Re: Basis of SR?
- From: hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc)
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:06:32 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:38:57 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:mcl245djue4fl1418cmnm8spvd967a5h2g@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:40:24 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My BaTh explanation of Sagnac has two things going for it. (1) it uses
logical
physics and (2) it produces the right answer.
Do you have any objections to that?
Yes... its wrong.
...but you cannot provide reasons....
I've read your document.
You might have reas it but it's obviously too hard for you.
It has numerous errors. It is wrong. Do you want
them pointed out to you again?
It is not wrong. It is very similar to the SR explanation as you can see if you
bother to look.
Both SR and BaTh say the path lengths are different.
SR says the speeds of both rays are c in the inertial frame (which implies that
they move at c+v and c-v wrt the moving source).
BaTh says the speeds are c+v and c-v in the inertial frame and the frequencies
are doppler shifted accordingly.
SR says the travel times are different and so there are move 'wavelengths' in
one path than the other.
BaTh says the wavelength is absolute and there are more wavelengths in one path
than the other. Alternatively it says that there are more cycles in one path
than the other because the travel times are the same but the frequencies are
different.
The SR explanation contradicts its own second postulate and is therefore a
joke.
The standard 'sagnac refutation of BaTh' is wrong because its proponents have
always been too stupid to realise that the startpoint of each cycle moves
backwards in the rotating frame.
Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.........putting Physics back into Phairyland...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Whoever
- Re: Basis of SR?
- References:
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Whoever
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Whoever
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Whoever
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Whoever
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Re: Basis of SR?
- From: Whoever
- Re: Basis of SR?
- Prev by Date: Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- Next by Date: Re: Basis of SR?
- Previous by thread: Re: Basis of SR?
- Next by thread: Re: Basis of SR?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
