"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

snip your answer to Ghost, he can reply to that

Isn't the answer somewhat simpler:

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...


Why did Einstein say
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?

Whether the motion is sideways or up, in his
derivation, he chose to define the x axis as
parallel to the direction of motion. That
distinguishes the x axis from the others and
hence

Ever travelled in a circle? ...

His derivation of the transforms uses the example
of linear motion. The example is sufficient for the
purpose. Later your claim that "if one is wrong,
all are wrong" rests on an unstated assumption of
symmetry but the situation is not symmetrical since
the x axis is defined as the direction of motion,
(whether that is sideways or up or any direction
you like) so your argument fails.


Proof you are an idiot (I'm being nice, it's Xmas,otherwise I'd use
stronger language):

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As I said, but you know that,

Tha'rs right. Those are hos words. Einstein doesn't know that. Point made.
And it makes you an idiot for not recognizing it as a quotation.

you're just trying
to change the subject because ...

... is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this
result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve
with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t
seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock
on its arrival at A will be 1/2t.v^/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude
that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions."

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Note the 'assume', note the change in direction, further note that a
sundial at the equator must go at exactly the same speed, by a very zero
amount, as a precisely similar sundial situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions. Note that you are a moron who wants to
kiss Einstein's arse to seem as if you are as stupid as he was in the
hope
of looking good in the eyes of the other sheep all doing the same thing.
So why don't you just shut up talking to me, I KNOW you are an ineducable
moron. Ignorance is educable, stupidity is forever.-- Uncle Al.


But you know all this, it's just a smokescreen to
hide the fact that you now know that ballistic light
cannot explain the phase shift measured by the
photodiode in an iFOG because it is fused to the
light source.

It certainly can, ...

Go ahead then, show the derivation and you will win
the argument.

I already did. You have such a pathetically short attention span,
being an absolute idiot, that you can't read or understand plain English or
mathematics.
Androcles.



That fact is it doesn't, it predicts a null shift
and you know that, that's why you are deperately
trying to change the subject.

... because it must.

Exactly, if it is valid, it must correctly predict
the phase shift, but it doesn't so Ritz is falsified
by theSagnac effect as I said and you now understand.

Bye bye.

As I said, just a smokescreen to avoid admitting
you cannot explain why the Sagnac effect occurs in
a fibre gyro after all you said to Henri. At least
he is trying even if he can't succeed.

Have a Merry Christmas anyway.

George


Androcles

Your argument was lost 92 years ago
when Sagnac published his results and no amount of
debate here will change that.

George


... I do it once a day at latitude
51 degrees North, and my sundial agrees perfectly with an
African sundial at the same longitude. If I move my sundial
1/2 an inch to the East it gains 38,000 nanoseconds over
the African sundial. I know because I checked it using GPS.
I've even travelled south or north while travelling east or west.



tau = (t-vx/c2)/sqrt(1-v2/c2)

does not imply

tau = (t-vy/c2)/sqrt(1-u2/c2)
tau = (t-vz/c2)/sqrt(1-w2/c2)

Correct. It implies
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
Thank you for pointing out that typo.

so the statement

If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.

is a baseless and naive assertion.

Not at all. One is wrong, so they all are.

What IS a baseless and extremely naive ASSUMPTION is
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.

In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
BA = -AB,
2AB = AC,

[AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0
Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math.

That makes YOU baseless and naive, not me.


I'm not going to get into this sidetrack as A.
only raised it as a diversion to avoid admitting
he had been proved wrong on several points and
owed Henri a bottle, but I can't imagine this
hasn't been pointed out to him many times over
the years.

Merry Christmas all.

Bah! Humbug!
Androcles.