Re: Androcles's accusations of lying


"Uncle Ben" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e9e8e36a-ea3a-49cc-8f0c-68c596662c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 4, 9:32 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jonathan, the AA is still hung up on how Einstein calculates the time
for light to hit a moving target. He is really quite stupid about
this. You are correct in identifying v as the speed of the moving
mirror.

The AA is also stupid enough to think that a rotating frame is an
inertial frame. You are aware of this, are you not?

I suggest you stop asking the AA for confirmation of your
understanding. He is not answering your questions correctly. You
will do better on your own, plus some Wikipedia study.

UB
===========================================
Getting desperate, Uncle Bonehead?

Einstein himself says "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ zum
Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen mit der Geschwindigkeit
V - v, so daß gilt: t = x'/(V-v)."

Can you read German, Uncle Bonehead?

Bonehead Green makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, instead he
mumbles "I insist on using a modern form of the 2nd postulate."

You carry on insisting, you are quite insane. Trolls usually are.

SANITY WARNING (Bonehead Green)

Einstein's postulate: "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Green's:
"Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
every inertial frame."

Green makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, instead he
mumbles "I insist on using a modern form of the 2nd postulate."

Einstein himself says "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ
zum Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen mit der
Geschwindigkeit V - v, so daß gilt: t = x'/(V-v)."

Green cannot distinguish a postulate from a conclusion.

Green is guilty of lying and has lost all credibility by attempting to
excuse himself.
He is a cheat with zero integrity to be treated with contempt by all.
Even if what he says on other subjects were to be proven true he
cannot be trusted, one would always need to check the source for
verification or denial.

Normally I'd throw in a casual insult or two but in Green's case his
insanity goes beyond mere stupidity and one should not mock the
afflicted.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups
    ... invariance of the speed of light as a postulate rather than a theorem. ... Brown makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, ... Einstein himself says "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
    ... Don't be reassured by the ranting of Uncle Bonehead, ... As if we would believe something just because Einstein said so. ... zero, either, by the same argument Uncle Ben gave for real numbers. ... I've already proven h does NOT belong to the set of reals, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins logic
    ... It is the second postulate ... > relativity has nothing to do with light. ... All your babbling about Einstein said this or Einstein ... > of MMX which relativists claim shows there is no ether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comment on Wikipedia entry: Simple inference of time dilation
    ... How can the velocity of light be independent of the ... | Are they saying Einstein is wrong? ... CLosing rate is fine. ... I accept that postulate. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conversation with Edwin Taylor (Spacetime Physics)
    ... > paper, Einstein writes "the postulate, only seemingly incompatible ... Later on in the paragraph after his second postulate he states ... As Einstein literally stated his second postulate, in both cases (roberts ... Even with his stationary frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)