Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 21 Oct 2007 18:22 On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:50:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. >>>>> Nobody said it was clueless, Sagnac falsifies >>>>> Ritz's theory but not SR. >>>> George, for years both you and Andersen have been preaching that the analysis >>>> of Sagnac in the rotating frame immediately falsifies BaTh. >>> Quite. >>> That is because the Sagnac experiment falsifies the emission theory. >>> And it's no invention of George's or mine. >>> It's how it is. >> >> The sagnac effect is now fully explained by BaTh. Accept it Paul.... >> >>>> It has taken me some time to find the flaw....but it is now quite obvious. >>>> >>>> The emission point moves around the ring in the rotating frame. >>> That is of course a splendid idea, solving all problems. >>> I have a lamp on my desk. It is stationary in a rotating frame. >>> It is emitting a continuous wave, just like the source in the Sagnac ring. >>> Where is the moving emission point right now, Henri? >>> In Australia? >> >> The emission point (in the non-rotating frame) of a particular photon it >> emitted some time ago could indeed be now in Australia. >> But Norwegians are not smart enough to realise that they are now where Alaska >> was 13 hours ago. > >Ah. >Your sharp intelligence caught that one! Well done by an Aussie! >So the number of wavelengths between me and the lamp is now 10000km/0.5um >and ever increasing. >Amazing, isn't it? 'You' are not the emission point of a particular photon. In the frame of andromeda's C of G, the emission point could easily be 1000000km away from the lamp. >>> BTW, Henri. >>> I found someone who supports you. >>> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm >> >> there are plenty who support me. I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him >> the simple facts.... >> >>> Isn't this a fine proof that the Sagnac experiment confirms >>> the emission theory and falsifies SR? >>> >>> The quality of those proofs are always astonishing! >> >> The quality of the 'proofs' of SR are extremely astonishing.... > >There are no proofs of SR. >But there are no falsifications either! > >The problem of the emission theory is not the absence of proofs. >It is the presence of falsifications. My theory and animation is fully backed by experiment. >Paul Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 21 Oct 2007 18:23 On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:49:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>> BTW, Henri. >>> I found someone who supports you. >>> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm >> >> there are plenty who support me. I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him >> the simple facts.... > >Did those 'simple facts' include his glaring error? >You know - he did arrive at the conclusion that the emission >theory predicts that the time difference is Dt = 4wA / c^2 > >And you don't agree, do you? >So what did he do wrong? I told him where he was wrong. >Paul Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Androcles on 21 Oct 2007 19:12 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1rjnh35ng12n6ms8nrslo35l0g6533vqva(a)4ax.com... : On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:25:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:12elh3l320lhrk3plgk6eu5p7h0oab2t34(a)4ax.com... : >: On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:43:14 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : >: wrote: : >: : >: > : >: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >: >news:p94lh35gnm6gbmbku1eb7d47eh6i9k3atg(a)4ax.com... : >: >: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : >: >: <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: : >: >: : >: : >: >: >Quite. : >: >: >That is because the Sagnac experiment falsifies the emission theory. : >: >: >And it's no invention of George's or mine. : >: >: >It's how it is. : >: >: : >: >: The sagnac effect is now fully explained by BaTh. Accept it Paul.... : >: > : >: > : >: >I've yet to see it. BaTh has no Doppler. : >: : >: Idiot....I've even see you write the equation.... : > : >Emission Fact uses Doppler, BaTh does not. : >Like Dishman and Tusseladd, you know nothing about physics. : >I'm not fooled by clockwork, you are. : >This set of wheels all have the same frequency: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif : >This set do not: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif : > Explain that, sheep shagger, an engineer could. : > : > : >: : >: >: The emission point (in the non-rotating frame) of a particular photon : >it : >: >: emitted some time ago could indeed be now in Australia. : >: > : >: >It could. The other end of the line is moving, the line stretches. : >: > : >: >: But Norwegians are not smart enough to realise that they are now where : >: >Alaska : >: >: was 13 hours ago. : >: > : >: >But Ozzie morons are not smart enough to realise that the other end of : >the : >: >line : >: >is moving at c+v. : >: : >: In futue, I am plonkng you after 10pm your time. : > : >Like Dishman and Tusseladd, you know nothing about physics. : >I'm not fooled by clockwork, you are. : >This set of wheels all have the same frequency: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif : >This set do not: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif : > Explain that, sheep shagger, an engineer could. : : Put the bottle away. It's bed time..... Wake up, its morning. Like Dishman and Tusseladd, you know nothing about physics. I'm not fooled by clockwork, you are. This set of wheels all have the same frequency: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif This set do not: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif Explain that, sheep shagger, any mathematician could.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Oct 2007 14:18 Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:50:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>> >>>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Sagnac is NOT a proof of SR. >>>>>> Nobody said it was clueless, Sagnac falsifies >>>>>> Ritz's theory but not SR. >>>>> George, for years both you and Andersen have been preaching that the analysis >>>>> of Sagnac in the rotating frame immediately falsifies BaTh. >>>> Quite. >>>> That is because the Sagnac experiment falsifies the emission theory. >>>> And it's no invention of George's or mine. >>>> It's how it is. >>> The sagnac effect is now fully explained by BaTh. Accept it Paul.... >>> >>>>> It has taken me some time to find the flaw....but it is now quite obvious. >>>>> >>>>> The emission point moves around the ring in the rotating frame. >>>> That is of course a splendid idea, solving all problems. >>>> I have a lamp on my desk. It is stationary in a rotating frame. >>>> It is emitting a continuous wave, just like the source in the Sagnac ring. >>>> Where is the moving emission point right now, Henri? >>>> In Australia? >>> The emission point (in the non-rotating frame) of a particular photon it >>> emitted some time ago could indeed be now in Australia. >>> But Norwegians are not smart enough to realise that they are now where Alaska >>> was 13 hours ago. >> Ah. >> Your sharp intelligence caught that one! Well done by an Aussie! >> So the number of wavelengths between me and the lamp is now 10000km/0.5um >> and ever increasing. >> Amazing, isn't it? > > 'You' are not the emission point of a particular photon. > In the frame of andromeda's C of G, the emission point could easily be > 1000000km away from the lamp. > >>>> BTW, Henri. >>>> I found someone who supports you. >>>> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm >>> there are plenty who support me. I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him >>> the simple facts.... >>> >>>> Isn't this a fine proof that the Sagnac experiment confirms >>>> the emission theory and falsifies SR? >>>> >>>> The quality of those proofs are always astonishing! >>> The quality of the 'proofs' of SR are extremely astonishing.... >> There are no proofs of SR. >> But there are no falsifications either! >> >> The problem of the emission theory is not the absence of proofs. >> It is the presence of falsifications. > > My theory and animation is fully backed by experiment. Keep inflating, Henri! :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Oct 2007 14:24
Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:49:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:15:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>>> BTW, Henri. >>>> I found someone who supports you. >>>> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6.htm >>> there are plenty who support me. I emailed this guy some weeks ago telling him >>> the simple facts.... >> Did those 'simple facts' include his glaring error? >> You know - he did arrive at the conclusion that the emission >> theory predicts that the time difference is Dt = 4wA / c^2 >> >> And you don't agree, do you? >> So what did he do wrong? > > I told him where he was wrong. And his error is that the emission theory predicts Dt = 0, NOT 4wA / c^2, right? There is an inevitable consequence of that. Do you know what it is? :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |