Re: Androcles's accusations of lying

On Mar 4, 6:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonathan Doolin" <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:88a9ade2-9c5f-4fa4-b5ce-f3468a7ca1af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 4, 10:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"Jonathan Doolin" <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c19d7169-fd0e-4293-9e17-13bd1a44526b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Okay. You have refused to answer twice, so I will ask for the third
time. I am merely asking for a clarification for your website. This
is on your website--it seems like you would be able to clarify for me..

My question is:

Are you saying that the Sagnac effect IS what was modeled here,

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/ring.gif

...or are you saying that Sagnac actually measured something
different?

What I'm saying is this:
If one takes Einstein's thought experiment as described
in his inequality
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
(which you refuse to examine)
and wraps it around a circle by using a light guide
so that the coordinate x' meets the coordinate zero
and the distance x' is the circumference or length
of the light guide,

then the linear thought experiment becomes a real
and repeatable physical experiment by rotating the
light guide, source and detector assembly; which is
isomorphic to the thought experiment, except the
thought experiment contains error in calculation
and the real experiment does not.

Einstein's calculations are repeated here,
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
in rotational form, by mathpages who omitted the second angle
alpha just as Einstein omitted the distance vt between the
return of the ray and the source.

This I've shown here.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
Note that the diagram contains one and only one alpha,
whereas mine contains two.

Also note that the words in black are the words of
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
and the words in red are mine.

In other words the "Lorentz" transformations that
you understand so well were derived from a blunder.

Einstein was a con-artist who learned his skulduggery
from WW Rouse-Ball's amusing "all triangles are isosceles".

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF

If one pretends the triangle shown is isosceles then one can
pretend the speed of light is c in all frames.

All *you* are doing is propagating an error that Einstein deliberately
created, and that is the work of a devil.

So I gather then, the answer to my question I've been asking--is that
the effect that Sagnac found was essentially the one you modeled in
your animation:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/ring.gif

Did Sagnac find this, or some other phenomenon?

Sagnac found this:
 http://images.pennnet.com/articles/lfw/thm/th_168199.jpg

So he found an interference pattern; good. I guess I'd have to delve
a bit deeper into it to see one way or another, but essentially, it
takes longer for the light to get around the in the direction of
rotation than the opposite direction--just as though the speed of
light were the same in both directions; clockwise and
counterclockwise, as it appears in your animation, correct?

The explanation for which is in agreement with Einstein's
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v."


That sounds about about right. I'm assuming by v he meant the
velocity of point k; i.e. the velocity of the source of the light in
the lab. Is that what you are thinking he meant?

It is not in agreement with Einstein's rather silly assumption
 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
(which you refuse to examine)

Frankly, I don't even know what that equation IS. I've seen you post
it several times, but never with a question or any context. Does it
by chance have something to do with the Sagnac effect?

that is based on Einstein's 3rd postulate,
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same,
and leads to

gamma = 1/sqrt( [c+v]*[c-v] / [c*c])


Except for your bringing up the third postulate and your claim to
derive gamma from the Sagnac effect, I don't see any problems. Was I
supposed to?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Androcless accusations of lying
    ... I am merely asking for a clarification for your website. ... with the velocity c-v." ... derive gamma from the Sagnac effect, ... inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... They measured the acceleration of the fiber section from ... zero to some constant velocity. ... There are "Sagnac devices" that can detect ... In the frame of the train one arrow decelerates from v to zero in time t. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... They measured the acceleration of the fiber ... zero to some constant velocity. ... The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" ... belong to that insist that Sagnac and Michelson-Gale refute SRT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... They measured the acceleration of the fiber section ... zero to some constant velocity. ... The Wang paper has lead me to conclude that the "Sagnac effect" ... belong to that insist that Sagnac and Michelson-Gale refute SRT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Actual data for Sagnac?
    ... I am aware of testing the Sagnac effect per se was Ives, ... parallel beam is divided by an air gap beam splitter J, ... theory as it is a validation of general relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast