"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 7, 5:42 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

(restored relevant snipped content)
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

You can point out all you want, the problem with your pointer
is that it doesn't work, you are a ****head.

: Your problem is that you just haven't worked out the math.

Don't be silly. Oops, you can't help it. Being a ****head you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
Your problem is you are a ****head.

You can point out all you want, the problem with your pointer
is that it doesn't work, you are a ****head.
In relativity,
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.

WRONG

In emission fact
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.

WHICH GIVES YOU IDENTICAL TIMES

Being a ****head you would naturally confuse + with -
as the clown
Androcles
did.

"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

|Roger was perfectly correct that the version of your theory that
|he was analyzing (your "mathematical" presentation) predicted a
|moving fringe pattern. Your "mathematical" presentation is
|infested with tick fairies.

Correct.

|On the other hand, your "rayphases.exe" cartoon does show a
|static fringe pattern,


Nonsense. Wilson has not reversed the direction of one of the beams,
they still oppose each other. Neither did you in your cartoon, neither
did Onslow in his aetheristic cartoon, neither has wackypedia in its
cartoon, and although Tusseladd showed it in fig 1, he omitted it in
his fig. 6 and failed to analyse it.
You are all half-arsed ****heads.

What are you one about .. it shows two beams, one in one direction, one in
the opposite direction. Seems like you're lying again.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry

wrote:

On Jan 8, 3:45 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:08:07 -0800 (PST), Jerry

wrote:

Henri's cartoon atwww.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.

That's right. This explains why the fringe pattern DOES NOT MOVE
during constant rotation.

Henri, whether or not your theory predicts that the fringes move
during constant rotation depends entirely on which presentation
of your theory is being analyzed.

My theory produces the correct, experimentally verified result.

Not for Sagnac.

Are you complaining about that?

Yes

Your various explanations of your theory CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

I take it that you don't have the brains to understand simple doppler
shifts
when you see them illustrated.

I take it you don't have the brain to realise that there are TWO doppler
shifts (if approaching it your way) .. one from source (split point) to
inertial frame and one from inertial frame back to detector (rejoin point).
You only do one of them, so your analysis is flawed

Roger was perfectly correct that the version of your theory that
he was analyzing (your "mathematical" presentation) predicted a
moving fringe pattern. Your "mathematical" presentation is
infested with tick fairies.

Roger is way out of his depth in this NG.

Yeup .. I'm nowhere near being a crackpot

He doesn't know anything about
physics....and nor do YOU, apparently.

See. .just what a crackpot would say.

On the other hand, your "rayphases.exe" cartoon does show a
static fringe pattern, but at the cost of predicting the ability
to detect one's motion in absolute space.

That animation shows what real doppler shifts look like.

No .. it doesn't at all

Do you reject
everything new on principle?

No .. only when you say somthing wrong .. which does appear to be most of
the time

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.

Why do you want to make the very simple BaTh explanation of Sagnac
appear difficult?
Are you stalling for time...or just too dumb to understand it?

Nope. You're too dumb to understand your own theory. You can't
even describe it consistently, which is why Roger stated one
thing based on your "mathematical" presentation, while I stated
another based on your cartoon.

Roger is an idiot who doesn't even know the difference between frequency
and
phase.

HAHAHAH .. really, you are a fool

It can be explained solely in THE NONROTATING FRAME either with
different path lengths and constant wavelength or with
different frequencies and identical travel times.

Anyone who tries to analyse Sagnac using the rotating frame
risks being ridiculed for ignoring all the imaginary quanities
that go with it.

Henri, you haven't the foggiest idea how to stick to a single
frame, which is why your "mathematical" presentation has tick
fairies.

My analyses use ONE FRAME ONLY....the nonrotating one.

And you can't even get that right. Sad

On Jan 8, 2:31*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Jan 8, 3:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

That's right. This explains why the fringe pattern DOES NOT MOVE
during constant rotation.

Henri, whether or not your theory predicts that the fringes move
during constant rotation depends entirely on which presentation
of your theory is being analyzed.

My theory produces the correct, experimentally verified result.
Are you complaining about that?

Your various explanations of your theory CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

I take it that you don't have the brains to understand simple doppler shifts
when you see them illustrated.

Roger was perfectly correct that the version of your theory that
he was analyzing (your "mathematical" presentation) predicted a
moving fringe pattern. Your "mathematical" presentation is
infested with tick fairies.

Roger is way out of his depth in this NG. He doesn't know anything
about physics....and nor do YOU, apparently.

On the other hand, your "rayphases.exe" cartoon does show a
static fringe pattern, but at the cost of predicting the ability
to detect one's motion in absolute space.

That animation shows what real doppler shifts look like. Do you reject
everything new on principle?

Why do you want to make the very simple BaTh explanation of Sagnac
appear *difficult?
Are you stalling for time...or just too dumb to understand it?

Nope. You're too dumb to understand your own theory. You can't
even describe it consistently, which is why Roger stated one
thing based on your "mathematical" presentation, while I stated
another based on your cartoon.

Roger is an idiot who doesn't even know the difference between
frequency and phase.

It can be explained solely in THE NONROTATING FRAME either with
different path lengths and constant wavelength or with
different frequencies and identical travel times.

Anyone who tries to analyse Sagnac using the rotating frame
risks being ridiculed for ignoring all the imaginary quanities
that go with it.

Henri, you haven't the foggiest idea how to stick to a single
frame, which is why your "mathematical" presentation has tick
fairies.

My analyses use ONE FRAME ONLY....the nonrotating one.

Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...98a411c8b134af

How is that consistent with one frame?

Just as SR requires inertial frames, so does BaTh.

Jerry

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Jan 8, 2:31*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

Your various explanations of your theory CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

I take it that you don't have the brains to understand simple doppler shifts
when you see them illustrated.

Roger was perfectly correct that the version of your theory that
he was analyzing (your "mathematical" presentation) predicted a
moving fringe pattern. Your "mathematical" presentation is
infested with tick fairies.

Roger is way out of his depth in this NG. He doesn't know anything
about physics....and nor do YOU, apparently.

On the other hand, your "rayphases.exe" cartoon does show a
static fringe pattern, but at the cost of predicting the ability
to detect one's motion in absolute space.

That animation shows what real doppler shifts look like. Do you reject
everything new on principle?

Why do you want to make the very simple BaTh explanation of Sagnac
appear *difficult?
Are you stalling for time...or just too dumb to understand it?

Nope. You're too dumb to understand your own theory. You can't
even describe it consistently, which is why Roger stated one
thing based on your "mathematical" presentation, while I stated
another based on your cartoon.

Roger is an idiot who doesn't even know the difference between
frequency and phase.

It can be explained solely in THE NONROTATING FRAME either with
different path lengths and constant wavelength or with
different frequencies and identical travel times.

Anyone who tries to analyse Sagnac using the rotating frame
risks being ridiculed for ignoring all the imaginary quanities
that go with it.

Henri, you haven't the foggiest idea how to stick to a single
frame, which is why your "mathematical" presentation has tick
fairies.

My analyses use ONE FRAME ONLY....the nonrotating one.

Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...98a411c8b134af

How is that consistent with one frame?

Are you trying to beat Roger for the idiot of the year award?

The 'observer', in that post, is the stationary point in the nonrotating frame
where the detector happens to be when the two rays arrive simultaneously.

Just as SR requires inertial frames, so does BaTh.

Jerry



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Jan 9, 1:50*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Jan 8, 2:31*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:
Your various explanations of your theory CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

I take it that you don't have the brains to understand simple doppler shifts
when you see them illustrated.

Roger was perfectly correct that the version of your theory that
he was analyzing (your "mathematical" presentation) predicted a
moving fringe pattern. Your "mathematical" presentation is
infested with tick fairies.

Roger is way out of his depth in this NG. He doesn't know anything
about physics....and nor do YOU, apparently.

On the other hand, your "rayphases.exe" cartoon does show a
static fringe pattern, but at the cost of predicting the ability
to detect one's motion in absolute space.

That animation shows what real doppler shifts look like. Do you reject
everything new on principle?

Nope. You're too dumb to understand your own theory. You can't
even describe it consistently, which is why Roger stated one
thing based on your "mathematical" presentation, while I stated
another based on your cartoon.

Roger is an idiot who doesn't even know the difference between
frequency and phase.

Henri, you haven't the foggiest idea how to stick to a single
frame, which is why your "mathematical" presentation has tick
fairies.

My analyses use ONE FRAME ONLY....the nonrotating one.

Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/d198a411c8b...

How is that consistent with one frame?

Are you trying to beat Roger for the idiot of the year award?

The 'observer', in that post, is the stationary point in the
nonrotating frame where the detector happens to be when the
two rays arrive simultaneously.

That is your problem.

Have you ever heard of the paradoxes of Zeno? In particular, the
arrow paradox.

From Wikipedia:
In the arrow paradox, Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in
flight. He then asks us to divide up time into a series of
indivisible nows or moments. At any given moment if we look at
the arrow it has an exact location so it is not moving. Yet
movement has to happen in the present; it can't be that
there's no movement in the present yet movement in the past or
future. So throughout all time, the arrow is at rest. Thus
motion cannot happen.

Henri's Observer Paradox:
In Henri's Observer Paradox, Henri asks us to imagine a
detector (beam splitter) on a Sagnac turntable. He then asks
us to divide up time into a series of indivisible nows or
moments. At any moment if we look at the Sagnac apparatus it
has an exact location so that the detector is not moving.
Hence the detector experiences no Doppler shift as a result
of its motion.
More generally, motion of sources causes Doppler shift, while
motion of detectors does not. The HST is incapable of detecting
its own orbital motion. Chapter 3.4.9 of the STIS Data Handbook
is a bunch of baloney.
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/docume...5..html#369477

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

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:22:53 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Jan 9, 1:50*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:


That is your problem.

Have you ever heard of the paradoxes of Zeno? In particular, the
arrow paradox.

From Wikipedia:
In the arrow paradox, Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in
flight. He then asks us to divide up time into a series of
indivisible nows or moments. At any given moment if we look at
the arrow it has an exact location so it is not moving. Yet
movement has to happen in the present; it can't be that
there's no movement in the present yet movement in the past or
future. So throughout all time, the arrow is at rest. Thus
motion cannot happen.

Henri's Observer Paradox:
In Henri's Observer Paradox, Henri asks us to imagine a
detector (beam splitter) on a Sagnac turntable. He then asks
us to divide up time into a series of indivisible nows or
moments. At any moment if we look at the Sagnac apparatus it
has an exact location so that the detector is not moving.
Hence the detector experiences no Doppler shift as a result
of its motion.

Of course the detector experiences no doppler shift. Nor does it see the rays
doppler shifted...if that's what you meant.

YOU ARE REFERING TO THE SOURCE/DETECTOR FRAME.


More generally, motion of sources causes Doppler shift, while
motion of detectors does not.

What the hell are you talking about now? Have you gone raving mad?

The HST is incapable of detecting
its own orbital motion. Chapter 3.4.9 of the STIS Data Handbook
is a bunch of baloney.
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/docume...b5.html#369477

Jerry



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Jan 9, 4:20*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:22:53 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:
On Jan 9, 1:50*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

Have you ever heard of the paradoxes of Zeno? In particular, the
arrow paradox.

From Wikipedia:
*In the arrow paradox, Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in
*flight. He then asks us to divide up time into a series of
*indivisible nows or moments. At any given moment if we look at
*the arrow it has an exact location so it is not moving. Yet
*movement has to happen in the present; it can't be that
*there's no movement in the present yet movement in the past or
*future. So throughout all time, the arrow is at rest. Thus
*motion cannot happen.

Henri's Observer Paradox:
*In Henri's Observer Paradox, Henri asks us to imagine a
*detector (beam splitter) on a Sagnac turntable. He then asks
*us to divide up time into a series of indivisible nows or
*moments. At any moment if we look at the Sagnac apparatus it
*has an exact location so that the detector is not moving.
*Hence the detector experiences no Doppler shift as a result
*of its motion.

Of course the detector experiences no doppler shift. Nor does
it see the rays doppler shifted...if that's what you meant.

YOU ARE REFERING TO THE SOURCE/DETECTOR FRAME.

No, I was referring to the stationary frame. In your diagram,
you show sources in motion, and observer not in motion. What frame
were YOU referring to?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...98a411c8b134af

*More generally, motion of sources causes Doppler shift, while
*motion of detectors does not.

What the hell are you talking about now? Have you gone raving mad?

No, it's YOU who have gone mad. In your previous post, you wrote:
"The oscillators and their signals move at different speeds
towards O causing their frequencies to appear doppler shifted
(in opposite sense)."
Doppler shifted to whom? You have just finished stating above,
"Nor does it [i.e. the detector] see the rays doppler shifted."

You are very, very, very confused...

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
...
On Jan 9, 1:50 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry

wrote:

On Jan 8, 2:31 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry

wrote:
Your various explanations of your theory CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

I take it that you don't have the brains to understand simple doppler
shifts
when you see them illustrated.

Roger was perfectly correct that the version of your theory that
he was analyzing (your "mathematical" presentation) predicted a
moving fringe pattern. Your "mathematical" presentation is
infested with tick fairies.

Roger is way out of his depth in this NG. He doesn't know anything
about physics....and nor do YOU, apparently.

On the other hand, your "rayphases.exe" cartoon does show a
static fringe pattern, but at the cost of predicting the ability
to detect one's motion in absolute space.

That animation shows what real doppler shifts look like. Do you reject
everything new on principle?

Nope. You're too dumb to understand your own theory. You can't
even describe it consistently, which is why Roger stated one
thing based on your "mathematical" presentation, while I stated
another based on your cartoon.

Roger is an idiot who doesn't even know the difference between
frequency and phase.

Henri, you haven't the foggiest idea how to stick to a single
frame, which is why your "mathematical" presentation has tick
fairies.

My analyses use ONE FRAME ONLY....the nonrotating one.

Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/d198a411c8b...

How is that consistent with one frame?

Are you trying to beat Roger for the idiot of the year award?

The 'observer', in that post, is the stationary point in the
nonrotating frame where the detector happens to be when the
two rays arrive simultaneously.

: That is your problem.

: Have you ever heard of the paradoxes of Zeno? In particular, the
: arrow paradox.

: From Wikipedia:
: In the arrow paradox, Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in
: flight. He then asks us to divide up time into a series of
: indivisible nows or moments. At any given moment if we look at
: the arrow it has an exact location so it is not moving.

Which is the false assumption that produces the absurdity.

: Yet
: movement has to happen in the present; it can't be that
: there's no movement in the present yet movement in the past or
: future. So throughout all time, the arrow is at rest. Thus
: motion cannot happen.

Having said the arrow is not moving, you "prove" the arrow
is not moving (which is circularity).
That's proof by assertion. That is YOUR problem.

Also Einstein's problem.
Having postulated 'the "time" required by light to travel from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A'
and LIED about the number of postulates he used we arrive
at the ridiculous conclusion that Stella meets Terry at
a different time to Terry meeting Stella, aka the twin paradox.
That is YOUR problem, ****head.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry

wrote:
[snip]
Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...98a411c8b134af

How is that consistent with one frame?

Are you trying to beat Roger for the idiot of the year award?

The 'observer', in that post, is the stationary point in the nonrotating
frame

Exactly .. and that is NOT the same as Saganc .. where the detectors is
MOVING in the nonrotating frame. You are analysing some different
henri-wilson experiment .. not Sagnac. And that is because you know that
ballistic theory is refuted by Sagnac.