On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

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


It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...

Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?

Yes. I have tested the postuate that light behaves ballistically in empty space
and it scores about 99 out of 100.
The postulates of GR have been tested with the doppler shift of light from a
GPS clock. It is exactly that corresponding to a light speed acceleration in
falling from 26000 kms to Earth.



Is it by computer animations like these?
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Yes. They are certainly impressive. One show quite clearly that the second
postulate requires either an absolute aether...or a bunch of very clever
fairies.


Paul



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 26, 3:26 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

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

It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...

Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?

Yes. I have tested the postuate that light behaves ballistically in empty space
and it scores about 99 out of 100.

Only an idiot like you would think experimental evidence is trumped by
worthless visual basic simulations.

[snip idiocy]

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

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

It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...
Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?

Yes. I have tested the postuate that light behaves ballistically in empty space
and it scores about 99 out of 100.
The postulates of GR have been tested with the doppler shift of light from a
GPS clock. It is exactly that corresponding to a light speed acceleration in
falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

Sure, Henri.
Your carefully designed physical experiments are published
and scrutinised by the scientific community, and it is quite
clear that they all falsify SR.

Is it by computer animations like these?
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Yes. They are certainly impressive. One show quite clearly that the second
postulate requires either an absolute aether...or a bunch of very clever
fairies.

As is obvious to a great mind like yours, a computer animation can falsify SR.
What can be clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be wrong.

Paul

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:20:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

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

It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...
Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?

Yes. I have tested the postuate that light behaves ballistically in empty space
and it scores about 99 out of 100.
The postulates of GR have been tested with the doppler shift of light from a
GPS clock. It is exactly that corresponding to a light speed acceleration in
falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

Sure, Henri.
Your carefully designed physical experiments are published
and scrutinised by the scientific community, and it is quite
clear that they all falsify SR.

Is it by computer animations like these?
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Yes. They are certainly impressive. One show quite clearly that the second
postulate requires either an absolute aether...or a bunch of very clever
fairies.

As is obvious to a great mind like yours, a computer animation can falsify SR.
What can be clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be wrong.

How do YOU explain this star curve:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
(Number 7).

It provides proof that I am correct.


Paul



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 wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:20:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...
Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?
Yes. I have tested the postuate that light behaves ballistically in empty space
and it scores about 99 out of 100.
The postulates of GR have been tested with the doppler shift of light from a
GPS clock. It is exactly that corresponding to a light speed acceleration in
falling from 26000 kms to Earth.
Sure, Henri.
Your carefully designed physical experiments are published
and scrutinised by the scientific community, and it is quite
clear that they all falsify SR.

Is it by computer animations like these?
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Yes. They are certainly impressive. One show quite clearly that the second
postulate requires either an absolute aether...or a bunch of very clever
fairies.
As is obvious to a great mind like yours, a computer animation can falsify SR.
What can be clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be wrong.

How do YOU explain this star curve:

I don't.
Nobody but an idiot like you would think that you can say anything about
what kind of star it is only from a light curve with an undefined time axis
and with no other data (spectrum!!).


http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
(Number 7).

It provides proof that I am correct.

Just because your curve drawing program can produce a similar curve? :-)

Thanks for the demonstration of your stupidity! :-)

Paul

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:42:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:20:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...
Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?
Yes. I have tested the postuate that light behaves ballistically in empty space
and it scores about 99 out of 100.
The postulates of GR have been tested with the doppler shift of light from a
GPS clock. It is exactly that corresponding to a light speed acceleration in
falling from 26000 kms to Earth.
Sure, Henri.
Your carefully designed physical experiments are published
and scrutinised by the scientific community, and it is quite
clear that they all falsify SR.

Is it by computer animations like these?
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Yes. They are certainly impressive. One show quite clearly that the second
postulate requires either an absolute aether...or a bunch of very clever
fairies.
As is obvious to a great mind like yours, a computer animation can falsify SR.
What can be clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be wrong.

How do YOU explain this star curve:

I don't.
Nobody but an idiot like you would think that you can say anything about
what kind of star it is only from a light curve with an undefined time axis
and with no other data (spectrum!!).


http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
(Number 7).

It provides proof that I am correct.

Just because your curve drawing program can produce a similar curve? :-)

Thanks for the demonstration of your stupidity! :-)

Hahahaha! Hohohohhahahahaawwhawhaw!

The point is Paul, MY PROGRAM CANNOT PRODUCE IT...AND NOR CAN HUFF PUFF THEORY

It is a genuine eclipsing cepheid....AND GUESS WHERE THE ECLIPSE OCCURS.

RIGHT AT PEAK BRIGHTNESS!!!!!!!!

When the star is furthest away, according to BaTh...

This establishes the phase relationship and shows that the brighness variation
of this star is synched to an orbit of some kind.



Paul



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, 23 Jul 2007 19:58:24 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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"

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.



I've had managers like that too :-(

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.

George, the 'spectral line' is used to synch a secondary crystal clock.
It is an easy matter to vary that synchronization.

Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

It so happens that atomic clocks change rates very slightly when placed in
free
fall.

No, you have been corrected on that many times too.
The Caesium atoms are measured in free fall in the
clock anyway, it is the gravitational _potential_
that causes the change, not the acceleration.

It is also a fact that the fractional change in signal speed as it falls
from 26000 km to Earth is exactly the same as the GR blueshift prediction.
Work
it out yourself if you don't believe me.

You have made another mistake there, although there
is a blueshift in reality, meaning that the received
frequency is higher, ballistic theory only predicts
a change in _speed_ as you say. That doesn't affect
the received _frequency_, it has the effect of
changing the wavelength.

Of course that's different from the preceding point,
the clock rate effect is cumulative while the blueshift
only affects the downlinks.

Relativists noticed that the blue shift matched the GR prediction and
naturally
jumped on the opportunity to claim this as 'evidence'.

All tests of all theories are counted as evidence, that
is th way of science. In the same way you can take the
MMX as evidence supporting ballistic theory but it is
the other long liist of evidence (Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives
and Stilwell, Fizeau, pulsars and contact binaries) that
falsify it. Any one of those is sufficient and together
it make it clear that ballistic theory is a total
non-starter.

In fact it is a BaTh
effect.

Since ballistic theory predicts no effect on frequency,
only on the speed and the wavelength as a consequence,
it proves ballistic theory wrong yet again.

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.

There is a lot of bull**** on the net.

True, but I believe the GPS story is well founded.

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.

SR clearly requires that the two beams move at c+/-v wrt the source.

Nope, SR requires that they move at c with respect to
the source.

It requires an absolute reference frame for light.
SR is just a disguised aether theory.

You understanding has never progressed beyond LET.

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.

No George, you're dreaming again...
It's perfectly obvious that in the inertial frame the beams are moving at
c+/-v
wrt the source.

No Henry, you are just having your usual trouble with
the English language. You made a claim about the
"standard expanation" (sic) and that explanation is
based in an inertial frame in which the light moves
at c. The "standard expanation" is not stated in terms
"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.

Not only was it irrelevant, it was complete bull**** as well.

It goes over your head precisely because you haven't
even learnt the meaning of standard terminology, and
given that it has been explained to you every few
posts for the last decade, it is highly unlikely you
ever will. Note that the same _terms_ are equally
valid for ballistic theory and you will need to learn
them if you are ever to start trying to turn your
nonsense into a scientific paper.

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.

The frame you are takling about is not important.
It is the light and the source that we have to consider.

The speed of _anything_ is expressed as the rate of
change of spatial coordinates with respect to the
time coordinate, or v = ds/dt. Until you define your
frame, the word speed is meaningless.

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light is assumed to move at c+/-v wrt
the
source at hte instant of emission.

Why don't you just admit it George and save further embarrassment.

Because I can do schoolboy algebra so I'm not going
to make a mistake that any 14 year-old should be able
to correct.

--- 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.

Don't try to wriggle out . We are talking about the instant of emission
George.

Well then say so instead of continually switching
around. Be specific and you won't make so many
mistakes. According to SR, at the instant of emission,
the light moves at c in the inertial frame co-moving
with the source.

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.

That's why I wrote a book on it....

Ah, so that other people will make the same mistakes
and then you'll be able to talk to them? I doesn't
work like that Henry.

You can read it if you want to learn the
basics...

Of your nonsense? No thanks, I'll stick to real
science.

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" ?

We are discussing the STANDARD SR analysis,

Yes we are, but you seem to have no appreciation
of it at all or I wouldn't have to keep correcting
your errors. Here are mo

not your interpretation.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

..even wikipedia shows the red and blue dots moving at c+-v wrt the
source.
fig 3.

Two error - first that figure does not show the Sagnac
experiment, it shows a ring laser (fig 1 is Sagnac).
Second, that graphic is not drawn "wrt the source", it
is in the lab frame and sows the sources (the grey
dots) in motion. A digram drawn "wrt the source" would
show the entire ring moving at constant velocity across
the screen and one of the grey dots would momentarily
come to rest as the combination of its motion round the
ring and the overall ring motion cancelled out. At that
instant the photons would be emitted and they would move
at c.

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.

...well start looking for that absolurte aether again George.

Speak for yourself Henry, Pythagoras is all that is
needed by those of us who understand geometry.

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.

What you believe is of no consequence here George.
...but it's quite obvious I know a lot more about it than YOU do.

It's quite obvious to everyone that you cannot do
the schollboy algebra needed to translate between
two inertial frames using the Lorentz Transforms
since you got the answer wrong repeatedly above,
we long ago established that you don't understand
calculus well enough to write down the simple
analytical solution to your ballistic theory
equations and have to use modelling to get your
answers. Those and a lot more were minimal entrance
requirements for any serious University in the 1970s
which is when you claimed to get your degree.

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 ..."

That's right, the two charges ...

Bzzzzt - you keep telling me your is a particle
theory, not pairs of particles. It is a single
particle that carries a packet of angular momentum.

spin around that axis and self propagate along
the axis in a lossless fashion.
Polarization can still occur with this model, too.

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.

In space, it is only 'partial dragging' at most.

I keep suggesting you consider quarter-wave plates.
How soon after encountering the plate does the speed
change?

In the proximity of a large
mass, I don't think a small amount of matter would 'drag' to any
significant
extent.

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.

The Shapiro effect is just a slowing of the light due to solar wind and
radiation. This is greater than the acceleration effect due to gravity.

No, it is millions of times smaller and frequency
dependent. Do the calculations.

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.

No George, you don't get the picture.

I go only on what you say Henry, and that is what you
told me, but the debate is pointless, there is _no_
threshold in your equations.

For a single orbiting stars the light ends up moving at c wrt the sphere
(and
essentially wrt the star, with maybe some phase lag and absolute
wavelength
shift)...which moves at c+vcos(xt) wrt Earth.

You can assume that it moves through empty space for the majority of its
lifetime.

No you can't because pulsar dispersion produces a
frequency-dependent delay that is proportional to
the column electron density. That means it travels
at c/n relative to the ISM for the majority of the
path, basically after it leaves the star's
heliopause (asteropause?).

Note: MY BaTh produced curves rely on the same principle that requires the
two
sagnac rays to move at c+/-v wrt the source, in the standard SR
explanation.

Then it is wrong on both counts.

George

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

No, I said "an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission".
Check the quote which is still at the top of this post.

The key words there which you have yet again deleted
in attempting to falsify the record are "inertial" and
"momentarily". Your attempt to edit it to make it look
as though I was talking about a frame _permanently_
fixed to the source, which would NOT be inertial is just
another example of how you lie to cover up your inability
to understand this subject.

That is the same as the SOURCE at the instant of emission.

Sorry Henry, you have been exposed again. The source
is accelerating at the instant of emission, the frame
is not. However, it is a fine distinction since the
light is emitted at the origin of both frames and
speed discrepancies are proportional to the radial
distance, in both frames the instantaneous speed at
the moment of emission is c.

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

Shouting statements that are false only makes you
look more of a crank than stating them quietly and
having them pointed out politely as being wrong.
The light moves at c in the frame I defined which is
what "wrt the source" means, and also _momentarily_
moves at c in the alternative frame that you tried
to substitute for what I actually said.

George

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:58:24 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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"

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.



I've had managers like that too :-(

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.

George, the 'spectral line' is used to synch a secondary crystal clock.
It is an easy matter to vary that synchronization.

Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It so happens that atomic clocks change rates very slightly when placed in
free
fall.

No, you have been corrected on that many times too.
The Caesium atoms are measured in free fall in the
clock anyway, it is the gravitational _potential_
that causes the change, not the acceleration.

It's the state of free fall. All clocks in free fall show the same shift.

It is also a fact that the fractional change in signal speed as it falls
from 26000 km to Earth is exactly the same as the GR blueshift prediction.
Work
it out yourself if you don't believe me.

You have made another mistake there, although there
is a blueshift in reality, meaning that the received
frequency is higher, ballistic theory only predicts
a change in _speed_ as you say. That doesn't affect
the received _frequency_, it has the effect of
changing the wavelength.

That's right.....see my fallingwave.exe demo. ....but GPS signals from
different clocks are compared via their phasing. A shift in wavelength will
cause an error.

Of course that's different from the preceding point,
the clock rate effect is cumulative while the blueshift
only affects the downlinks.

That's correct. However the photons that make up the clock signals will
themselves be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c, due to their speed increase.

Relativists noticed that the blue shift matched the GR prediction and
naturally
jumped on the opportunity to claim this as 'evidence'.

All tests of all theories are counted as evidence, that
is th way of science. In the same way you can take the
MMX as evidence supporting ballistic theory but it is
the other long liist of evidence (Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives
and Stilwell, Fizeau, pulsars and contact binaries) that
falsify it. Any one of those is sufficient and together
it make it clear that ballistic theory is a total
non-starter.

George, the same argument you are using to try to explain Sagnac forms the
basis of my variable stars program. You say the rays move at c wrt the source
even though it is obvious they move at c+/-v wrt the source when viewed in the
lab frame. This is all I need to produce these curves.

In fact it is a BaTh
effect.

Since ballistic theory predicts no effect on frequency,
only on the speed and the wavelength as a consequence,
it proves ballistic theory wrong yet again.

The only test done in the 1970's was very inaccurate. It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Nobody making or using GPS bothers with the 'GR correction'. Only desperate
relativists make an issue of it. Contrary to what Paul Andersen has always
claimed, the clocks are corrected after launch, using the method you described
above.

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.

There is a lot of bull**** on the net.

True, but I believe the GPS story is well founded.

Naturally you would...It's about the only argument you have left...


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

Clueless as always Henry.

SR clearly requires that the two beams move at c+/-v wrt the source.

Nope, SR requires that they move at c with respect to
the source.

It might REQUIRE it George..but the diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt
the source.

So Sagnac disproves SR.

It requires an absolute reference frame for light.
SR is just a disguised aether theory.

You understanding has never progressed beyond LET.

At least LET is logically consistent and would make some sense...if an aether
existed.
My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
shows how stupid the second postulate actually is.


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

No George, you're dreaming again...
It's perfectly obvious that in the inertial frame the beams are moving at
c+/-v
wrt the source.

No Henry, you are just having your usual trouble with
the English language. You made a claim about the
"standard expanation" (sic) and that explanation is
based in an inertial frame in which the light moves
at c. The "standard expanation" is not stated in terms
"wrt the source".

I dont care how it's STATED. It is drawn with the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source. Accept it George. It is obvious.


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.

Not only was it irrelevant, it was complete bull**** as well.

It goes over your head precisely because you haven't
even learnt the meaning of standard terminology, and
given that it has been explained to you every few
posts for the last decade, it is highly unlikely you
ever will. Note that the same _terms_ are equally
valid for ballistic theory and you will need to learn
them if you are ever to start trying to turn your
nonsense into a scientific paper.

George I know perfectly well what a 'frame' is. You use of the 'inertial frame
moving with the source at the instant of emission' is just a pathetic ploy,
intended to stall for time and confuse. It failed miserably.



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.

The frame you are takling about is not important.
It is the light and the source that we have to consider.

The speed of _anything_ is expressed as the rate of
change of spatial coordinates with respect to the
time coordinate, or v = ds/dt. Until you define your
frame, the word speed is meaningless.

George, I HAVE always associated speeds with reference frames....which is more
than I can say for your relativist colleagues. In sagnac, the rays move at
c+/-v wrt the source, as viewed in the LAB FRAME.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BEFORE THEY SINK IN GEORGE?

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light is assumed to move at c+/-v wrt
the
source at hte instant of emission.

Why don't you just admit it George and save further embarrassment.

Because I can do schoolboy algebra so I'm not going
to make a mistake that any 14 year-old should be able
to correct.

Schoolboy algebra is all one needs to see that the standard sagnac diagram has
the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.


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.

Don't try to wriggle out . We are talking about the instant of emission
George.

Well then say so instead of continually switching
around. Be specific and you won't make so many
mistakes. According to SR, at the instant of emission,
the light moves at c in the inertial frame co-moving
with the source.

I don't care WHAT SR SAYS. The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source and therefore not only reveals SR as the farce it is but also proves its
second postulate wrong.

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.

That's why I wrote a book on it....

Ah, so that other people will make the same mistakes
and then you'll be able to talk to them? I doesn't
work like that Henry.

George, you are starting to sound like a beaten man...You sacred cow, Sagnac,
has proved SR wrong.


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" ?

We are discussing the STANDARD SR analysis,

Yes we are, but you seem to have no appreciation
of it at all or I wouldn't have to keep correcting
your errors. Here are mo

not your interpretation.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

..even wikipedia shows the red and blue dots moving at c+-v wrt the
source.
fig 3.

Two error - first that figure does not show the Sagnac
experiment, it shows a ring laser (fig 1 is Sagnac).
Second, that graphic is not drawn "wrt the source", it
is in the lab frame and sows the sources (the grey
dots) in motion. A digram drawn "wrt the source" would
show the entire ring moving at constant velocity across
the screen and one of the grey dots would momentarily
come to rest as the combination of its motion round the
ring and the overall ring motion cancelled out. At that
instant the photons would be emitted and they would move
at c.

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source and therefore not
only reveals SR as the farce it is but also proves its second postulate wrong.

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.

...well start looking for that absolurte aether again George.

Speak for yourself Henry, Pythagoras is all that is
needed by those of us who understand geometry.

You and Einstein understand geometry so well you think a vertical light beam
appears diagonal in a moving frame.
That's how stupid all of you relativists are. ..even aetherists fall into the
same trap.



What you believe is of no consequence here George.
...but it's quite obvious I know a lot more about it than YOU do.

It's quite obvious to everyone that you cannot do
the schollboy algebra needed to translate between
two inertial frames using the Lorentz Transforms
since you got the answer wrong repeatedly above,
we long ago established that you don't understand
calculus well enough to write down the simple
analytical solution to your ballistic theory
equations and have to use modelling to get your
answers. Those and a lot more were minimal entrance
requirements for any serious University in the 1970s
which is when you claimed to get your degree.

Lorentz transforms are bull****. They wont change the fact that the Sagnac
diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source and therefore not only
reveals SR as the farce it is but also proves its second postulate wrong.


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

That's right, the two charges ...

Bzzzzt - you keep telling me your is a particle
theory, not pairs of particles. It is a single
particle that carries a packet of angular momentum.

Something like that.



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

Well now you know.

In space, it is only 'partial dragging' at most.

I keep suggesting you consider quarter-wave plates.
How soon after encountering the plate does the speed
change?

I haven't really looked at the inplications of 1/4 wave plates for BaTh. ..but
I will one day. No doubt there is a simple explanation.

....Why are you changing the subject George? Trying to divert attention again?


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

The Shapiro effect is just a slowing of the light due to solar wind and
radiation. This is greater than the acceleration effect due to gravity.

No, it is millions of times smaller and frequency
dependent. Do the calculations.

There is another much larger effect involving photon interaction, not known at
this stage.


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.

No George, you don't get the picture.

I go only on what you say Henry, and that is what you
told me, but the debate is pointless, there is _no_
threshold in your equations.

I don't have to use equations. The computer does the calculations and allows me
to study 'trends'.

For a single orbiting stars the light ends up moving at c wrt the sphere
(and
essentially wrt the star, with maybe some phase lag and absolute
wavelength
shift)...which moves at c+vcos(xt) wrt Earth.

You can assume that it moves through empty space for the majority of its
lifetime.

No you can't because pulsar dispersion produces a
frequency-dependent delay that is proportional to
the column electron density. That means it travels
at c/n relative to the ISM for the majority of the
path, basically after it leaves the star's
heliopause (asteropause?).

Yes maybe...but that is a much smaller effect than the 'sphere' around the
source star.
It is however large enough to contribute to the galactic redshift.


Note: MY BaTh produced curves rely on the same principle that requires the
two
sagnac rays to move at c+/-v wrt the source, in the standard SR
explanation.

Then it is wrong on both counts.

Come on George, be a man and admit it. The standard Sagnac diagram shows the
rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source and therefore not only reveals SR as the
farce it is but also proves its second postulate wrong.

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 Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:33:10 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

No, I said "an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission".
Check the quote which is still at the top of this post.

Why don't you just use THE SOURCE instead of trying to look intelligent. It is
the same thing.

The key words there which you have yet again deleted
in attempting to falsify the record are "inertial" and
"momentarily". Your attempt to edit it to make it look
as though I was talking about a frame _permanently_
fixed to the source, which would NOT be inertial is just
another example of how you lie to cover up your inability
to understand this subject.

That is the same as the SOURCE at the instant of emission.

Sorry Henry, you have been exposed again. The source
is accelerating at the instant of emission, the frame
is not. However, it is a fine distinction since the
light is emitted at the origin of both frames and
speed discrepancies are proportional to the radial
distance, in both frames the instantaneous speed at
the moment of emission is c.

So since GPS clocks are not inertial, your claims about the 'GR correction' are
also complete bull****.

Gord! the hypocrisy of relativists..............!

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

Shouting statements that are false only makes you
look more of a crank than stating them quietly and
having them pointed out politely as being wrong.
The light moves at c in the frame I defined which is
what "wrt the source" means, and also _momentarily_
moves at c in the alternative frame that you tried
to substitute for what I actually said.

George, in the diagram, there is no indication that this is so and it is quite
irelevant anyway. You are merely quoting a stupid, illogical and unproven
postulate.
The diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source and therefore
not only reveals SR as the farce it is but also proves its second postulate
wrong.


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.