On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Jerry wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted
by the fairies. Didn't you know that?

In BaTh, all starlight is adjusted by the magical extinction
fairies so that by the time it reaches Earth, it is traveling
at c relative to little ol' Earth.

In BaTh, no conceivable Earth-based experiment can measure
c+v effects because the magical Wilsonian Control Frame
fairies force light to travel at c in the frame of the
apparatus.

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm

it is not faked, he just is just protecting his identity

do you mind?

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm
Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/history.htm
Henri Wilson's Use of Snipping as a Debating Technique
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...enri/snips.htm

On Jul 15, 9:09 am, virgil wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Jerry wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted
by the fairies. Didn't you know that?

In BaTh, all starlight is adjusted by the magical extinction
fairies so that by the time it reaches Earth, it is traveling
at c relative to little ol' Earth.

In BaTh, no conceivable Earth-based experiment can measure
c+v effects because the magical Wilsonian Control Frame
fairies force light to travel at c in the frame of the
apparatus.

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm

it is not faked, he just is just protecting his identity

do you mind?

Henri has claimed in multiple posts that "Henri Wilson" is
his real name. Below I quote a typical instance where he
has done so.

Androcles:
It is certainly an attempt at character assassination. I am
somewhat protected in everyday life because I do not use my
real name on this ng, having long ago foreseen such an event,
so I can treat it for the banter it really is and ignore
the little punk, but I believe you do use your real name,
am I right?

Henri Wilson:
Right.

Link to original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e37d9270cd181d

So, either Henri lied when he claimed, in the above post and
multiple other posts, that "Henri Wilson" is his real name,
or "Henri Wilson" is indeed his real name, and he falsified
the diploma by placing his real name on it.

Either way, Henri has lied.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
ps.com...
: On Jul 15, 9:09 am, virgil wrote:
: On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Jerry wrote:
:
: On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
:
: Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted
: by the fairies. Didn't you know that?
:
: In BaTh, all starlight is adjusted by the magical extinction
: fairies so that by the time it reaches Earth, it is traveling
: at c relative to little ol' Earth.
:
: In BaTh, no conceivable Earth-based experiment can measure
: c+v effects because the magical Wilsonian Control Frame
: fairies force light to travel at c in the frame of the
: apparatus.
:
: Jerry
:
: Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
:
: it is not faked, he just is just protecting his identity
:
: do you mind?
:
: Henri has claimed in multiple posts that "Henri Wilson" is
: his real name. Below I quote a typical instance where he
: has done so.
:
: Androcles:
: It is certainly an attempt at character assassination. I am
: somewhat protected in everyday life because I do not use my
: real name on this ng, having long ago foreseen such an event,
: so I can treat it for the banter it really is and ignore
: the little punk, but I believe you do use your real name,
: am I right?
:
: Henri Wilson:
: Right.
:
: Link to original post:
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e37d9270cd181d
:
: So, either Henri lied when he claimed, in the above post and
: multiple other posts, that "Henri Wilson" is his real name,
: or "Henri Wilson" is indeed his real name, and he falsified
: the diploma by placing his real name on it.
:
: Either way, Henri has lied.
:
: Jerry
So says Tom&Jeery, the minor crank and ****in' ignorant arsehole
who claims to help others in hospitals. What a lying ****!

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:59:33 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:52:51 +0100, "George Dishman"

Nope, in the frame of the source, it is emitted at c.
You are trying to calculate the source-relative speed
of light emitted according to SR but you are using
ballistic theory. You can't mix the theories Henry.

George, the source frame is not inertial therefore SR does not apply.

Henry, SR can be used in non-inertial frames _but_ you
need to take account of lots of psuedo-effects. It is
difficult but valid.

ok, I'll quote you on that in future....

You and
you colleagues have used this ploy many times to get out of awkward
situations.

Those of us who have actually studied SR instead of
just making up strawmen from guesswork know how to
use it in all sorts of situations. Like any proper
theory, it makes unambiguous predictions in every
case. There are no "awkward situations", it is either
right or wrong, and so far neither you nor anyone
else has found a situation where it is wrong within
its area of applicability.

Nobody has found it right either...

In the INERTIAL nonrotating frame, the light clearly moves initially at
c+v wrt
the source.

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission,
the light also moves with a coordinate speed of c.

Hahahah! That's funny!

George, no frame co-moving wth the source is 'non-rotating'.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame in which the
axle of the turntable is at rest, the light moves
with a measured _coordinate_ speed of c so it
proves SR _right_.

No George, if it moves at c in the non-rotating frame, it initially moves at
c+v wrt the source.

You proved that yourself with
the diagram you drew and the algebra for it that
I had to explain to you.

In that frame, the opening speed relative to the
source is c-v which again proves SR _right_ and
ballistic theory _wrong_ because the latter says
the opening speed relative to the source should
be c.

Well I now have found the REAL reason for SAGNAC.



Garbage as usual. Polarisation controlling fibre
ensures there is no 'twisting' of the light.

There are no fibres in a four mirror sagnac.

If you read the experimental details, I think Sagnac
also considered the polarisation (I'm trying to
translate the original paper as I haven't found an
English version yet) but it is irrelevant anyway
since the modulation on the light is carried at the
same speed.

Polarisation wont affect my argument.

It's very subtle really.

Indeed the calculations are when the modulation is
taken into account, but the physics is trivially
simple.

The physics is also simple as to why the photon axes twist when fired at
moving
targets.

It is still garbage, photon spin is quantised and
always aligned with the direction of propagation.

Prove it...


You have been telling me is does for years. Why have you suddenly changed
your
mind.

I have said nothing of the kind, in this discussion
I have always been careful to tell you that light
moves at c/n relative to the ISM, something you
should be able to agree at least beyond the speed
equalisation distance. That's why I wrote

dv/ds = v-c/n

and not

dv/ds = v-c

Go back and check if you doubt me. Getting from
that to a speed relative to Earth requires Fizeau's
result which again proves SR correct and ballistic
theory wrong hence my qualification of "relative to
the ISM" in most posts so that the issue didn't turn
into another of your sidetracks.

I know much of this is too subtle for you to appreciate
Henry, but I try to be careful about what I write so
you need to check your facts before making these
baseless accusations.

You got that idea from me.
The LOCAL ISM acts like a weak aether.
Even if its refractive index is near 1, it still can modify the speed of any
light entering its region.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:26:55 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 15, 9:09 am, virgil wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Jerry wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted
by the fairies. Didn't you know that?

In BaTh, all starlight is adjusted by the magical extinction
fairies so that by the time it reaches Earth, it is traveling
at c relative to little ol' Earth.

In BaTh, no conceivable Earth-based experiment can measure
c+v effects because the magical Wilsonian Control Frame
fairies force light to travel at c in the frame of the
apparatus.

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm

it is not faked, he just is just protecting his identity

do you mind?

Henri has claimed in multiple posts that "Henri Wilson" is
his real name. Below I quote a typical instance where he
has done so.

Androcles:
It is certainly an attempt at character assassination. I am
somewhat protected in everyday life because I do not use my
real name on this ng, having long ago foreseen such an event,
so I can treat it for the banter it really is and ignore
the little punk, but I believe you do use your real name,
am I right?

Henri Wilson:
Right.

Link to original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e37d9270cd181d

So, either Henri lied when he claimed, in the above post and
multiple other posts, that "Henri Wilson" is his real name,
or "Henri Wilson" is indeed his real name, and he falsified
the diploma by placing his real name on it.

Either way, Henri has lied.

Jerry

What's YOUR real name Jerry?

Is it 'Minor Crank' the cross-dresser...?




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:40:35 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 15, 9:09 am, virgil wrote:
: On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Jerry wrote:
:
: On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
:
: Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted
: by the fairies. Didn't you know that?
:
: In BaTh, all starlight is adjusted by the magical extinction
: fairies so that by the time it reaches Earth, it is traveling
: at c relative to little ol' Earth.
:
: In BaTh, no conceivable Earth-based experiment can measure
: c+v effects because the magical Wilsonian Control Frame
: fairies force light to travel at c in the frame of the
: apparatus.
:
: Jerry
:
: Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
:
: it is not faked, he just is just protecting his identity
:
: do you mind?
:
: Henri has claimed in multiple posts that "Henri Wilson" is
: his real name. Below I quote a typical instance where he
: has done so.
:
: Androcles:
: It is certainly an attempt at character assassination. I am
: somewhat protected in everyday life because I do not use my
: real name on this ng, having long ago foreseen such an event,
: so I can treat it for the banter it really is and ignore
: the little punk, but I believe you do use your real name,
: am I right?
:
: Henri Wilson:
: Right.
:
: Link to original post:
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e37d9270cd181d
:
: So, either Henri lied when he claimed, in the above post and
: multiple other posts, that "Henri Wilson" is his real name,
: or "Henri Wilson" is indeed his real name, and he falsified
: the diploma by placing his real name on it.
:
: Either way, Henri has lied.
:
: Jerry
So says Tom&Jeery, the minor crank and ****in' ignorant arsehole
who claims to help others in hospitals. What a lying ****!

I think he had a sex change recently...



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:59:33 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
Those of us who have actually studied SR instead of
just making up strawmen from guesswork know how to
use it in all sorts of situations. Like any proper
theory, it makes unambiguous predictions in every
case. There are no "awkward situations", it is either
right or wrong, and so far neither you nor anyone
else has found a situation where it is wrong within
its area of applicability.
Nobody has found it right either...

Then you're a blind fool. There has bene a century of experiments all of
which showed SR as correctly predicting the results.

But we all knew that already

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:38:17 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:59:33 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
Those of us who have actually studied SR instead of
just making up strawmen from guesswork know how to
use it in all sorts of situations. Like any proper
theory, it makes unambiguous predictions in every
case. There are no "awkward situations", it is either
right or wrong, and so far neither you nor anyone
else has found a situation where it is wrong within
its area of applicability.
Nobody has found it right either...

Then you're a blind fool. There has bene a century of experiments all of
which showed SR as correctly predicting the results.

There are none

But we all knew that already

.......Poor indoctrinated fool.....


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:38:17 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:59:33 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
Those of us who have actually studied SR instead of
just making up strawmen from guesswork know how to
use it in all sorts of situations. Like any proper
theory, it makes unambiguous predictions in every
case. There are no "awkward situations", it is either
right or wrong, and so far neither you nor anyone
else has found a situation where it is wrong within
its area of applicability.
Nobody has found it right either...

Then you're a blind fool. There has bene a century of experiments all of
which showed SR as correctly predicting the results.
There are none

You're beyond hope. None is so blind as he who will not see.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:59:33 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:52:51 +0100, "George Dishman"

Nope, in the frame of the source, it is emitted at c.
You are trying to calculate the source-relative speed
of light emitted according to SR but you are using
ballistic theory. You can't mix the theories Henry.

George, the source frame is not inertial therefore SR does not apply.

Henry, SR can be used in non-inertial frames _but_ you
need to take account of lots of psuedo-effects. It is
difficult but valid.

ok, I'll quote you on that in future....

Feel free to, but be careful not to misquote me.
Generally you know so little about the subject,
you have trouble stating anything accurately.

You and
you colleagues have used this ploy many times to get out of awkward
situations.

Those of us who have actually studied SR instead of
just making up strawmen from guesswork know how to
use it in all sorts of situations. Like any proper
theory, it makes unambiguous predictions in every
case. There are no "awkward situations", it is either
right or wrong, and so far neither you nor anyone
else has found a situation where it is wrong within
its area of applicability.

Nobody has found it right either...

ROFL, Henry huge amounts of modern technology relies
on it. I've already pointed out iFogs and obviously
GPS.

In the INERTIAL nonrotating frame, the light clearly moves initially at
c+v wrt
the source.

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission,
the light also moves with a coordinate speed of c.

Hahahah! That's funny!

George, no frame co-moving wth the source is 'non-rotating'.

Henry, you have been bumming around these groups for
ten years that I know of, even with no knowledge of
physics at all, you should have learnt the standard
terminology by now. Note the word "momentarily". It
means that, at some particular instant (when the
light is emitted in this context), the origin of
the frame has exactly the same velocity as the source,
and as the frame is inertial by definition, it also
has that velocity at all other times.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame in which the
axle of the turntable is at rest, the light moves
with a measured _coordinate_ speed of c so it
proves SR _right_.

No George, if it moves at c in the non-rotating frame, it initially moves
at
c+v wrt the source.

Nope, you are asusming the Galilean transform which
doesn't work in reality.

You proved that yourself with
the diagram you drew and the algebra for it that
I had to explain to you.

In that frame, the opening speed relative to the
source is c-v which again proves SR _right_ and
ballistic theory _wrong_ because the latter says
the opening speed relative to the source should
be c.

Well I now have found the REAL reason for SAGNAC.

Again no, all you have done is wave your hands and
bury your head. Explain why the modulation on the
iFog signal arrives after a different delay on the
two beams when the device is rotating.

Garbage as usual. Polarisation controlling fibre
ensures there is no 'twisting' of the light.

There are no fibres in a four mirror sagnac.

If you read the experimental details, I think Sagnac
also considered the polarisation (I'm trying to
translate the original paper as I haven't found an
English version yet) but it is irrelevant anyway
since the modulation on the light is carried at the
same speed.

Polarisation wont affect my argument.

Polarisation _is_ your argument Henry, don't you
know what spin is?

It's very subtle really.

Indeed the calculations are when the modulation is
taken into account, but the physics is trivially
simple.

The physics is also simple as to why the photon axes twist when fired at
moving
targets.

It is still garbage, photon spin is quantised and
always aligned with the direction of propagation.

Prove it...

It was proven before I was born. It is up to you
to prove it false.

You have been telling me is does for years. Why have you suddenly
changed
your mind.

I have said nothing of the kind, in this discussion
I have always been careful to tell you that light
moves at c/n relative to the ISM, something you
should be able to agree at least beyond the speed
equalisation distance. That's why I wrote

dv/ds = v-c/n

and not

dv/ds = v-c

Typo, those should be dv/ds = c/n-v and dv/ds = c-v
respectively of course. I left the constant of
proportionality out deliberately to emphasise that
it was the "/n" that was the relevant factor.

Go back and check if you doubt me. Getting from
that to a speed relative to Earth requires Fizeau's
result which again proves SR correct and ballistic
theory wrong hence my qualification of "relative to
the ISM" in most posts so that the issue didn't turn
into another of your sidetracks.

I know much of this is too subtle for you to appreciate
Henry, but I try to be careful about what I write so
you need to check your facts before making these
baseless accusations.

You got that idea from me.

Sure, I turned your handwaving philosophical
meanderings into a scientifically stated postulate
to help you out because you couldn't do schoolboy
calculus. I wouldn't want anyone thinking the idea
was mine, I only provided the theory.

The LOCAL ISM acts like a weak aether.

Yes Henry, given a short enough "speed equalisation
distance", your theory is nothing more than a dragged
Galilean aether, long since proven false.

Even if its refractive index is near 1, it still can modify the speed of
any
light entering its region.

Absolutely correct, as I have suggested many times,
consider quarter wave plates. But that said, what
you then need to look at is how the speed of c/n in
the frame of the medium then transforms to another
frame and that is where Fizeau comes in.

George