"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:59:11 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:17:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating
frame
to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have
done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

See what I according to HW have done:
"You have - quite brilliantly, I might add - illustrated how
a rotating observer will view a NONROTATING Sagnac interferometer."

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

If you are a non rotating observer and think
the interferometer is rotating, then you are
ignoring the imaginary effects.
That's bad, according to Doctor Wilson.
The apparent rotation of the interferometer is a Willusion.
What you really see is what you would have seen
if you were rotating and the interferometer were not.

That's why I have proven that the rotating interferometer
really is non rotating. And non rotating interferometers
are not rotating.
QED!

If this isn't clear to you, ask Henri Wilson
to explain it. He is the only Doctor in this forum
with a deep understanding of imaginary effects like
the non rotation of the rotation.

I'm glad you finally understand the point I have made.

Yes it's true. All you, Roberts and Co have done is base your argument
on
the
outrageous assumption that a rotating system viewed in the rotating
frame
is
identical to the same system when NOT rotating and viewed by a
nonrotating
observer.
NATURALLY YOU GET A NULL RESULT.

In the rotating Sagnac interferometer, there are imaginary forces that
curve
the light rays. That turns out to be a second order effect at vc and
can
be
ignored. However the 'equal path length' idea is also imaginary and has
first
order consequences.
You must include the MOVING emission point in the rotating frame
analysis.
Otherwise even the SR 'explanation' will suffer the same fate and
produce
a
null result.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN MAKE THE RAY PATH LENGTHS THE SAME SIMPLY
BY
CHANGING FRAMES?
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT.

You are hilarious .. you really do seem to think that you understand the
physics and got it right .. what a crack-up.

**** off

Your knowledge of physics is only exceeded by your charm.