"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:56:20 +0100, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:56:20 +0100, "Androcles"
|
|
|
| |
| | For one ray, (c+v)t = (2pi+alpha)R, for the other (c-v)t =
(2pi-alpha)R.
| |
| | alphaR = vt, you silly old dope.
| | You are saying that ct = 2piR.
|
| Which it does, and
| (c+v)t = (2pi + alpha)R,
| (c-v)t = (2pi - alpha)R.
|
| OK, that's viewed in the nonrotating frame. Alpha is the angle the
| source/detector moves through during the time it takes for light to go
around
| the ring.
|
Ok... that's ****ing obvious.



| My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to move at
c
| wrt the source/detector.
| ct = 2piR + alphaR

In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be) doesn't
move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move with
respect
to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a day
(alpha).
As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to downtown
Sydney
is c and the distance is ct. It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off the
Earth to make
that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.


| Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of each
'ray
| element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.

We know that, but the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not
stationary,
the Sun moves too.
|
| Relativists Roberts, Andersen et al have persistently failed to
acknowlegde
| that this happens...which is why their traditional refutation of BaTh
using
| Sagnac is a joke. They consider that viewing a rotating ringgyro in the
| rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating gyro in the nonrotating
frame.

Those are clueless ****heads that never understood the simple mathematics
of the Principle of Relativity, which is nothing more than the vector
addition
of velocities. Where YOU go wrong is that you make stupid and untrue
statements like

"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson


"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

Why should I waste my time with crap like that?

| Relativists belong at the arse end of Physics I'm afraid...but I'm sure
you
| know that already..


Of course I know it. ****ing cranks, the lot of them.

|
| Moreover, I can make v = c/2 and it is still correct, alpha = pi, whereas
| you have a
| straight line effectively subtracted from a semicircle.
|
| Look, you stupid old sheep shagger, I know what you MEAN but all we are
| debating here is the correct way to describe it algebraically.
| That means no ****ing change in t, only a change in distance.
|
| t = (2pi + alpha)R / (c+v)
| t = (2pi - alpha)R / (c-v)
| t = 2pi.R/c
|
| Now we do NOT have t on both sides of the equation, but your way we do.
|
| | t is the same in both cases, only the distance changes.
| |
| | Ewe are near enough to a sheep, ewe have the same mathematical
| | abilities as one. The drunken mind of an aussie sheep shagger works
| | in strange ways, making two spelling mistakes in one sentence,
| | "enought" and "straght".
| |
| | **** off.
|
| Don't you mean ****t of?
|
| Where's Poe? He's dropped off the radar for three weeks now and I
| had him on the hook, begging me to tell him the experiment that
| proves SR is crap. All my ducks in a row and he vanishes.
|
| They usually disappear when they know they're beaten....
|
Yes, but mostly they come back for another hiding under a new name
so that I can plonk them again. Perhaps the old chap isn't feeling so good.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:33:04 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

| | alphaR = vt, you silly old dope.
| | You are saying that ct = 2piR.
|
| Which it does, and
| (c+v)t = (2pi + alpha)R,
| (c-v)t = (2pi - alpha)R.
|
| OK, that's viewed in the nonrotating frame. Alpha is the angle the
| source/detector moves through during the time it takes for light to go
around
| the ring.
|
Ok... that's ****ing obvious.



| My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to move at
c
| wrt the source/detector.
| ct = 2piR + alphaR

In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be) doesn't
move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move with
respect
to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a day
(alpha).
As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to downtown
Sydney
is c and the distance is ct. It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off the
Earth to make
that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.

Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going on. Read
carefully.

Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.

At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite directions around
the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.

What happens to the mark?
Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.

Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the original
position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a peripheral speed
of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from you at c
and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.

This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be misleading.
In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
AND their wavelengths are the same.

| Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of each
'ray
| element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.

We know that, but the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not
stationary,
the Sun moves too.

We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated nonrotating frame
perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.

|
| Relativists Roberts, Andersen et al have persistently failed to
acknowlegde
| that this happens...which is why their traditional refutation of BaTh
using
| Sagnac is a joke. They consider that viewing a rotating ringgyro in the
| rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating gyro in the nonrotating
frame.

Those are clueless ****heads that never understood the simple mathematics
of the Principle of Relativity, which is nothing more than the vector
addition
of velocities. Where YOU go wrong is that you make stupid and untrue
statements like

"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson


It isn't a rotating 'frame'....as in 'picture frame'.....as you seemed to
believe at the time.

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

I clearly stated, "there is no doppler shift AT THE SOURCE in BaTh".

Why should I waste my time with crap like that?

You waste your time writing crap most of the time.

| Relativists belong at the arse end of Physics I'm afraid...but I'm sure
you
| know that already..


Of course I know it. ****ing cranks, the lot of them.

|
| Moreover, I can make v = c/2 and it is still correct, alpha = pi, whereas
| you have a
| straight line effectively subtracted from a semicircle.
|
| Look, you stupid old sheep shagger, I know what you MEAN but all we are
| debating here is the correct way to describe it algebraically.
| That means no ****ing change in t, only a change in distance.
|
| t = (2pi + alpha)R / (c+v)
| t = (2pi - alpha)R / (c-v)
| t = 2pi.R/c
|
| Now we do NOT have t on both sides of the equation, but your way we do.
|
| | t is the same in both cases, only the distance changes.
| |
| | Ewe are near enough to a sheep, ewe have the same mathematical
| | abilities as one. The drunken mind of an aussie sheep shagger works
| | in strange ways, making two spelling mistakes in one sentence,
| | "enought" and "straght".
| |
| | **** off.
|
| Don't you mean ****t of?
|
| Where's Poe? He's dropped off the radar for three weeks now and I
| had him on the hook, begging me to tell him the experiment that
| proves SR is crap. All my ducks in a row and he vanishes.
|
| They usually disappear when they know they're beaten....
|
Yes, but mostly they come back for another hiding under a new name
so that I can plonk them again. Perhaps the old chap isn't feeling so good.

I'd like to know what happened to Dishman. He was good value. I fear he is not
with us any longer.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On May 11, 7:09*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 11, 1:13*pm, Mike wrote:





On May 9, 2:41*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On May 8, 10:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Although Silly Vesselin Petkov was very close to the truth:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810030v13
Silly Vesselin Petkov: "It has been overlooked that the wavelength of
a photon in the gravitational redshift experiment cannot change along
with its frequency due to the conservation of the photon momentum. As
both frequency and velocity change in this experiment the measurement
of a change in a photon frequency is in fact an indirect measurement
of a change in the photon local velocity."

Criminal Tom Roberts managed to confuse him irreversibly and now Silly
Vesselin Petkov is very far from the truth. Here is an Einsteinian
that Criminal Tom Roberts has not confused yet so this particular
Einsteinian is still very close to the truth:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp" The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

So if Criminal Tom Roberts had not confused Silly Vesselin Petkov so
irreversibly, Silly Vesselin Petkov could say to Silly Ian Morison:

http://fora.tv/2008/02/21/Ian_Moriso...vity_in_Action

Silly Vesselin Petkov: "Hey, Silly Ian Morison, Pound and Rebka did
not prove the existence of any gravitational time dilation! Rather,
although they did not know it, they proved the validity of Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies with
the gravitaional potential V. If they had known how to apply
Einstein's equivalence principle in such cases, they would also have
shown the validity of the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
theory of light, where v is the relative speed of the light source and
the observer."

Silly Vesselin Petkov will never say that to Silly Ian Morison because
Criminal Tom Roberts managed to confuse him irreversibly.

I think everything about theories should be ok in the ngs, even
trolling, but yet I recommend not characterizing anyone as criminal,
especially Roberts, with whom I have had many arguments with but he is
a good scienstist and does nto deserve this.

Only a criminal can teach Einstein zombie world that, even if "light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform", special relativity "would be unaffected":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...owse_frm/threa...
Tom Roberts, Feb 1 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

That is a statement motivated by panic, I agree. But save the word
crminal for the time there will be a court for crimes committed
against humanity.

There will be one some time. Roberts is no criminal, just paniced and
confused. He cannto understand and accept that inconsiostent physiocal
theories should not be taught or even considered. He will spend his
life in vain trying to convince people otherwise.

The criminals are to be found in some other places.

Mike




Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going on. Read
carefully.

Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.

At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite directions around
the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.

What happens to the mark?
Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.

Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the original
position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a peripheral speed
of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from you at c
and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.

This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be misleading.
In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
AND their wavelengths are the same.


" MY wave is one in which the phase of the leading edge
is cycling as it moves."
- Henri Wilson -

--
Paul, still amused after all these years

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

On May 13, 8:17*am, Mike wrote:
On May 11, 7:09*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On May 11, 1:13*pm, Mike wrote:
I think everything about theories should be ok in the ngs, even
trolling, but yet I recommend not characterizing anyone as criminal,
especially Roberts, with whom I have had many arguments with but he is
a good scienstist and does nto deserve this.

Only a criminal can teach Einstein zombie world that, even if "light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform", special relativity "would be unaffected":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...34dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts, Feb 1 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

That is a statement motivated by panic, I agree. But save the word
crminal for the time there will be a court for crimes committed
against humanity.

There will be one some time. Roberts is no criminal, just paniced and
confused. He cannto understand and accept that inconsiostent physiocal
theories should not be taught or even considered. He will spend his
life in vain trying to convince people otherwise.

The criminals are to be found in some other places.

Mike

Roberts' statement is NOT motivated by panic. This is a deliberate
destruction of human rationality. The original author of the idiotic
idea is called Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond (Roberts is just a plagiarist in
this case) ahd this Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond devised the destructive
idiocy long time ago, when there was still no panic at all and
Einstein zombie world was unanimously singing "Divine Einstein":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

Pentcho Valev

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:33:04 +0100, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
| .. .
|
| | | alphaR = vt, you silly old dope.
| | | You are saying that ct = 2piR.
| |
| | Which it does, and
| | (c+v)t = (2pi + alpha)R,
| | (c-v)t = (2pi - alpha)R.
| |
| | OK, that's viewed in the nonrotating frame. Alpha is the angle the
| | source/detector moves through during the time it takes for light to go
| around
| | the ring.
| |
| Ok... that's ****ing obvious.
|
|
|
| | My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to move
at
| c
| | wrt the source/detector.
| | ct = 2piR + alphaR
|
| In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be)
doesn't
| move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move with
| respect
| to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a day
| (alpha).
| As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to downtown
| Sydney
| is c and the distance is ct. It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off
the
| Earth to make
| that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.
|
| Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
| understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going on.
Read
| carefully.

Ok, then read my replies carefully.


| Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
| Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.

If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS rotating
in the
opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting my
ring,
crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun
are
two such rings.
I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate
definition
for me to understand your intent at this stage.


| At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite directions
around
| the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
|
| What happens to the mark?
| Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.

Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.

| By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.

The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
directions and continue forever.
You are not doing a very good job here with your specialising in teaching
physics to engineers and mathematicians... or perhaps you are, this
is typical of the kind of undefined crap we've come to expect of
physicists. It is also why your programs are loaded down with constants,
you fail to define them at the beginning, inventing them as you need them.
That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined
throughout.
I never write 3.141592653589790
as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.


Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov


| Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the original
| position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a peripheral
speed
| of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from you
at c
| and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
| mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.

I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
"out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.
Here's some pictures of it:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...RealSagnac.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnacFixed.gif




|
| This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be
misleading.
| In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
| AND their wavelengths are the same.

In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their ****ing
teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact, actually.
You are full of ****, Wilson.



|
| | Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of each
| 'ray
| | element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.
|
| We know that, but the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
| for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not
| stationary,
| the Sun moves too.
|
| We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
| Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated nonrotating
frame
| perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
|
You are full of ****, Wilson.

| |
| | Relativists Roberts, Andersen et al have persistently failed to
| acknowlegde
| | that this happens...which is why their traditional refutation of BaTh
| using
| | Sagnac is a joke. They consider that viewing a rotating ringgyro in the
| | rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating gyro in the nonrotating
| frame.
|
| Those are clueless ****heads that never understood the simple mathematics
| of the Principle of Relativity, which is nothing more than the vector
| addition
| of velocities. Where YOU go wrong is that you make stupid and untrue
| statements like
|
| "A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
| hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
|
|
| It isn't a rotating 'frame'....as in 'picture frame'.....as you seemed to
| believe at the time.

You are full of ****, Wilson.

|
| "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
| http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
|
| I clearly stated, "there is no doppler shift AT THE SOURCE in BaTh".

You are full of ****, Wilson.

|
| Why should I waste my time with crap like that?
|
| You waste your time writing crap most of the time.

You are full of ****, Wilson.


|
| | Relativists belong at the arse end of Physics I'm afraid...but I'm sure
| you
| | know that already..
|
|
| Of course I know it. ****ing cranks, the lot of them.
|
| |
| | Moreover, I can make v = c/2 and it is still correct, alpha = pi,
whereas
| | you have a
| | straight line effectively subtracted from a semicircle.
| |
| | Look, you stupid old sheep shagger, I know what you MEAN but all we
are
| | debating here is the correct way to describe it algebraically.
| | That means no ****ing change in t, only a change in distance.
| |
| | t = (2pi + alpha)R / (c+v)
| | t = (2pi - alpha)R / (c-v)
| | t = 2pi.R/c
| |
| | Now we do NOT have t on both sides of the equation, but your way we
do.
| |
| | | t is the same in both cases, only the distance changes.
| | |
| | | Ewe are near enough to a sheep, ewe have the same mathematical
| | | abilities as one. The drunken mind of an aussie sheep shagger works
| | | in strange ways, making two spelling mistakes in one sentence,
| | | "enought" and "straght".
| | |
| | | **** off.
| |
| | Don't you mean ****t of?
| |
| | Where's Poe? He's dropped off the radar for three weeks now and I
| | had him on the hook, begging me to tell him the experiment that
| | proves SR is crap. All my ducks in a row and he vanishes.
| |
| | They usually disappear when they know they're beaten....
| |
| Yes, but mostly they come back for another hiding under a new name
| so that I can plonk them again. Perhaps the old chap isn't feeling so
good.
|
| I'd like to know what happened to Dishman. He was good value. I fear he is
not
| with us any longer.

You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
|
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....
You are full of ****, Wilson.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:33:32 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

| | My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to move
at
| c
| | wrt the source/detector.
| | ct = 2piR + alphaR
|
| In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be)
doesn't
| move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move with
| respect
| to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a day
| (alpha).
| As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to downtown
| Sydney
| is c and the distance is ct. It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off
the
| Earth to make
| that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.
|
| Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
| understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going on.
Read
| carefully.

Ok, then read my replies carefully.


| Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
| Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.

If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS rotating
in the
opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting my
ring,
crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun
are
two such rings.
I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate
definition
for me to understand your intent at this stage.

Of course the second ring is concentric. it is right next to the gyro ring.


| At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite directions
around
| the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
|
| What happens to the mark?
| Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.

Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.

The movement is only a couple of light wavelengths at the most.
You can assume the movement is in a straight line and is just vt..

| By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.

The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
directions and continue forever.

We are discussing a ring gyro in which total internal reflection occurs. As far
as this argument is concerned the rays move in straight lines.

You are not doing a very good job here with your specialising in teaching
physics to engineers and mathematicians... or perhaps you are, this
is typical of the kind of undefined crap we've come to expect of
physicists. It is also why your programs are loaded down with constants,
you fail to define them at the beginning, inventing them as you need them.
That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined
throughout.
I never write 3.141592653589790
as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.


Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov

In a ring gyro, the detector rides the ring.

| Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the original
| position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a peripheral
speed
| of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from you
at c
| and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
| mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.

I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
"out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.

In a ring gyro stuck in an aeroplane, the kids don't ever get off.

Here's some pictures of it:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...RealSagnac.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnacFixed.gif

What in christ's name is that?

|
| This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be
misleading.
| In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
| AND their wavelengths are the same.

In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their ****ing
teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact, actually.
You are full of ****, Wilson.

I was being facetious when I said "you are more intelligent than the rest".

|
| | Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of each
| 'ray
| | element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.
|
| We know that, but the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
| for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not
| stationary,
| the Sun moves too.
|
| We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
| Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated nonrotating
frame
| perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
|
You are full of ****, Wilson.

Engineers obviously aren't aware that rotation is absolute.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:47:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going on. Read
carefully.

Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.

At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite directions around
the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.

What happens to the mark?
Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.

Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the original
position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a peripheral speed
of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from you at c
and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.

This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be misleading.
In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
AND their wavelengths are the same.


" MY wave is one in which the phase of the leading edge
is cycling as it moves."
- Henri Wilson -

--
Paul, still amused after all these years

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

Your model of a photon is a drawing of a frozen sine wave moving at c wrt
little planet Earth.
How pathetic.....



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:33:32 +0100, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
| .. .
|
| | | My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to
move
| at
| | c
| | | wrt the source/detector.
| | | ct = 2piR + alphaR
| |
| | In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be)
| doesn't
| | move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move
with
| | respect
| | to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a
day
| | (alpha).
| | As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to
downtown
| | Sydney
| | is c and the distance is ct. It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off
| the
| | Earth to make
| | that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.
| |
| | Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
| | understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going
on.
| Read
| | carefully.
|
| Ok, then read my replies carefully.
|
|
| | Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
| | Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.
|
| If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS
rotating
| in the
| opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting
my
| ring,
| crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun
| are
| two such rings.
| I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate
| definition
| for me to understand your intent at this stage.
|
| Of course the second ring is concentric. it is right next to the gyro
ring.



It can't be right next to, left next to, front next to or back next to, it
can only be above next to or below next to. There is no "of course"
about it, your descriptions are vague and imprecise. Just because
you know what you mean doesn't mean anybody else does.

| | At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite
directions
| around
| | the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
| |
| | What happens to the mark?
| | Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
|
| Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.
|
| The movement is only a couple of light wavelengths at the most.
| You can assume the movement is in a straight line and is just vt..

Are you saying ring microwave gyroscopes won't work?
I don't ASSUME anything, Wilson, especially when there is no need to.

You are less intelligent so can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.

THE MARK MOVES AWAY AT V.SIN(T), EVENTUALLY RETURNING.
****ing physicists, hopeless at mathematics, clueless the lot of them.

|
| | By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.
|
| The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
| directions and continue forever.
|
| We are discussing a ring gyro in which total internal reflection occurs.
As far
| as this argument is concerned the rays move in straight lines.


Ok, so far I have read carefully and:
i) the mark is stationary and moves.
ii) the mark moves in a straight line.
iii) arcs are straight lines.
iv) the light reflects from total internal reflection by sqrt(2), you once
said.
v) the world is flat.
vi) You are upside down.
vii) You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.

|
| You are not doing a very good job here with your specialising in teaching
| physics to engineers and mathematicians... or perhaps you are, this
| is typical of the kind of undefined crap we've come to expect of
| physicists. It is also why your programs are loaded down with constants,
| you fail to define them at the beginning, inventing them as you need
them.
| That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
| a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
| whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined
| throughout.
| I never write 3.141592653589790
| as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.
|
|
| Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
| http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
|
| In a ring gyro, the detector rides the ring.

The detector is not where the rays meet "in phase" going in opposite
directions, Wilson, or it wouldn't detect anything. First, one of the rays
has to meet a reflector "in which total internal reflection occurs" so that
it goes the same way as the other ray.


|
| | Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the
original
| | position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a
peripheral
| speed
| | of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from
you
| at c
| | and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
| | mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.
|
| I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
| When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
| they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
| and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
| "out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.
|
| In a ring gyro stuck in an aeroplane, the kids don't ever get off.

You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
They walk around in a circle at the tail, collide (in step) and
walk down the aisle of the plane at different speeds, one arriving
at the flight deck before the other. The captain sees which one
arrived first and knows which way his plane is rotating. It doesn't
work if he's at the tail.


|
| Here's some pictures of it:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...RealSagnac.gif
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnacFixed.gif
|
| What in christ's name is that?

Georges Sagnac was not christ, you dumb *******.
You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
It is Sagnac's original sketch, animated by me.

|
| |
| | This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be
| misleading.
| | In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING
FRAME.
| | AND their wavelengths are the same.
|
| In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
| actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
| sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their ****ing
| teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact,
actually.
| You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
| I was being facetious when I said "you are more intelligent than the
rest".

Not at all, you were in fact actually correct for a change and that's a
fact, actually.


|
| |
| | | Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of
each
| | 'ray
| | | element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.
| |
| | We know that, but the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
| | for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not
| | stationary,
| | the Sun moves too.
| |
| | We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
| | Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated
nonrotating
| frame
| | perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
| |
| You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
| Engineers obviously aren't aware that rotation is absolute.

Aussie sheep shaggers obviously hallucinate an arc is a straight line, in
fact, actually.
In fact rotation is relative, actually, and that's a fact.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 03:54:52 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

| If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS
rotating
| in the
| opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting
my
| ring,
| crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun
| are
| two such rings.
| I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate
| definition
| for me to understand your intent at this stage.
|
| Of course the second ring is concentric. it is right next to the gyro
ring.



It can't be right next to, left next to, front next to or back next to, it
can only be above next to or below next to. There is no "of course"
about it, your descriptions are vague and imprecise. Just because
you know what you mean doesn't mean anybody else does.

Stop acting dumb.....I assume you're acting....
The two rings are parallel and adjacent. Have a look at the back wheels of the
next semi-trailer that goes past.
What happens if the brakes are put on one and not the other....jacked up of
course.

| | At certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite
directions
| around
| | the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
| |
| | What happens to the mark?
| | Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
|
| Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.
|
| The movement is only a couple of light wavelengths at the most.
| You can assume the movement is in a straight line and is just vt..

Are you saying ring microwave gyroscopes won't work?
I don't ASSUME anything, Wilson, especially when there is no need to.

the movement is straight.
Forget the ****ing sine.

You are less intelligent so can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.

THE MARK MOVES AWAY AT V.SIN(T), EVENTUALLY RETURNING.
****ing physicists, hopeless at mathematics, clueless the lot of them.

The pulse moves away at c in the rotating frame and eventually returns.
The mark moves only a few microns at most during that time interval.

| | By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.
|
| The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
| directions and continue forever.
|
| We are discussing a ring gyro in which total internal reflection occurs.
As far
| as this argument is concerned the rays move in straight lines.


Ok, so far I have read carefully and:
i) the mark is stationary and moves.

The mark is stationary in the inertial frame but moves in the rotating frame.
Relativists are incapable of understanding that.

ii) the mark moves in a straight line.

Near enough.

iii) arcs are straight lines.

A micron long arc on a 10cm circle is as good as straight.

iv) the light reflects from total internal reflection by sqrt(2), you once
said.

I did not.

v) the world is flat.

My neighbour's tennis court is....but he's quite round.

vi) You are upside down.

Not in polar coordinates.

vii) You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.

I might be a specialist in teaching physics to engineers but sometimes the
pupils are incapable of learning.


| That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
| a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
| whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined
| throughout.
| I never write 3.141592653589790
| as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.
|
|
| Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
| http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
|
| In a ring gyro, the detector rides the ring.

The detector is not where the rays meet "in phase" going in opposite
directions, Wilson, or it wouldn't detect anything. First, one of the rays
has to meet a reflector "in which total internal reflection occurs" so that
it goes the same way as the other ray.

The 'reflector' is a half silvered plain mirror. It doesn't involve internal
reflection.


|
| | Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the
original
| | position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a
peripheral
| speed
| | of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from
you
| at c
| | and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
| | mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.
|
| I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
| When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
| they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
| and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
| "out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.
|
| In a ring gyro stuck in an aeroplane, the kids don't ever get off.

You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
They walk around in a circle at the tail, collide (in step) and
walk down the aisle of the plane at different speeds, one arriving
at the flight deck before the other. The captain sees which one
arrived first and knows which way his plane is rotating. It doesn't
work if he's at the tail.

That's the SR/aether analysis.
You have revealed your true beliefs.



|
| Here's some pictures of it:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...RealSagnac.gif
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnacFixed.gif
|
| What in christ's name is that?

Georges Sagnac was not christ, you dumb *******.
You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
READ CAREFULLY as I do.
It is Sagnac's original sketch, animated by me.

It's wrong.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
shows a four mirror sagnac interferomete works.

| | This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be
| misleading.
| | In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING
FRAME.
| | AND their wavelengths are the same.
|
| In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
| actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
| sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their ****ing
| teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact,
actually.
| You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
| I was being facetious when I said "you are more intelligent than the
rest".

Not at all, you were in fact actually correct for a change and that's a
fact, actually.


You don't even agree that a 1 micron arc of a 10cm circle is effectively
straight.


| | We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
| | Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated
nonrotating
| frame
| | perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
| |
| You are full of ****, Wilson.
|
| Engineers obviously aren't aware that rotation is absolute.

Aussie sheep shaggers obviously hallucinate an arc is a straight line, in
fact, actually.
In fact rotation is relative, actually, and that's a fact.

Rotation is absolute no matter what configuration. It can be detected
ABSOLUTELY.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....