"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 3:18 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in
messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00elqsdmklvkc6tfca898@4ax .com...

How is it that every known experiment supports BaTh?

It doesn't

It wasn't so long ago that Henri was claiming that BaTh
effects are visible only in variable light curves, that
unification and mysterious "fields" would prevent BaTh
effects from ever being observable in laboratory
experiments. He has completely contradicted his earlier
writings on the subject.

Henri is not quite as bad as the White Queen, who practiced
believing impossible things for half-an-hour each day, and
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
But he's close...

Jerry

You can beat that though, you believe 'we establish by definition
that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A' and all the crap that follows from it.
Not even the Mad Hatter's dormouse is quite that stupid.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:31:52 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Jan 4, 3:18*am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00elqsdmklvkc6tfca898@4ax .com...

How is it that every known experiment supports BaTh?

It doesn't

It wasn't so long ago that Henri was claiming that BaTh
effects are visible only in variable light curves, that
unification and mysterious "fields" would prevent BaTh
effects from ever being observable in laboratory
experiments. He has completely contradicted his earlier
writings on the subject.

BaTh effects, including extinction, are observed everywhere at all times.

The Sagnac analysis boils down to this:

Two identical oscillators move towards an observer after starting at different
distances from it. Both SR and Bath agree that the path lengths are different.

SR:
O---------------------------------------------------c-A--------------c-B
The signals from both oscillators move at c towards O and therefore do not
arrive simultaneously. O sees a phase difference between the incoming signals.

BaTh:
O ------------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B

The oscillators and their signals move at different speeds towards O causing
their frequencies to appear doppler shifted (in opposite sense). Both travel
for the same time and reach S simultaneously. O counts more cycles from B than
from A.... resulting in a phase difference.

Jerry

Jerry's mistakes have resulted from a pathetic attempt to use the rotating
frame...without recognizing its 'imaginary' quantities.

According to Jerry's logic, the sun definitely moves around the flat Earth,
once every 24 hours.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Jan 4, 3:00*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:31:52 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Jan 4, 3:18*am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00elqsdmklvkc6tfca898@4ax .com...

How is it that every known experiment supports BaTh?

It doesn't

It wasn't so long ago that Henri was claiming that BaTh
effects are visible only in variable light curves, that
unification and mysterious "fields" would prevent BaTh
effects from ever being observable in laboratory
experiments. He has completely contradicted his earlier
writings on the subject.

BaTh effects, including extinction, are observed everywhere at all times.

The Sagnac analysis boils down to this:

Two identical oscillators move towards an observer after starting at different
distances from it. Both SR and Bath agree that the path lengths are different.

SR:
O---------------------------------------------------c-A--------------c-B
The signals from both oscillators move at c towards O and therefore do not
arrive simultaneously. O sees a phase difference between the incoming signals.

BaTh:
O ------------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B

The oscillators and their signals move at different speeds towards O causing
their frequencies to appear doppler shifted (in opposite sense). Both travel
for the same time and reach S simultaneously. O counts more cycles from B than
from A.... resulting in a phase difference.

Jerry

Jerry's mistakes have resulted from a pathetic attempt to use the rotating
frame...without recognizing its 'imaginary' quantities.

According to Jerry's logic, the sun definitely moves around the flat Earth,
once every 24 hours.

Your illustration of your own "rayphases" is incorrect.
What you really show in your silly cartoon is this:
1) Observers O an O' start off the same distance from source S
as viewed along the leftward and rightward paths
2) Viewed along the leftward path, O is moving at speed v away
from the source. Viewed along the rightward path, O' is moving
at speed v towards the source.
3) Moving source S emits a correlated pair of photons to the left
and right.
4) Viewed in the stationary frame, the left photon travels at
speed c+v, has wavelength w, and has frequency (c+v)/w
5) Viewed in the stationary frame, the right photon travels at
speed c-v, has wavelength w, and has frequency (c-v)/w
6) The left and right photons take the same time to travel from
S to O and O'.
7) Because of their different frequencies, the correlated pair
of photons arrive at O and O' with different phases.
8) You have invented a means for determining motion in absolute
space, denying well over a century of experimentation.

v--O (c+v),w,(c+v)/w--S--(c-v),w,(c-v)/w v--O'

Jerry
Henri Wilson's Lies
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...enri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/oh_dear.htm

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
Henri is not quite as bad as the White Queen, who practiced
believing impossible things for half-an-hour each day, and
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Hehehe

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:31:52 -0800 (PST), Jerry

wrote:

On Jan 4, 3:18 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in
messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00elqsdmklvkc6tfca898@4ax .com...

How is it that every known experiment supports BaTh?

It doesn't

It wasn't so long ago that Henri was claiming that BaTh
effects are visible only in variable light curves, that
unification and mysterious "fields" would prevent BaTh
effects from ever being observable in laboratory
experiments. He has completely contradicted his earlier
writings on the subject.

BaTh effects, including extinction, are observed everywhere at all times.

The Sagnac analysis boils down to this:

This should be humorous

Two identical oscillators move towards an observer after starting at
different
distances from it.

They start at the same place, and so are the same distance from it .. but
they take different paths at different speeds.

So you think of a photon as a moving oscillator. A bit like a spinning
wheel being shotfrom a cannon, or a frisbee being thrown?

Both SR and Bath agree that the path lengths are different.

In the inertial non-rotating frame .. of course they do. nothing
earth-shattering there

SR:
O---------------------------------------------------c-A--------------c-B
The signals from both oscillators move at c towards O and therefore do not
arrive simultaneously. O sees a phase difference between the incoming
signals.

Yeup .. nice and simple

BaTh:
O ------------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B

not quite .. you show that O is stationary .. it is not.

O (v)----------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B


The oscillators and their signals move at different speeds towards O
causing
their frequencies to appear doppler shifted (in opposite sense).

Of course, as there is noone in the epxierment observing them at rest in the
inertial frame, that is irrelevant. What matters is the speed of the
detector (or rather, where the beams rejoin) and the relative speed and
frequency of the light that arrives

Both travel
for the same time and reach S simultaneously.

I think you mean O .. and yes .. in BaTH the arrive at the same time .. and
when you doppler shift them to account to the speed of the detector, they
have the same frequency, the same speed and the same phase.

O counts more cycles from B than
from A.... resulting in a phase difference.

No .. it doesn't .. because O is moving and so the fequency of the light
from both sources arriving at O is the same .. same frequency over the same
tiem means the same number of cycles .. so no shift

Jerry
Jerry's mistakes have resulted from a pathetic attempt to use the rotating
frame...without recognizing its 'imaginary' quantities.
According to Jerry's logic, the sun definitely moves around the flat
Earth,
once every 24 hours.

Don't lie, you already look like a fool without being a dishonest one

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:51:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

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


The Sagnac analysis boils down to this:

This should be humorous

Two identical oscillators move towards an observer after starting at
different
distances from it.

They start at the same place, and so are the same distance from it .. but
they take different paths at different speeds.

So you think of a photon as a moving oscillator. A bit like a spinning
wheel being shotfrom a cannon, or a frisbee being thrown?

Both SR and Bath agree that the path lengths are different.

In the inertial non-rotating frame .. of course they do. nothing
earth-shattering there

SR:
O---------------------------------------------------c-A--------------c-B
The signals from both oscillators move at c towards O and therefore do not
arrive simultaneously. O sees a phase difference between the incoming
signals.

Yeup .. nice and simple

BaTh:
O ------------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B

not quite .. you show that O is stationary .. it is not.

It's exactly the same as the SR one, you ****ing dope.


O (v)----------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B


The oscillators and their signals move at different speeds towards O
causing
their frequencies to appear doppler shifted (in opposite sense).

Of course, as there is noone in the epxierment observing them at rest in the
inertial frame, that is irrelevant. What matters is the speed of the
detector (or rather, where the beams rejoin) and the relative speed and
frequency of the light that arrives

Both travel
for the same time and reach S simultaneously.

I think you mean O .. and yes .. in BaTH the arrive at the same time .. and
when you doppler shift them to account to the speed of the detector, they
have the same frequency, the same speed and the same phase.

O counts more cycles from B than
from A.... resulting in a phase difference.

No .. it doesn't .. because O is moving and so the fequency of the light
from both sources arriving at O is the same .. same frequency over the same
tiem means the same number of cycles .. so no shift

Jerry
Jerry's mistakes have resulted from a pathetic attempt to use the rotating
frame...without recognizing its 'imaginary' quantities.
According to Jerry's logic, the sun definitely moves around the flat
Earth,
once every 24 hours.

Don't lie, you already look like a fool without being a dishonest one




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:51:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

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


The Sagnac analysis boils down to this:

This should be humorous

Two identical oscillators move towards an observer after starting at
different
distances from it.

They start at the same place, and so are the same distance from it .. but
they take different paths at different speeds.

So you think of a photon as a moving oscillator. A bit like a spinning
wheel being shotfrom a cannon, or a frisbee being thrown?

Both SR and Bath agree that the path lengths are different.

In the inertial non-rotating frame .. of course they do. nothing
earth-shattering there

SR:
O---------------------------------------------------c-A--------------c-B
The signals from both oscillators move at c towards O and therefore do
not
arrive simultaneously. O sees a phase difference between the incoming
signals.

Yeup .. nice and simple

BaTh:
O ------------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B

not quite .. you show that O is stationary .. it is not.
It's exactly the same as the SR one, you ****ing dope.

Gees .. you are stupid.

SR predicts a phase difference due to the difference in time of transit. So
the light arrives at the detetcor with the same phase difference throughout.
As the soruce and detectors are moving with the same speed, you should get
the same frequency for both beams in SR (ie no doppler effect) as you do in
ballistic theory. The difference is only in how the two theories predict
the transit times for the two beams. Ballistic theory predicts a null
results because the time of transit is the same. SR predits the effect
because the transit times are difference.

SR works with the more correct diagram:

O (v)----------------------------------------------(c-v)-A-------(c+v)-B

Ballistic theory does not .. it predicts a null results

Your faulty explanation only comes up with a non-null result for your
incorrect diagram, where the detector is stationary (which is not what
happens in Safnac) and then it becomse a doppler shift effect instead, and
as it is due to a difference in frequencies, you would see a continually
changing phase difference due to that difference. That is not what is
observed.

You really need to do the math for the Sagnac experiment .. not some other
experiment (ie the one that your diagram illustrates).

On Jan 6, 6:26*pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:

...then it becomes a doppler shift effect instead, and
as it is due to a difference in frequencies, you would see a
continually changing phase difference due to that difference.

Actually, that's not necessarily so, depending on whether you
believe his "mathematical" explanation or his cartoon simulation.
The two don't describe the same theory.

Henri's cartoon at www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe is
highly deceptive. It illustrates the history of a SINGLE
correlated photon pair after they are emitted with different
frequencies from the source/detector (i.e. the beamsplitter) at
the 12 o'clock position. The photons are shown with "slime trails"
illustrating their phase history. As you had pointed out earlier,
Henri in this particular simulation conceives of photons as
spinning particles that in effect carry little clocks with them
as they travel. (This is mathematically inconsistent with his
"sawblades" model, but that is a different story...)

What you need to do is mentally remove the "slime trails" from
Henri's cartoon simulation and focus on the behavior of the
photons themselves. The correlated pair of photons are emitted
with the same phase but different frequencies, and travel for
the same time until they simultaneously reunite at the detector.

Now imagine what happens with a SECOND pair of photons emitted
with the source, say, at the 11 o'clock position. Again, the
correlated pair of photons are emitted with the same phase but
different frequencies, travel for the same time, and reunite at
the detector with the SAME phase difference as the first pair.

Substitute these single photon emissions with a whole stream of
photon pairs, an you get a most interesting mental picture of
what Henri's latest fantasy cartoon really says is happening, as
opposed to what Henri THINKS it says is happening...

Unfortunately I don't have the time to work on a Java simulation
(too much schoolwork), but you might have fun adding this
correction to Henri's rayphases cartoon to your simulation.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:

...then it becomes a doppler shift effect instead, and
as it is due to a difference in frequencies, you would see a
continually changing phase difference due to that difference.

: Actually, that's not necessarily so, depending on whether you
: believe his "mathematical" explanation or his cartoon simulation.
: The two don't describe the same theory.

Actually this cartoon simulation, very similar to your own cartoon
simulation, describes an aetheristic simulation but the lying *******
called it relativistic simulation.
http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
Being a lying ******* yourself, too incompetent to make
the time at the source speed up for the red ray and
simultaneously slow down for the blue ray, you will not
point that out to your fellow ****head Varney, but continue
to attempt to be highly deceptive.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
(New gifs included)

On Jan 7, 3:54*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:

...then it becomes a doppler shift effect instead, and
as it is due to a difference in frequencies, you would see a
continually changing phase difference due to that difference.

: Actually, that's not necessarily so, depending on whether you
: believe his "mathematical" explanation or his cartoon simulation.
: The two don't describe the same theory.

Actually this cartoon simulation, very similar to your own cartoon
simulation, describes an aetheristic simulation but the lying *******
called it relativistic simulation.
*http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html

At low speed vc and viewed from the stationary frame, the
aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
indistinguishable. The problem with Roger's simulation is that,
of necessity, he could not fulfill the vc requirement, and he
was counting on potential critics to understand the limitations
of the simulation and to make appropriate allowances. Your
carping criticism is unjustified.

Being a lying ******* yourself, too incompetent to make
the time at the source speed up for the red ray and
simultaneously slow down for the blue ray, you will not
point that out to your fellow ****head Varney, but continue
to attempt to be highly deceptive.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
(New gifs included)

I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you that an
explanation relying on the Coriolis effect is completely
nonviable. Path length differences resulting from Coriolis
curvature are second order with respect to v. The only reason
why they seem significant in your simulation is that your
simulation violates the vc requirement for REAL Sagnac
experiments. The Sagnac effect is first order with respect
to v, not second order.

Optical gyroscopes based on the Sagnac effect have sensitivity
sufficient to measure easily the rotation of the Earth even
from a few kilometers North or South of the Equator. If the
Sagnac effect were second order, due to Coriolis curvature
such as you assert, optical gyroscopes should not be capable
of achieving such levels of sensitivity.

Jerry