angle difference...it is negligible.....merely mentioned to point
> out the frames are slightly different.
Henry Wilson never said what he said, and if he did,
he didn't mean to say what he actually said.
Right?
>> Keep it up, Henri.
>>>> I am sure you can top even this.
>>> It's interesting that you find your own theory so amusing.
>> I will certainly not take the credit for this world shattering theory of yours:
>> §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
>> § [The photon] is moving in a slightly different direction. §
>> § The difference is very small...but that's what the ring gyro is designed to §
>> § detect.
>
> Don't snip the vital parts Paul. It merely shows your desperation.
>> §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
>>
>>> The SR ring gyro diagram at: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
>>> shows the above small distance that is measured by the interferometer and which
>>> you seem to think doesn't exist.
>> You mean I don't think the distance I have illustrated on
>> the very first page in my article exists? :-)
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>
> You have made a fundamental error in your Ritziain analysis.
No, I have not.
It is an irrefutable fact that the Sagnac experiment
falsifies the Ritz Emission Theory.
> Because the source is moving in the nonR frame, the frequencies of the
> intrinsic photon oscillations are doppler shifted in each beam. One becomes
> f(c+v)/c and the other f(c-v)/c. This is clearly show at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>
> Since they both travel for the same time duration, the phases are obviously
> different when they reunite at the detector.
> I have shown how and why photon 'wavelength' is absolute and constant in all
> frames in my other thread.
Mindless babble.
Only a complete moron can fail to understand that the phase
of a wave is the same at the starting point and at the target
a time t = L/c' later, where c' is the phase velocity
an L is the length of the path.
When the phases of the two beams are equal at the starting point,
they obviously have to be equal at the target as well,
when they both use the same time t.
> It's all very simple really.
Quite.
The BaTh is no theory, it is inconsistent nonsense.
It cannot be falsified, because it does not predict
anything which can be wrong.
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.
- References:
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Jerry
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Jerry
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Prev by Date: Re: Do muons prove SRT ?
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Next by thread: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|