"sal" wrote in message
news | Right -- but the sticky point is that you need to come up with some
| explanation for why the velocity of light in a glass fiber is not C/N
| relative to the fiber.

Let's see now...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"For any positive value of alpha, the pulse traveling in the same
direction as the rotation of the loop must travel a slightly greater
distance than the pulse traveling in the opposite direction."

Do we know of any similar situations in normal everyday life?
Carousel rides come to my mind.
http://carouselmagic.com/graphics/lj400.jpg
The rider moves with the same angular velocity as the ride, so his
relative velocity is zero with respect to the ride.
To model our situation, we need twins to walk or run around the
carousel in opposite directions and meet again where they started,
relative to the carousel. For safety reasons we must the turn the
carousel very slowly or the kiddies will be thrown off. This isn't a
problem though, the kiddies are modelling light which is much
faster than the fibre will move.
So grandpa puts the kids on the slowly turning carousel and off they go
in opposite directions, and he waits to see what happens. The twin that
moved in the same direction as the carousel meets grandpa before he
meets his sibling, there is a non-zero angle alpha.
The frequency of the clockwise kid, in radians per second, is greater
than the frequency of the counterclockwise kid, as seen from where
grandpa is standing.
The sticky point is that you need to come up with some explanation for
why the velocity of light in a glass fiber is not C/N relative to the
fiber?
Who is saying it isn't?
You must be joking, nobody could be that dumb!
Sagnac disproves special relativity, you've performed it in a vacuum,
the velocity of light is source relative if it isn't medium relative
first.
Take your web pages down and replace them with explanations from
emission theory.
Androcles.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:53:49 +0000, Androcles wrote:


"sal" wrote in message
news | Right -- but the sticky point is that you need to come up with
| some explanation for why the velocity of light in a glass fiber is
| not C/N relative to the fiber.

Let's see now...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm "For any positive value
of alpha, the pulse traveling in the same direction as the rotation
of the loop must travel a slightly greater distance than the pulse
traveling in the opposite direction."

That explanation assumes the speed of the signal is C as viewed from
the stationary frame. As viewed from the stationary frame, it is,
therefore, _not_ C relative to the rotating disk.

If you don't understand that, go read it again.

[ snip cute but irrelevant story about Grandpa, who is stationary
relative to the disk and therefore not a good surrogate for a detector
riding on the disk ]

The sticky point is that you need to come up with some explanation
for why the velocity of light in a glass fiber is not C/N relative
to the fiber? Who is saying it isn't?

Pay attention.

If it _is_ C/N relative to the FIBER, when measured by someone
standing still, then there is no Sagnac effect.

That is contradicted by experiment. Therefore it is _not_ C/N
relative to the fiber, as measured by someone who is standing still.


You must be joking, nobody could be that dumb! Sagnac disproves
special relativity, you've performed it in a vacuum, the velocity of
light is source relative if it isn't medium relative first.

Source relative, in vacuum = velocity is C relative to the rim of the
disk as viewed by a stationary observer, and there would be no Sagnac
effect. Therefore it's not source relative.

Medium relative, in a fiber = velocity is C/N relative to the rim of
the disk as viewed by a stationary observer, and there would be no
Sagnac effect. Therefore it's not medium relative.


Take your web pages down and replace them with explanations from
emission theory.

You want an emission theory page, put it up yourself. There are free
webhosting outfits around, and there are places that charge less than
the cost of a phone for a website. Go find one. Lack of money is no
excuse.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

"sal" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:53:49 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
|
| "sal" wrote in message
| news | | Right -- but the sticky point is that you need to come up with
| | some explanation for why the velocity of light in a glass fiber is
| | not C/N relative to the fiber.
|
| Let's see now...
| http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm "For any positive value
| of alpha, the pulse traveling in the same direction as the rotation
| of the loop must travel a slightly greater distance than the pulse
| traveling in the opposite direction."
|
| That explanation assumes the speed of the signal is C as viewed from
| the stationary frame. As viewed from the stationary frame, it is,
| therefore, _not_ C relative to the rotating disk.
|
| If you don't understand that, go read it again.

You are absolutely right.


|
| [ snip cute but irrelevant story about Grandpa, who is stationary
| relative to the disk and therefore not a good surrogate for a detector
| riding on the disk ]
|
Now go back and read it again, you didn't understand it.




| The sticky point is that you need to come up with some explanation
| for why the velocity of light in a glass fiber is not C/N relative
| to the fiber? Who is saying it isn't?
|
| Pay attention.


No, YOU pay attention instead of snipping like you do.

|
| If it _is_ C/N relative to the FIBER, when measured by someone
| standing still, then there is no Sagnac effect.

Remember the conductor and the magnet?
Of course you haven't.
The speed of light is c/n relative to the fibre.
It is c/n +v, c/n -v relative to grandpa. Grandpa is the "moving frame".
The apparatus is the "stationary" frame.

|
| That is contradicted by experiment. Therefore it is _not_ C/N
| relative to the fiber, as measured by someone who is standing still.

No it isn't contradicted at all.
Sagnac is the proof that special relativity is nonsense.


|
|
| You must be joking, nobody could be that dumb! Sagnac disproves
| special relativity, you've performed it in a vacuum, the velocity of
| light is source relative if it isn't medium relative first.
|
| Source relative, in vacuum = velocity is C relative to the rim of the
| disk as viewed by a stationary observer, and there would be no Sagnac
| effect. Therefore it's not source relative.

You've got your frames crossed.
IF you ever eventually wake up, your jaw will fall so far it will hit
the floor.


|
| Medium relative, in a fiber = velocity is C/N relative to the rim of
| the disk as viewed by a stationary observer, and there would be no
| Sagnac effect. Therefore it's not medium relative.
|
|
| Take your web pages down and replace them with explanations from
| emission theory.
|
| You want an emission theory page, put it up yourself. There are free
| webhosting outfits around, and there are places that charge less than
| the cost of a phone for a website. Go find one. Lack of money is no
| excuse.


If you EVER eventually wake up, your jaw will fall so far it will hit
the floor.
Androcles

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:11:14 +0000, Androcles wrote:


"sal" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:53:49 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
|
| "sal" wrote in message
| news | | Right -- but the sticky point is that you need to come up with
| | some explanation for why the velocity of light in a glass
| | fiber is not C/N relative to the fiber.
|
| Let's see now...
|
| http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm "For any positive
| value of alpha, the pulse traveling in the same direction as the
| rotation of the loop must travel a slightly greater distance
| than the pulse traveling in the opposite direction."
|
| That explanation assumes the speed of the signal is C as viewed
| from the stationary frame. As viewed from the stationary frame,
| it is, therefore, _not_ C relative to the rotating disk.
|
| If you don't understand that, go read it again.

You are absolutely right.

Yup.


| [ snip cute but irrelevant story about Grandpa, who is stationary
| relative to the disk and therefore not a good surrogate for a
| detector riding on the disk ]
|
Now go back and read it again, you didn't understand it.

Sure did understand it.


No it isn't contradicted at all.
Sagnac is the proof that special relativity is nonsense.

Guess again.


If you EVER eventually wake up

Like now.

You're an interesting person and you have a lot to say that's
worthwhile ... as long as you don't talk about relativity.

You are also more than intelligent enough to understand the math of
special relativity.

Your stubborn refusal to understand it, and your denial of all
evidence which contradicts emission theory, is a form of terrible
intellectual dishonesty on your part. What's worse, it places you
squarely in the same camp as the anti-semitic Einstein haters, the
fundamentalist anti-science types, and the young-earth creationists.
You won't admit it -- apparently you won't even admit it to yourself
-- but by rejecting all the evidence which contravenes your views, and
by attacking modern cosmology, you're supporting the views of
Macromitch and his ilk.

You claim to be pro-science, but nothing could be further from the
truth. You call yourself an atheist, yet your program of attack on
Einstein and, by extension, nearly all modern physicists, brings your
agenda in line with the program of the Christian right. And that is
intolerable.

Go argue with Henri Wilson. He doesn't agree with you (he sees the
need for a finite extinction length, which you deny) but at least
he'll agree with you about Einstein.

** plonk **


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

"sal" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:11:14 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
|
| "sal" wrote in message
| news | | On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:53:49 +0000, Androcles wrote:
| |
| |
| | "sal" wrote in message
| | news | | | Right -- but the sticky point is that you need to come up with
| | | some explanation for why the velocity of light in a glass
| | | fiber is not C/N relative to the fiber.
| |
| | Let's see now...
| |
| | http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm "For any positive
| | value of alpha, the pulse traveling in the same direction as the
| | rotation of the loop must travel a slightly greater distance
| | than the pulse traveling in the opposite direction."
| |
| | That explanation assumes the speed of the signal is C as viewed
| | from the stationary frame. As viewed from the stationary frame,
| | it is, therefore, _not_ C relative to the rotating disk.
| |
| | If you don't understand that, go read it again.
|
| You are absolutely right.
|
| Yup.
|
|
| | [ snip cute but irrelevant story about Grandpa, who is stationary
| | relative to the disk and therefore not a good surrogate for a
| | detector riding on the disk ]
| |
| Now go back and read it again, you didn't understand it.
|
| Sure did understand it.

Well, I'm not going to play a silly pantomime of
"No you didn't"
"Yes I did"
"No you didn't"

|
|
| No it isn't contradicted at all.
| Sagnac is the proof that special relativity is nonsense.
|
| Guess again.

I'm not guessing, I've worked it out. You've ignored it.
|
| If you EVER eventually wake up
|
| Like now.
|
| You're an interesting person and you have a lot to say that's
| worthwhile ... as long as you don't talk about relativity.
|
| You are also more than intelligent enough to understand the math of
| special relativity.
|
| Your stubborn refusal to understand it, and your denial of all
| evidence which contradicts emission theory, is a form of terrible
| intellectual dishonesty on your part.

And you are a ****ing idiot. **** off, you insulting *******.
*plonk*
Androcles.


What's worse, it places you
| squarely in the same camp as the anti-semitic Einstein haters, the
| fundamentalist anti-science types, and the young-earth creationists.
| You won't admit it -- apparently you won't even admit it to yourself
| -- but by rejecting all the evidence which contravenes your views, and
| by attacking modern cosmology, you're supporting the views of
| Macromitch and his ilk.
|
| You claim to be pro-science, but nothing could be further from the
| truth. You call yourself an atheist, yet your program of attack on
| Einstein and, by extension, nearly all modern physicists, brings your
| agenda in line with the program of the Christian right. And that is
| intolerable.
|
| Go argue with Henri Wilson. He doesn't agree with you (he sees the
| need for a finite extinction length, which you deny) but at least
| he'll agree with you about Einstein.
|
| ** plonk **
|
|
| --
| Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
|