On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:20:21 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"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.

George, Einstein's relativity has no practical significance...nor has it ever
been required in engineering.

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.

So what?
The only frame that matters is the nonrotating one. In that, the rays move at
c+v wrt the source.
Don't ry to deny it George...

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.

I'm assumoing nothiong. I merely stating what's in the standard SR explanation
of sagnac, It requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source.
It is clearly based on aether theory...on the existence of an absolute
nonrotating frame.



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.

YOU work it out...

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?

....as if YOU do.....


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.

What does 'spin' mean George?


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.

there is no 'drag' involved in my theory.

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.

I'm not going to try to apply the BaTh in situations where a medium is
involved.
It only applies 100% in space that it below the WDT.

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.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:20:21 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:59:33 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:52:51 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

George, Einstein's relativity has no practical significance...nor has it
ever
been required in engineering.

Of course it is Henry, that's why the atomic clocks
in GPS satellites have special circuits built is to
modify the frequency, and iFog's and laser gyros
wouldn't work at all unless SR was right, there would
be no fringe shifts at all if ballistic theroy was
correct.

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.

So what?

So by now you should have learned what the terminology
means, I shouldn't have to teach you the same thing
over and over again after a decade.

The only frame that matters is the nonrotating one. In that, the rays move
at
c+v wrt the source.

In an inertial frame with the axle at rest, the
light moves at c, and as I said above 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.

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.

I'm assumoing nothiong.

To get from one frame to any other requires a
transform. To get from c in the lab frame to c+v
in the 'source' frame (by which I mean non-rotating
inertial and momentarily co-moving with the source
at the time of emission), you require the Galilean
Transforms. You have not deduced it from the
experimental results so it is an assumption.

I merely stating what's in the standard SR explanation
of sagnac,

No, you are merely demonstrating how someone with no
knowledge of SR would get it wrong.

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.

YOU work it out...

Easy, the modulation moves at c and is carried by
the light which must be moving at the same speed,
thus proving Einstein's postulate.

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?

...as if YOU do.....

You forget I actually got my degree in physics
while you only faked yours. It describes the
relationship between the propagation vector
and the angular momentum. See below ...

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.

What does 'spin' mean George?

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm

In particular:

"Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1
particles), but since photons travel at the
speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always
parallel to its direction of motion, pointing
either forward or backward. These two states
correspond to left-handed and right-handed
photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an
object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or
-h/2p is imparted to the object."

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.

there is no 'drag' involved in my theory.

You often said the medium (ISM or whatever) could
have different motions along the light path, and
since the equilibrium speed is c/n relative to that
local medium, the motion of the medium affects the
speed of the light.

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.

I'm not going to try to apply the BaTh in situations where a medium is
involved.

But that's exactly what you are doing Henry, what
do you think your "spheres" represent.

It only applies 100% in space that it below the WDT.

There is no "WDT" in your equations Henry, c+v applies
at all times. The effect of density shows up only in
the equation I added, dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R because the
characteristic distance R depends on charge density.

George

Henry replied to George:

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'.

A wheel rolling on a flat surface is rotating. At any
given instant, every point on the circumference of the
wheel is moving in a different direction from all the
other points. The point of contact between the wheel
and the surface is where the circumference of the wheel
is co-moving with the inertial (non-rotating) frame of
the surface.

No physics involved. Just ordinary Euclidean geometry.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:11:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:20:21 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

George, Einstein's relativity has no practical significance...nor has it
ever
been required in engineering.

Of course it is Henry, that's why the atomic clocks
in GPS satellites have special circuits built is to
modify the frequency,

AH! This is new!
Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify GPS clock
rates. I will quote you on this one too, George.

and iFog's and laser gyros
wouldn't work at all unless SR was right, there would
be no fringe shifts at all if ballistic theroy was
correct.

They wouldn't work if SR was right and both beams moved at c wrt the source.
The standard expanation requires that one beam moves at c+v and the other at
c-v wrt the source AS SEEN IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. Have a look for yourself.



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.

So what?

So by now you should have learned what the terminology
means, I shouldn't have to teach you the same thing
over and over again after a decade.

The only frame that matters is the nonrotating one. In that, the rays move
at
c+v wrt the source.

In an inertial frame with the axle at rest, the
light moves at c, and as I said above 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.

That's irrelevant ....and not what the standard analysis uses.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v at the instant of emission in
the frame co-moving with the source.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!


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

I'm assumoing nothiong.

To get from one frame to any other requires a
transform. To get from c in the lab frame to c+v
in the 'source' frame (by which I mean non-rotating
inertial and momentarily co-moving with the source
at the time of emission), you require the Galilean
Transforms. You have not deduced it from the
experimental results so it is an assumption.

What's this bull**** about the 'frame co-moving with the source'.

Why don't you just say 'THE SOURCE'? --- it's the same thing --- and admit that
the rays move at c+v wrt it.


I merely stating what's in the standard SR explanation
of sagnac,

No, you are merely demonstrating how someone with no
knowledge of SR would get it wrong.

Your use of 'frames and transforms' doesn't fool me George.
The rays clearly move at c+v wrt the source.

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.

YOU work it out...

Easy, the modulation moves at c and is carried by
the light which must be moving at the same speed,
thus proving Einstein's postulate.

....both move at c+v wrt the source...


Polarisation wont affect my argument.

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

...as if YOU do.....

You forget I actually got my degree in physics
while you only faked yours. It describes the
relationship between the propagation vector
and the angular momentum. See below ...

Yes of course mine are faked...
I actually have a Dsc.

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

What does 'spin' mean George?

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm

In particular:

"Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1
particles), but since photons travel at the
speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always
parallel to its direction of motion, pointing
either forward or backward. These two states
correspond to left-handed and right-handed
photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an
object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or
-h/2p is imparted to the object."

..... which supports my 'spinning charge' or 'spinning quark' photon model
perfectly.



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.

there is no 'drag' involved in my theory.

You often said the medium (ISM or whatever) could
have different motions along the light path, and
since the equilibrium speed is c/n relative to that
local medium, the motion of the medium affects the
speed of the light.

that's right...but I have never really considered 'dragging'.

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.

I'm not going to try to apply the BaTh in situations where a medium is
involved.

But that's exactly what you are doing Henry, what
do you think your "spheres" represent.

I don't regard them as ordinary matter. ..but, yes, they probably behave
somewhat like a medium.

It only applies 100% in space that it below the WDT.

There is no "WDT" in your equations Henry, c+v applies
at all times. The effect of density shows up only in
the equation I added, dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R because the
characteristic distance R depends on charge density.

WDT exists outside the star's sphere.

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, 22 Jul 2007 13:10:36 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:


Henry replied to George:

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'.

A wheel rolling on a flat surface is rotating. At any
given instant, every point on the circumference of the
wheel is moving in a different direction from all the
other points. The point of contact between the wheel
and the surface is where the circumference of the wheel
is co-moving with the inertial (non-rotating) frame of
the surface.

No physics involved. Just ordinary Euclidean geometry.

......not relevant to Sagnac.

George is merely trying to appear to have some kind of argument by clouding the
issue with a totally unnecessary frame.

The 'frame co-moving wth the source is no different from THE SOURCE itself'

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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 Jul 22, 7:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:11:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:





"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:20:21 +0100, "George Dishman"
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.

George, Einstein's relativity has no practical significance...nor has it
ever
been required in engineering.

Of course it is Henry, that's why the atomic clocks
in GPS satellites have special circuits built is to
modify the frequency,

AH! This is new!
Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify GPS clock
rates. I will quote you on this one too, George.

and iFog's and laser gyros
wouldn't work at all unless SR was right, there would
be no fringe shifts at all if ballistic theroy was
correct.

They wouldn't work if SR was right and both beams moved at c wrt the source.
The standard expanation requires that one beam moves at c+v and the other at
c-v wrt the source AS SEEN IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. Have a look for yourself.



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.

So what?

So by now you should have learned what the terminology
means, I shouldn't have to teach you the same thing
over and over again after a decade.

The only frame that matters is the nonrotating one. In that, the rays move
at
c+v wrt the source.

In an inertial frame with the axle at rest, the
light moves at c, and as I said above 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.

That's irrelevant ....and not what the standard analysis uses.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v at the instant of emission in
the frame co-moving with the source.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!

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

I'm assumoing nothiong.

To get from one frame to any other requires a
transform. To get from c in the lab frame to c+v
in the 'source' frame (by which I mean non-rotating
inertial and momentarily co-moving with the source
at the time of emission), you require the Galilean
Transforms. You have not deduced it from the
experimental results so it is an assumption.

What's this bull**** about the 'frame co-moving with the source'.

That's the frame of reference in which the source is at rest.


Why don't you just say 'THE SOURCE'? --- it's the same thing

Probably because it isn't the same thing.

--- and admit that
the rays move at c+v wrt it.

Probably because that would be "admitting" to a falsehood, a
thing which is demonstrably not true. Why don't you "admit"
you're the queen of England?

- Randy

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:41:34 -0700, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 22, 7:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:11:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:



AH! This is new!
Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify GPS clock
rates. I will quote you on this one too, George.

and iFog's and laser gyros
wouldn't work at all unless SR was right, there would
be no fringe shifts at all if ballistic theroy was
correct.

They wouldn't work if SR was right and both beams moved at c wrt the source.
The standard expanation requires that one beam moves at c+v and the other at
c-v wrt the source AS SEEN IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. Have a look for yourself.



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.

So what?

So by now you should have learned what the terminology
means, I shouldn't have to teach you the same thing
over and over again after a decade.

The only frame that matters is the nonrotating one. In that, the rays move
at
c+v wrt the source.

In an inertial frame with the axle at rest, the
light moves at c, and as I said above 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.

That's irrelevant ....and not what the standard analysis uses.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v at the instant of emission in
the frame co-moving with the source.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!

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

I'm assumoing nothiong.

To get from one frame to any other requires a
transform. To get from c in the lab frame to c+v
in the 'source' frame (by which I mean non-rotating
inertial and momentarily co-moving with the source
at the time of emission), you require the Galilean
Transforms. You have not deduced it from the
experimental results so it is an assumption.

What's this bull**** about the 'frame co-moving with the source'.

That's the frame of reference in which the source is at rest.


Why don't you just say 'THE SOURCE'? --- it's the same thing

Probably because it isn't the same thing.

--- and admit that
the rays move at c+v wrt it.

Probably because that would be "admitting" to a falsehood, a
thing which is demonstrably not true. Why don't you "admit"
you're the queen of England?

No wonder your nickname is 'Blind Poe'.

You really haven't a clue....


- Randy



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, 22 Jul 2007 13:10:36 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:
Henry replied to George:

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'.

A wheel rolling on a flat surface is rotating. At any
given instant, every point on the circumference of the
wheel is moving in a different direction from all the
other points. The point of contact between the wheel
and the surface is where the circumference of the wheel
is co-moving with the inertial (non-rotating) frame of
the surface.

No physics involved. Just ordinary Euclidean geometry.

.....not relevant to Sagnac.

Perfectly relevant, it is _exactly_ what the
phrase means.

The 'frame co-moving wth the source is no different from THE SOURCE
itself'

The source is accelerating, the frame isn't.

George

Follow-ups set to exclude off-topic groups.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:11:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:20:21 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

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

George, Einstein's relativity has no practical significance...nor has it
ever
been required in engineering.

Of course it is Henry, that's why the atomic clocks
in GPS satellites have special circuits built is to
modify the frequency,

AH! This is new!

No it isn't, you've been told about it for a decade.
The story is that some non-technical guys were sceptical
so the first satellites were launched with the circuit
switched off. When the frequency was in error by exactly
the amount GR predicted, they switched it on and the error
was cancelled out.

Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify GPS
clock
rates.

Correct, the clock rates are simply a spectral line
so you can't alter them. That's the precise reason
why atomic clocks are so effective, they are virtually
unaffected by local environmental conditions. What you
do is put a frequency changing circuit after the clock.

I will quote you on this one too, George.

Feel free, the story might be apocryphal but you'll
find it all over the net.

and iFog's and laser gyros
wouldn't work at all unless SR was right, there would
be no fringe shifts at all if ballistic theroy was
correct.

They wouldn't work if SR was right and both beams moved at c wrt the
source.

Clueless as always Henry.

The standard expanation requires that one beam moves at c+v and the other
at
c-v wrt the source AS SEEN IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. Have a look for
yourself.

The standard explanation is that the beams both move
at c in the inertial frame exactly as SR says.

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.

So what?

So by now you should have learned what the terminology
means, I shouldn't have to teach you the same thing
over and over again after a decade.

The only frame that matters is the nonrotating one. In that, the rays
move
at c+v wrt the source.

In an inertial frame with the axle at rest, the
light moves at c, and as I said above 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.

That's irrelevant ....

No, it is highly relevant, if you don't learn what
these simple phrases mean, you are never going to
be able to hold a coherent conversation with
anyone.

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

I'm assumoing nothiong.

To get from one frame to any other requires a
transform. To get from c in the lab frame to c+v
in the 'source' frame (by which I mean non-rotating
inertial and momentarily co-moving with the source
at the time of emission), you require the Galilean
Transforms. You have not deduced it from the
experimental results so it is an assumption.

What's this bull**** about the 'frame co-moving with the source'.

Read the explanation above or the one Jeff gave
you. Until you learn to read with understanding,
these conversations will go right over your head.

Why don't you just say 'THE SOURCE'?

Because "the source" isn't not a frame, and a
frame attached to the source would not be inertial.

--- it's the same thing --- and admit that
the rays move at c+v wrt it.

They don't, they move in a cycloid path or a spiral
path depending on whether you mean a rotating or
non-rotating source frame. The speed isn't even
constant in either. See below.

I merely stating what's in the standard SR explanation
of sagnac,

No, you are merely demonstrating how someone with no
knowledge of SR would get it wrong.

Your use of 'frames and transforms' doesn't fool me George.

Most basic physics fools you Henry.

The rays clearly move at c+v wrt the source.

This isn't quite the Sagnac setup, the light is
emitted tangentially from the edge of the wheel
but it's one I drew months ago and I can't be
bothered illustrating the obvious. It shows some
of the frames we are discussing, so in which of
the two "source" frames do you think the speed is
"clearly" a nice, simple, constant "c+v" ?

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/SagFrame3.html

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.

YOU work it out...

Easy, the modulation moves at c and is carried by
the light which must be moving at the same speed,
thus proving Einstein's postulate.

...both move at c+v wrt the source...

The resultant output signal proves the modulation
moves at c relative to the inertial "lab" frame.

Polarisation wont affect my argument.

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

...as if YOU do.....

You forget I actually got my degree in physics
while you only faked yours. It describes the
relationship between the propagation vector
and the angular momentum. See below ...

Yes of course mine are faked...
I actually have a Dsc.

I don't care if you have a BMX, you certainly didn't
pass a physics course.

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

What does 'spin' mean George?

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm

In particular:

"Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1
particles), but since photons travel at the
speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always
parallel to its direction of motion, pointing
either forward or backward. These two states
correspond to left-handed and right-handed
photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an
object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or
-h/2p is imparted to the object."

.... which supports my 'spinning charge' or 'spinning quark' photon model
perfectly.

Nope, note "... the "spin axis" of a photon is
always parallel to its direction of motion ..."

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.

there is no 'drag' involved in my theory.

You often said the medium (ISM or whatever) could
have different motions along the light path, and
since the equilibrium speed is c/n relative to that
local medium, the motion of the medium affects the
speed of the light.

that's right...but I have never really considered 'dragging'.

Well now you know.

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.

I'm not going to try to apply the BaTh in situations where a medium is
involved.

But that's exactly what you are doing Henry, what
do you think your "spheres" represent.

I don't regard them as ordinary matter. ..but, yes, they probably behave
somewhat like a medium.

Gravity is already accounted for in the Shapiro
effect, bending and blue shift. All that remains
is the particle interactions.

It only applies 100% in space that it below the WDT.

There is no "WDT" in your equations Henry, c+v applies
at all times. The effect of density shows up only in
the equation I added, dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R because the
characteristic distance R depends on charge density.

WDT exists outside the star's sphere.

You previously said it was much less than the ISM
density and perhaps even less than the IGM, but
regardless of that, there is no threshold in your
equations, they apply at all densities.

George

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:23:25 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:10:36 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:
Henry replied to George:

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'.

A wheel rolling on a flat surface is rotating. At any
given instant, every point on the circumference of the
wheel is moving in a different direction from all the
other points. The point of contact between the wheel
and the surface is where the circumference of the wheel
is co-moving with the inertial (non-rotating) frame of
the surface.

No physics involved. Just ordinary Euclidean geometry.

.....not relevant to Sagnac.

Perfectly relevant, it is _exactly_ what the
phrase means.

The 'frame co-moving wth the source is no different from THE SOURCE
itself'

The source is accelerating, the frame isn't.

You said the frame comoving at the INSTANT of emission.
That is the same as the SOURCE at the instant of emission.

FRAMES OR NO FRAMES, THE SR EXPLANATION OF SAGNAC CLEARLY RELIES ON THE TWO
BEAMS MOVING AT C+/-V WRT THE SOURCE.


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.