We know that rotation is absolute. This implies that it is possible to sense
and measure one's own rotation by various means.

However, the RATE of rotation is relative.....but relative to what?

It could be equated relative to another system rotating about the same
axis...but normally, it is expressed in terms of angular velocity around the
non-rotating inertial frame defined by the rotation centre.

To attempt to analyse an experiment that is designed to measure rotation rate
WITHOUT reference to the inertial frame cannot produce a result. Without such
a reference in the diagrams and associated math the whole procedure MUST BE
inadequate and futile.

This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
We know that rotation is absolute.

Yes .. inertial frames have an absolute rotation of zero, and a zero rate of
absolute rotation.

This implies that it is possible to sense
and measure one's own rotation by various means.

Yes .. Sagnac does it nicely.

However, the RATE of rotation is relative.....but relative to what?

If you are looking at it from some inertial frame of reference where there
is also some component of linera velocity, then time dilation would make the
rate appear slower.

So any useful measurement should be taken from an iertial frame at rest wrt
the system as a whole.

Just like SR does when analysing Sagnac.

It could be equated relative to another system rotating about the same
axis...but normally, it is expressed in terms of angular velocity around
the
non-rotating inertial frame defined by the rotation centre.

You're really not saying anything new here.

To attempt to analyse an experiment that is designed to measure rotation
rate
WITHOUT reference to the inertial frame cannot produce a result.

We all know what the inertial frame is .. what rate is being measured.

Without such
a reference in the diagrams and associated math the whole procedure MUST
BE
inadequate and futile.

This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame
to
explain Sagnac

No .. we use the SR explanation which is purely in the inertial frame. And
get the right answer

If you do the same in ballistic theory (and do the math correctly, instead
of leaving out part of the work) you get a null result. Ballistic theory
says that Sagnac cannot detect rotation.

is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

No . .that would be YOUR explanation that only gives a non-null result if
the source moves and the detector is fixed .. which is not even Sagnac. You
ever said that all you are analysing is how the light arrives at a fixed
point in the inertial frame and you did not care about how light arrived at
the detector. That is absolutely hilarious !!!

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:16:22 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
We know that rotation is absolute.

Yes .. inertial frames have an absolute rotation of zero, and a zero rate of
absolute rotation.

This implies that it is possible to sense
and measure one's own rotation by various means.

Yes .. Sagnac does it nicely.

However, the RATE of rotation is relative.....but relative to what?

If you are looking at it from some inertial frame of reference where there
is also some component of linera velocity, then time dilation would make the
rate appear slower.

So any useful measurement should be taken from an iertial frame at rest wrt
the system as a whole.

Just like SR does when analysing Sagnac.

It could be equated relative to another system rotating about the same
axis...but normally, it is expressed in terms of angular velocity around
the
non-rotating inertial frame defined by the rotation centre.

You're really not saying anything new here.

To attempt to analyse an experiment that is designed to measure rotation
rate
WITHOUT reference to the inertial frame cannot produce a result.

We all know what the inertial frame is .. what rate is being measured.

Without such
a reference in the diagrams and associated math the whole procedure MUST
BE
inadequate and futile.

This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame
to
explain Sagnac

No .. we use the SR explanation which is purely in the inertial frame. And
get the right answer

If you do the same in ballistic theory (and do the math correctly, instead
of leaving out part of the work) you get a null result. Ballistic theory
says that Sagnac cannot detect rotation.

is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

No . .that would be YOUR explanation that only gives a non-null result if
the source moves and the detector is fixed .. which is not even Sagnac. You
ever said that all you are analysing is how the light arrives at a fixed
point in the inertial frame and you did not care about how light arrived at
the detector. That is absolutely hilarious !!!

You are talking crap again.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:16:22 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:
No . .that would be YOUR explanation that only gives a non-null result if
the source moves and the detector is fixed .. which is not even Sagnac.
You
ever said that all you are analysing is how the light arrives at a fixed
point in the inertial frame and you did not care about how light arrived
at
the detector. That is absolutely hilarious !!!

You are talking crap again.

I'm talking about your explanation ,so of course I'm talking about crap.
And what I say is exactly what you do in your so-called explanation.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

See what I according to HW have done:
"You have - quite brilliantly, I might add - illustrated how
a rotating observer will view a NONROTATING Sagnac interferometer."

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

If you are a non rotating observer and think
the interferometer is rotating, then you are
ignoring the imaginary effects.
That's bad, according to Doctor Wilson.
The apparent rotation of the interferometer is a Willusion.
What you really see is what you would have seen
if you were rotating and the interferometer were not.

That's why I have proven that the rotating interferometer
really is non rotating. And non rotating interferometers
are not rotating.
QED!

If this isn't clear to you, ask Henri Wilson
to explain it. He is the only Doctor in this forum
with a deep understanding of imaginary effects like
the non rotation of the rotation.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:17:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

See what I according to HW have done:
"You have - quite brilliantly, I might add - illustrated how
a rotating observer will view a NONROTATING Sagnac interferometer."

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

If you are a non rotating observer and think
the interferometer is rotating, then you are
ignoring the imaginary effects.
That's bad, according to Doctor Wilson.
The apparent rotation of the interferometer is a Willusion.
What you really see is what you would have seen
if you were rotating and the interferometer were not.

That's why I have proven that the rotating interferometer
really is non rotating. And non rotating interferometers
are not rotating.
QED!

If this isn't clear to you, ask Henri Wilson
to explain it. He is the only Doctor in this forum
with a deep understanding of imaginary effects like
the non rotation of the rotation.

I'm glad you finally understand the point I have made.

Yes it's true. All you, Roberts and Co have done is base your argument on the
outrageous assumption that a rotating system viewed in the rotating frame is
identical to the same system when NOT rotating and viewed by a nonrotating
observer.
NATURALLY YOU GET A NULL RESULT.

In the rotating Sagnac interferometer, there are imaginary forces that curve
the light rays. That turns out to be a second order effect at vc and can be
ignored. However the 'equal path length' idea is also imaginary and has first
order consequences.
You must include the MOVING emission point in the rotating frame analysis.
Otherwise even the SR 'explanation' will suffer the same fate and produce a
null result.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN MAKE THE RAY PATH LENGTHS THE SAME SIMPLY BY
CHANGING FRAMES?
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT.





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:17:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame
to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have
done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

See what I according to HW have done:
"You have - quite brilliantly, I might add - illustrated how
a rotating observer will view a NONROTATING Sagnac interferometer."

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

If you are a non rotating observer and think
the interferometer is rotating, then you are
ignoring the imaginary effects.
That's bad, according to Doctor Wilson.
The apparent rotation of the interferometer is a Willusion.
What you really see is what you would have seen
if you were rotating and the interferometer were not.

That's why I have proven that the rotating interferometer
really is non rotating. And non rotating interferometers
are not rotating.
QED!

If this isn't clear to you, ask Henri Wilson
to explain it. He is the only Doctor in this forum
with a deep understanding of imaginary effects like
the non rotation of the rotation.

I'm glad you finally understand the point I have made.

Yes it's true. All you, Roberts and Co have done is base your argument on
the
outrageous assumption that a rotating system viewed in the rotating frame
is
identical to the same system when NOT rotating and viewed by a nonrotating
observer.
NATURALLY YOU GET A NULL RESULT.

In the rotating Sagnac interferometer, there are imaginary forces that
curve
the light rays. That turns out to be a second order effect at vc and can
be
ignored. However the 'equal path length' idea is also imaginary and has
first
order consequences.
You must include the MOVING emission point in the rotating frame analysis.
Otherwise even the SR 'explanation' will suffer the same fate and produce
a
null result.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN MAKE THE RAY PATH LENGTHS THE SAME SIMPLY BY
CHANGING FRAMES?
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT.

You are hilarious .. you really do seem to think that you understand the
physics and got it right .. what a crack-up.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:59:11 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:17:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating frame
to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have
done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

See what I according to HW have done:
"You have - quite brilliantly, I might add - illustrated how
a rotating observer will view a NONROTATING Sagnac interferometer."

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

If you are a non rotating observer and think
the interferometer is rotating, then you are
ignoring the imaginary effects.
That's bad, according to Doctor Wilson.
The apparent rotation of the interferometer is a Willusion.
What you really see is what you would have seen
if you were rotating and the interferometer were not.

That's why I have proven that the rotating interferometer
really is non rotating. And non rotating interferometers
are not rotating.
QED!

If this isn't clear to you, ask Henri Wilson
to explain it. He is the only Doctor in this forum
with a deep understanding of imaginary effects like
the non rotation of the rotation.

I'm glad you finally understand the point I have made.

Yes it's true. All you, Roberts and Co have done is base your argument on
the
outrageous assumption that a rotating system viewed in the rotating frame
is
identical to the same system when NOT rotating and viewed by a nonrotating
observer.
NATURALLY YOU GET A NULL RESULT.

In the rotating Sagnac interferometer, there are imaginary forces that
curve
the light rays. That turns out to be a second order effect at vc and can
be
ignored. However the 'equal path length' idea is also imaginary and has
first
order consequences.
You must include the MOVING emission point in the rotating frame analysis.
Otherwise even the SR 'explanation' will suffer the same fate and produce
a
null result.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN MAKE THE RAY PATH LENGTHS THE SAME SIMPLY BY
CHANGING FRAMES?
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT.

You are hilarious .. you really do seem to think that you understand the
physics and got it right .. what a crack-up.

**** off


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:59:11 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:17:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
This explains why the Roberts, Andersen, Jerry use of the rotating
frame
to
explain Sagnac is so pathetically purile. Essentially, all they have
done is
prove that a nonrotating Sagnac interfrometer does not rotate.

See what I according to HW have done:
"You have - quite brilliantly, I might add - illustrated how
a rotating observer will view a NONROTATING Sagnac interferometer."

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

If you are a non rotating observer and think
the interferometer is rotating, then you are
ignoring the imaginary effects.
That's bad, according to Doctor Wilson.
The apparent rotation of the interferometer is a Willusion.
What you really see is what you would have seen
if you were rotating and the interferometer were not.

That's why I have proven that the rotating interferometer
really is non rotating. And non rotating interferometers
are not rotating.
QED!

If this isn't clear to you, ask Henri Wilson
to explain it. He is the only Doctor in this forum
with a deep understanding of imaginary effects like
the non rotation of the rotation.

I'm glad you finally understand the point I have made.

Yes it's true. All you, Roberts and Co have done is base your argument
on
the
outrageous assumption that a rotating system viewed in the rotating
frame
is
identical to the same system when NOT rotating and viewed by a
nonrotating
observer.
NATURALLY YOU GET A NULL RESULT.

In the rotating Sagnac interferometer, there are imaginary forces that
curve
the light rays. That turns out to be a second order effect at vc and
can
be
ignored. However the 'equal path length' idea is also imaginary and has
first
order consequences.
You must include the MOVING emission point in the rotating frame
analysis.
Otherwise even the SR 'explanation' will suffer the same fate and
produce
a
null result.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN MAKE THE RAY PATH LENGTHS THE SAME SIMPLY
BY
CHANGING FRAMES?
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT.

You are hilarious .. you really do seem to think that you understand the
physics and got it right .. what a crack-up.

**** off

Your knowledge of physics is only exceeded by your charm.