The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Sep 2009 09:28 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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"??? Tell me about it? What is the result you want?
From: eric gisse on 22 Sep 2009 13:00 Jonah Thomas wrote: > "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? Cranks think silence is assent.
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Sep 2009 13:35 eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> 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? > > Cranks think silence is assent. And this matters to who, and for what reason?
From: Inertial on 22 Sep 2009 21:48 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090922133526.397ca383.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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? >> >> Cranks think silence is assent. > > And this matters to who, and for what reason? And what is the point of your replies here?
From: Inertial on 22 Sep 2009 21:51
"doug" <xx(a)xx.com> wrote in message news:04-dnXcD3--J8STXnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d(a)posted.docknet... > > > Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:28:15 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>>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"??? >>> >>>Tell me about it? What is the result you want? >> >> >> ......Jonah, this is typical of the jargon used by relativists to make >> them >> appear smarter than everyone else. In act it is meaningless drivel. >> > > So ralph just tries to lie his way out of it again. No .. I'm actually sure that to Henry, physics is meaningless drivel. You'll note that, like all crackpots, Henry attributes to everyone else but him his own failings. It is *Henry* who uses jargon he doesn't understand in an attempt to make himself appear smarter than everyone else, although he is talking absolute drivel. Fortunately those of us who understand the physics see it for what it is. |