"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
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.


All your posts assumed the detector was
not on the turntable. This is typical and
from just four days ago and you said "I see
now what the problem is, you both think the
detector is moving." so you certainly hadn't
posted a valid analysis before that.

Two frames of reference, you need two detectors to compare
them.

All your posts assumed there is only one detector.
This is typical and from just right now ago you said
"All your posts assumed THE detector was not on the turntable"
so you certainly hadn't posted ANY analysis before that.
Albert Michelson is one observer, Georges Sagnac is
the other. The phase is not the same from one to the other,
or between any pair of mirrors.
Wilson owes me a case of Glenlivet that you are ethically bound
to pay half of on his behalf.


"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...rferometer.png

No indication of what is turning. That's MMX, not Sagnac.
MMX, no shift.


Now assuming that the source, mirrors and screen
are all on the turntable, should there be a beat
frequency on the screen?

Nope.
...
I see now what the problem is, you both think the detector
is moving. Just think of it as the light strobing on and off.
...
No but the photodetector on the end of a fibre ring
gyro is, and it is "on the turntable". That's where
this conversation started.

I don't know where you get that idea from. The photodetector
that is on the turntable is MMX, not Sagnac, and no fringe shift
is observed.
Grandpa stands beside a carousel, the two kids climb aboard,
start beside him, and walk around it in opposite directions.
They cross on the opposite side and meet again with a small
offset from grandpa, caused by the rotation of the carousel.
It doesn't matter whether they walk in 4 straight lines along chords
or a curve around the perimeter.

Henri insists Grandpa rides the carousel, and I am NOT
getting on it. I rather suspect he got that idea from listening
to you, judging from your insistence above.
He hasn't a hope in hell of programming a Sagnac model
with Grandpa riding along. The kids meet where they started
on the carousel, they do not meet at Grandpa.

We both knew the detector is moving.

That depends on which detector you mean, Michelson or Sagnac.


As you
said, "The kids meet where they started on
the carousel, ..." but Grandpa is riding on
it too, so they reach him at the same time.

You are a ****.

Ritz predicts no time difference in the
Sagnac configuration.

You are a ****.

You haven't posted
any derivation since then in sci.astro that
says anything different and I agree with
everything above, Ritz predicts a null
result and is consequently falsified. That's
also what Henri's program shows.

You are still a snipping, arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
**** without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.

Hey dumb****! Do you know how to move sideways or up?

tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

Right or wrong, dumb****?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are,
pathetic ****head.

Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he didn not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab.

Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'.


"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.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid).

In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
you remain a snipping, arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
incompetent **** without a scrap of logic in you,
you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.

**** off, useless tord!
Androcles.