The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Inertial on 22 Sep 2009 03:09 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:hssgb5taef4fbcbpkvglbesmvh8d1297fq(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:38:51 -0800, doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Jonah Thomas wrote: >> >>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> >>> >>>>>Relativity might not be the simplest geometric description. Or maybe >>>>>it is. >>>> >>>>its the simplest that works >>> >>> >>> The simplest known to date. >>> >>> >>>>>It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get >>>>>the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. >>>> >>>>There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. >>> >>> >>> I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division >>> ring. >> >>That is your problem. The universe is the way it is. There are a >>century of experiments which show relativity to be correct. > > That's why so many dickheads are still trying desprately to find any > evidence > for it. And they keep finding evidence ALL THE TIME. Why do you keep posting your lies and deception? Is it a psychological disorder?
From: Inertial on 22 Sep 2009 03:09 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:34tgb5dnhrgm8b1k1qgj10en8dik66ndct(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:26:51 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:ot3gb5hd7a26176vjeq593bpd45kql0iht(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:35:49 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>>>> Jonah Thomas wrote: >>>>> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>Or you do not understand any of the physics done in the last >>>>> >>century. However, you are free to believe what you want and >>>>> >>are not bound to believe in reality. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my argument >>>>> > is wrong? >>>>> >>>>> Why are you not willing to do some study on your own? There are books >>>>> and articles that cover this very well and will give you all the >>>>> detail that you could want. >>>>> Start off with the articles listed here: >>>>> http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Sagnac >>>>> This was all settled a long time ago. >>>> >>>>A link! Thank you. >>>> >>>>Looking at your link led me directly to: >>>> >>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805089 >>>> >>>>I notice that as I search the net I find a variety of papers explaining >>>>why the traditional SR view of Sagnac is wrong, and proposing new >>>>explanations. Like, one of them explained that if you line the sagnac >>>>ring with clocks there is no way that you can calibrate them all to tell >>>>the same time, inevitably when you complete the circle you will find >>>>that they have different times. >>>> >>>>I am not certain that this was all settled a long time ago. I tend to >>>>discount the anti-relativity cranks who explain that Sagnac proves >>>>relativity wrong according to their interpretation of relativity. It's >>>>harder to discount the papers that explain why the previous explanations >>>>how SR is compatible with Sagnac are wrong and provide new ones. >>>> >>>>I haven't been tracking the ones in refereed journals because after I >>>>read the abstract then I'd have to pay for the article. >>> >>> Here's another proof that SR is wrong...It is obviously correct but the >>> relativists don't want to know about it. >>> Renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm >> >>There are no proofs that SR is wrong. Only crackpots who don't understand >>it. >> >>Fizeau, when correctly analysed, is one of the experiments that support SR >>predictions > > The wavelength is obviously doppler shifted with the speed change when the > light entters the water. If that is included, then the results refute SR. Nonsense > Of course the doppler shift has never been inclluded b y the physics > establishment because that would be very embarrassing. You're an idiot, Ralph.
From: Inertial on 22 Sep 2009 05:43 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:4j6hb51o4j4bioic7ivjiebmedd9u3cd6d(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:09:06 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:hssgb5taef4fbcbpkvglbesmvh8d1297fq(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:38:51 -0800, doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Jonah Thomas wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Relativity might not be the simplest geometric description. Or maybe >>>>>>>it is. >>>>>> >>>>>>its the simplest that works >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The simplest known to date. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get >>>>>>>the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. >>>>>> >>>>>>There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division >>>>> ring. >>>> >>>>That is your problem. The universe is the way it is. There are a >>>>century of experiments which show relativity to be correct. >>> >>> That's why so many dickheads are still trying desprately to find any >>> evidence >>> for it. >> >>And they keep finding evidence ALL THE TIME. Why do you keep posting your >>lies and deception? Is it a psychological disorder? > > But the problem with ALL this 'evidence' is that it is either never > statistically significant or it has an alternative Newtonian explanation.. More lies and deception from Ralph. Have you no shame, or are you really as ignorant as you appear?
From: Jerry on 22 Sep 2009 06:50 On Sep 21, 10:28 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero vectors as > a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands that it work like > that. Huh? You're disturbed that the Minkowski norm of a vector can be lightlike??? Light cones represent a "bug"??? Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Sep 2009 08:51
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote > >>> Here's another proof that SR is wrong...It is obviously correct > >but the>> relativists don't want to know about it. > >>> Renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm > >> > >>There are no proofs that SR is wrong. Only crackpots who don't > >understand>it. > >> > >>Fizeau, when correctly analysed, is one of the experiments that > >support SR>predictions > > > > The wavelength is obviously doppler shifted with the speed change > > when the light entters the water. If that is included, then the > > results refute SR. > > Nonsense > > > Of course the doppler shift has never been inclluded b y the physics > > establishment because that would be very embarrassing. > > You're an idiot, Ralph. What do you think the signal to noise ratio is in this sequence? What is the signal to noise ratio in your post? |