Standard Unit of Stupidity.
Dr. Henri Wilson
standard for MESSAGE CONTENT STUPIDITY.
The scale should be logarithmic, so as to avoid the need for terms like 'Mega-
or Giga-Jeckyls' for people like Androcles and Eric Geese.
Negative ratings will imply only minor stupidity.
Some people will rate consistently high, whilst others such as Seto will
typically range from - infinity to + infinity.
Serious contributors, such as Hammond, Pencho and myself and will not appear on
the scale at all for obvious reasons. Rather, a separate scale indicating
MESSAGE CONSTRUCTIVENESS will be established with units of 'Wilson', 'Kennaugh'
or 'Valev'.
Other scales that may be considered in future might be ones for IRRELEVANCY
(unit: the 'Ghost' or the 'Sue') and for ALWAYS WRONG (unit: 'Draper' or
'Wormley'...or maybe the 'Poe'). Another, the NUISANCE VALUE, will have units
'Dono', 'Geese' or 'Van de Moombel'.
Tom Roberts will dominate a special complex scale, indicating an 'ABILITY TO
UTTER COMPLETE BULLSHIT WITH AN AIR OF GREAT AUTHORITY'. Diehards like Hobba,
DSmith, Jerry, Andersen, Pigpen, etc., who continually express huge amounts of
the former with very little of the latter will find themselves grouped around
zero on that scale.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Eric Gisse
> I propose that this NG adopt a new physical unit called the 'Jeckyl' as its
> standard for MESSAGE CONTENT STUPIDITY.
>
> The scale should be logarithmic, so as to avoid the need for terms like 'Mega-
> or Giga-Jeckyls' for people like Androcles and Eric Geese.
How many 'Jeckyls' is it for someone who forges their diplomas and
posts them on USENET?
[...]
Jeckyl
news:9lbln31as5cb23058...@4ax.com...
>I propose that this NG adopt a new physical unit called the 'Jeckyl' as its
> standard for MESSAGE CONTENT STUPIDITY.
So .. you've decided to now launch a whole new thread to demonstrate your
idiocy. As if you needed to.
You are so obviously jealous that I actually understand the theories you try
to talk about better than you do, that you feel the need to start a thread
like this. How petty and childish of you .. and totally within your
character.
Jeckyl
news:47ff6e9f-7a13-4c67...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hmm .. not as many as for someone who would believe they were genuine after
reading any of Henri's posts :)
Traveler
ahahaha... I think this is a funny thread. ahahaha... But I like
Jackal better. Maybe Capuchin Jackal sounds better? What do you think,
Jackalito? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Jeckyl
news:96mln39eq8e3cj0bf...@4ax.com...
I don't agree with your physics .. but I do like your sense of humour (most
of the time).
Dono
You forgot the NATURAL IMBECILE unit, measured in "Dr. Henri Wilson"
s !
Traveler
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 2:35 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>
>You forgot the NATURAL IMBECILE unit, measured in "Dr. Henri Wilson"
>s !
ahahaha... And, of course, let's not forget the donut brain unit,
measured in Donos. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Dono
Dr. Henri Wilson
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jan 1, 7:48 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> is:
>
>
>http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG
Rating: 5.8 jeckyls
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Traveler
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 7:48 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> is:
>
>
>http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG
ahahaha... Yo, Dono-san. ahahaha... Do you know the difference between
a donut cop and a donut physicist? The former dreams of a universe
filled with donuts whereas the latter is convinced that the universe
IS a donut. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Dr. Henri Wilson
bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com
> Serious contributors, such as Hammond, Pencho and myself
If the conceit to award one's self a doctorate is one
Henri, and to award one's self a Nobel prize is one
Hammond, how many Henris to the Hammond?
--
--Bryan
Androcles
<bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfea93b-2652-4573...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
:
One Henri is a microHammond.
There are 1000 Henris to the milliHammond.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
That doesn't matter. Being awarded either is a great priviledge.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 01:22:15 -0800 (PST),
> bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>>"Dr." Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> Serious contributors, such as Hammond, Pencho and myself
>>
>>If the conceit to award one's self a doctorate is one
>>Henri, and to award one's self a Nobel prize is one
>>Hammond, how many Henris to the Hammond?
>
> That doesn't matter. Being awarded either is a great priviledge.
You are so far up yourself, you have turned completely inside-out .. what a
wanker.
Eric Gisse
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 01:22:15 -0800 (PST), bryanjugglercryptograp...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >"Dr." Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Serious contributors, such as Hammond, Pencho and myself
>
> >If the conceit to award one's self a doctorate is one
> >Henri, and to award one's self a Nobel prize is one
> >Hammond, how many Henris to the Hammond?
>
> That doesn't matter. Being awarded either is a great priviledge.
But you weren't awarded anything.
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
UTC
"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:
All I know is Im an ordinary idiot, masters degree in anthro
but like physics, do spectroscopy as a hobby, and I cant
get one damned question answered from anyone legit on any
physics related newsgroup! Something is lacking - severely.
Ive decided the ng's are nothing but a piss hole for nuts on
welfare or too much time on their hands? Sorry, but I had to
say it. Thanks
Ray
Dr. Henri Wilson
Nobody here cares about your fucking qualifications...but you're right.
There are two camps here. One, the lunatic fringe, supports Einstein's stupid
theory. The others are usually those who have genuine physics or engineering
qualifications... and even the latter manage the occasional useful
contribution.
Actually, if you care to spend some time reading this stuff and ignoring the
morons, you will eventually learn quite a lot.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"UTC" <gauge...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:477C83DB...@mchsi.com...
:
:
Although Jeckyl is stupid, he can count.
The unit of stupidity is the "Wilson", who cannot.
What is your question?
bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com
[...]
> There are two camps here. One, the lunatic fringe,
> supports Einstein's stupid theory.
Like they teach at these stupid fringe institutions:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
--
--Bryan
Androcles
<bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83ca5a8b-1d3d-4d14...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
:
The other lunatic fringe (membership of one) supports Wilson's stupid
theory.
Jeckyl
> but like physics, do spectroscopy as a hobby, and I cant
> get one damned question answered from anyone legit on any
> physics related newsgroup! Something is lacking - severely.
> Ive decided the ng's are nothing but a piss hole for nuts on
> welfare or too much time on their hands? Sorry, but I had to
> say it. Thanks
So does that means you've now joined the other nuts in the piss hole?
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:42:36 -0600, UTC <gauge...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Nobody here cares about your fucking qualifications...but you're right.
>
> There are two camps here. One, the lunatic fringe, supports Einstein's
> stupid
> theory.
You mean the bulk of physcisist .. who have real degrees in physics.
> The others are usually those who have genuine physics or engineering
> qualifications...
Thaths the same as the first group
> and even the latter manage the occasional useful
> contribution.
Yes .. we do
> Actually, if you care to spend some time reading this stuff and ignoring
> the
> morons, you will eventually learn quite a lot.
Yes .. we do try to help people learn .. but idiots like you who can't even
do a simple ballistic analysis of Sagnac keep posting their bullshit.
Jeckyl
news:5b3fj.84143$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Got to agree with you on that one.
Does Wilson actually have his theory published somewhere .. its next to
impossible to determine what it actually is from his inconsistent and
self-contradictory posts.
Jeckyl
> Although Jeckyl is stupid,
Well .. I don't agree with that .. but noone is perfect.
> he can count.
> The unit of stupidity is the "Wilson", who cannot.
> What is your question?
HEHEHEHE.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
><bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:83ca5a8b-1d3d-4d14...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>: "Dr." Henri Wilson wrote:
>: [...]
>: > There are two camps here. One, the lunatic fringe,
>: > supports Einstein's stupid theory.
>:
>: Like they teach at these stupid fringe institutions:
>:
>:
>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
Are these the people who have turned the US into a sick bankrupt society?
>:
>The other lunatic fringe (membership of one) supports Wilson's stupid
>theory.
Somebody had to continue on from where Ritz left off.......
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
>>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
> Are these the people who have turned the US into a sick bankrupt society?
>>:
>>The other lunatic fringe (membership of one) supports Wilson's stupid
>>theory.
> Somebody had to continue on from where Ritz left off.......
You are a religious nutter .. not a physicist .. you believe in the faith of
ballistic theory. It must be a religious faith, as it is well proven that
ballistic theory is refuted, and so there is no objective reason to consider
that it to be correct. No wonder you simply will not listen to reason and
fact.
Dr. Henri Wilson
How is it that the Bath explanation of sagnac produces the right answer?
How is it that every known experiment supports BaTh?
I know the realization of this damages your pride... and makes you look like a
real dickhead...
The best thing you can do now is change your name and attitude.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:21:43 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:ihhqn3th9go3bvnre...@4ax.com...
>>>>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
>>> Are these the people who have turned the US into a sick bankrupt
>>> society?
>>>>:
>>>>The other lunatic fringe (membership of one) supports Wilson's stupid
>>>>theory.
>>> Somebody had to continue on from where Ritz left off.......
>>
>>You are a religious nutter .. not a physicist .. you believe in the faith
>>of
>>ballistic theory. It must be a religious faith, as it is well proven that
>>ballistic theory is refuted, and so there is no objective reason to
>>consider
>>that it to be correct. No wonder you simply will not listen to reason and
>>fact.
>
> How is it that the Bath explanation of sagnac produces the right answer?
It doesn't .. your explanation is incorrect and inconsistent with ballistic
theory
> How is it that every known experiment supports BaTh?
It doesn't
> I know the realization of this damages your pride... and makes you look
> like a
> real dickhead...
No .. that would be you .. you're th one in denial of a century of physcis
> The best thing you can do now is change your name and attitude.
The best think you can do is shut the fuck up
Jerry
> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00el...@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
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:91817af7-d6a7-4954...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
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.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 3:18 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00el...@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)
Jerry
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:31:52 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
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_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Jeckyl
news:91817af7-d6a7-4954...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> believing impossible things for half-an-hour each day, and
> believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Hehehe:)
Jeckyl
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:31:52 -0800 (PST), Jerry
> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 4, 3:18 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in
>>> messagenews:e0srn3t9gqgjp00el...@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
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:cd5tn3hm9lolp7sfp...@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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 fucking dope.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
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).
Jerry
> ...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
Androcles
On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> 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 bastard
called it relativistic simulation.
http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
Being a lying bastard 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 fuckhead Varney, but continue
to attempt to be highly deceptive.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
(New gifs included)
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b5418252-4a8c-4687...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> 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 bastard
> called it relativistic simulation.
> http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
At low speed v<<c 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 v<<c 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 bastard 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 fuckhead Varney, but continue
> to attempt to be highly deceptive.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/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 v<<c 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
Androcles
On Jan 7, 3:54 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b5418252-4a8c-4687...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> 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 bastard
> called it relativistic simulation.
> http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
: At low speed v<<c
Oh, so relativity only works at low speed v<<c.
It works just great at v = 0, perfect every time, and gets
gradually more fucked up as v increases. You are already
fucked up, your brain operates at v = 0.
: and viewed from the stationary frame, the
: aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
: indistinguishable.
Does it occur to you that the "aetheristic explanation" was
kicked out by stopping Sagnac from turning on its own
axis but we can't stop it hurtling along in its path around the Sun
at 0.0001c.
That's low speed v << c.
Sagnac not turning is MMX.
: The problem with Roger's simulation is that,
: of necessity, he could not fulfill the v<<c 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.
The problem with your brain is that it doesn't work, you are
a fuckhead.
In relativity,
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
In emission fact
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
Being a fuckhead you would naturally confuse + with -
as the clown Einstein did.
> Being a lying bastard 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 fuckhead Varney, but continue
> to attempt to be highly deceptive.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> (New gifs included)
: I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you
You can point out all you want, the problem with your pointer
is that it doesn't work, you are a fuckhead.
In relativity,
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
In emission fact
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
Being a fuckhead you would naturally confuse + with -
as the clown Einstein did.
: that an
: explanation relying on the Coriolis effect is completely
: nonviable.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
I will repeatedly point out to you that being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
: Path length differences resulting from Coriolis
: curvature are second order with respect to v.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
I will repeatedly point out to you that being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
: The only reason
: why they seem significant in your simulation is that your
: simulation violates the v<<c requirement for REAL Sagnac
: experiments.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
I will repeatedly point out to you that being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
: The Sagnac effect is first order with respect
: to v, not second order.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
I will repeatedly point out to you that being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
: 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.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
I will repeatedly point out to you that being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
: 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.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
I will repeatedly point out to you that being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
There I've repeatedly pointed out to you that you are a
babbling cretin.
Jeckyl
>
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:b5418252-4a8c-4687...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> 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 bastard
> called it relativistic simulation.
> http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
It shows what SR predicts. It uses Sr assumptions only of the constant
speed of light .. not ether comes into it.
Of course, Androcles cannot actually fault in on any logical grounds, so
makes up lies instead
[snip more lies and crap from Androcles]
Jeckyl
>
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:029b8916-32bb-4924...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 3:54 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b5418252-4a8c-4687...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> 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 bastard
>> called it relativistic simulation.
>> http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
>
> : At low speed v<<c
>
> Oh, so relativity only works at low speed v<<c.
No .. it is because kf the low speed ,secondary effects are not noticable
(eg no relativistic contraction or time dilation needs to be worried about).
That you don't understand that is further indications of your own failings.
> The problem with your brain is that it doesn't work, you are
> a fuckhead.
> In relativity,
> t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
> t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
No .. SR says that, in the inertial frame:
t1 = (x-vt1)/c in one direction and
t2 = (x+vt2)/c in the other direction
so we have
t1 = (x-vt1)/c
ct1 = x-vt1
ct1+vt1 = x
t1(c+v) = x
t1 = x/(c+v)
and
t2 = (x+vt2)/c
ct2 = x+vt2
ct2-vt2 = x
t2(c-v) = x
t2 = x/(c-v)
take the difference
t2-t1 =
x/(c-v) - x/(c+v) =
x (1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)) =
x(2v/(c^2-v^2))
to get the sagnac result we see experimentally.
> In emission fact
> t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
ok .. so solving for t
t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
t(c-v) = x-vt
ct - vt = x - vt
t = x/c
> t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
ok .. so solving for t
t = (x+vt)/(c+v)
t(c+v) = x+vt
ct + vt = x + vt
t = x/c
So the same time and so no Sagnac effect. So you get that Emission 'fact'
is really a fallacy .. a lie put forward by you. If only you have enough
basic math skills, you might have been able to see it.
But .. thanks for showing how Sagnac refutes Emissions theory.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> : At low speed v<<c
>
> Oh, so relativity only works at low speed v<<c.
> It works just great at v = 0, perfect every time, and gets
> gradually more fucked up as v increases. You are already
> fucked up, your brain operates at v = 0.
>
> : and viewed from the stationary frame, the
> : aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
> : indistinguishable.
>
> Does it occur to you that the "aetheristic explanation" was
> kicked out by stopping Sagnac from turning on its own
> axis but we can't stop it hurtling along in its path around the Sun
> at 0.0001c.
> That's low speed v << c.
> Sagnac not turning is MMX.
Not precisely, but that's not the point.
Sagnac rotated his apparatus at only a few m/s, and he was capable
of recording a significant signal because the effect that he was
measuring was first order with respect to v.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f708.table
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f1410.table
Michelson and Morley's apparatus relied on second order effects
and would have been totally incapable of measuring aether drifts
were the orbital velocity of the Earth only on the order of a few
m/s. Instead, as you point out, the orbital velocity of the Earth
is on the order of 0.0001c. 0.0001c is 30000 m/s, and MMX should
easily have measured aether drift, if it existed.
<snip contentless insults>
Jerry
Androcles
On Jan 7, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> : At low speed v<<c
>
> Oh, so relativity only works at low speed v<<c.
> It works just great at v = 0, perfect every time, and gets
> gradually more fucked up as v increases. You are already
> fucked up, your brain operates at v = 0.
>
> : and viewed from the stationary frame, the
> : aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
> : indistinguishable.
>
> Does it occur to you that the "aetheristic explanation" was
> kicked out by stopping Sagnac from turning on its own
> axis but we can't stop it hurtling along in its path around the Sun
> at 0.0001c.
> That's low speed v << c.
> Sagnac not turning is MMX.
: Not precisely, but that's not the point.
Tell us, Major Crank, with what precision did it not precisely
occur to you that the "aetheristic explanation" was kicked out
by stopping Sagnac from turning on its own axis but we can't
stop it hurtling along in its path around the Sun at 0.0001c. ?
Relativity is not precise. In fact it's fucking useless like you,
Major Crank, and that IS the point.
<snip contentless drool>
The problem with your brain is that it doesn't work, you are
a fuckhead.
In relativity,
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
In emission fact
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
Being a fuckhead you would naturally confuse + with -
as the clown Einstein did.|
> Being a lying bastard 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 fuckhead Varney, but continue
> to attempt to be highly deceptive.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> (New gifs included)
: I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you
< snip contentless drool>
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 3:54 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
>
>At low speed v<<c and viewed from the stationary frame, the
>aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
>indistinguishable.
The SR explanation of Sagnac includes a term 1/(c^2-v^2)
If v is not much smaller than c, then the ring gyro equation does not hold.
The BaTh derivation is correct for all values of v<c.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
You really ARE the epitome of the complete moron.
BaTh says the rays travel different distances but for the same duration. Their
frequencies are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the nonrotating frame for
obvious reasons. They are IN PHASE when they start out...so they are OBVIOUSLY
OUT OF PHASE WHEN THEY REUNITE.
>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).
<plonk>
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
>
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0d9d737d-cdb0-404a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>> : At low speed v<<c
>>
>> Oh, so relativity only works at low speed v<<c.
>> It works just great at v = 0, perfect every time, and gets
>> gradually more fucked up as v increases. You are already
>> fucked up, your brain operates at v = 0.
>>
>> : and viewed from the stationary frame, the
>> : aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
>> : indistinguishable.
>>
>> Does it occur to you that the "aetheristic explanation" was
>> kicked out by stopping Sagnac from turning on its own
>> axis but we can't stop it hurtling along in its path around the Sun
>> at 0.0001c.
>> That's low speed v << c.
>> Sagnac not turning is MMX.
>
> : Not precisely, but that's not the point.
>
>
> Tell us, Major Crank, with what precision did it not precisely
> occur to you that the "aetheristic explanation" was kicked out
> by stopping Sagnac from turning on its own axis but we can't
> stop it hurtling along in its path around the Sun at 0.0001c. ?
What are you babbling on about .. and Who cares?
> Relativity is not precise. In fact it's fucking useless like you,
> Major Crank, and that IS the point.
>
> <snip contentless drool>
>
> The problem with your brain is that it doesn't work, you are
> a fuckhead.
> In relativity,
> t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
> t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
No .. incorrect SR math .. as per usual it is t = (x-vt)/c and t = (x+vt)/c
.. light travels at c in the inerital frame in SR.
> In emission fact
> t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
> t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
That give you the same time in both directions and so no Sagnac effect .. as
we have said all along
> Being a fuckhead you would naturally confuse + with -
> as the clown Einstein did.|
No .. you're the only one I see making that sort of mistake.
[snip Androcles making the same mistakes again .. he does love making
himself look stupid]
Jeckyl
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:00:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry
> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 7, 3:54 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
>>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>
>>> http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html
>>
>>At low speed v<<c and viewed from the stationary frame, the
>>aetheristic and relativistic explanations would be virtually
>>indistinguishable.
>
> The SR explanation of Sagnac includes a term 1/(c^2-v^2)
> If v is not much smaller than c, then the ring gyro equation does not
> hold.
You are again only looking at half the picture .. I suggest you read the
article at mathpages again .. SR analysis gives the experimental results we
see
> The BaTh derivation is correct for all values of v<c.
Bath gives a null results ..and so is refuted
Jeckyl
So I gues it means you still cna't underastnad simple physics. Sad
> BaTh says the rays travel different distances but for the same duration.
So .. the little oscilators will still be in phase .. there is nothing that
has happened to them that would put them out of p[hase .. so they arrive in
phase.. no Sagnac
> Their
> frequencies are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the nonrotating frame
> for
> obvious reasons. They are IN PHASE when they start out...so they are
> OBVIOUSLY
> OUT OF PHASE WHEN THEY REUNITE.
No .. they are obviously not .. not in Sagnac.
In your perversion of it, where the detector is FIXED in the non-rotating
frame, then you get a phase shift .. and one that will change continually.
>>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).
>
> <plonk>
Yes .. you've been drinking far too much plonk. Its clouded your thinking.
But .. if you are so ignorant as to argue with facts, then that is your
problem. But do us all a favour and stop advertising your ignorance more
and more in every post. Are you sure you and androcles aren't related?
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> 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 v<<c 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 fuckhead.
Your problem is that you just haven't worked out the math.
Consider a square (4 mirror) Sagnac apparatus of side S rotating
at f revolutions/second.
The Coriolis effect causes the light beam to appear to travel
along a circle of radius r=c/f. The ratio R between the distance
traveled by light traveling along this circle versus the straight
line distance along the side of the square is given by
R=x/sin(x) where x = S/2/r= f*S/2/c
For two counterrotating beams, the total difference in travel
distance is given by
deltaD = 8S(R-1)
For small x, we can approximate this by
deltaD = (4/3)Sx^2
The classic, experimentally verified equation for Sagnac states
that the difference in travel times for the right and left
counterrotating beams is
deltaT = 4Aw/c^2 where w = 2pi*f
In other words,
deltaT = 8*pi*f*S^2/c^2
deltaD = 8*pi*f*S^2/c
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let us compare the Coriolis contribution to the Sagnac effect
versus the experimentally verified equation
Let S = 1 meter
Express deltaD in terms of wavelengths of 589 nm yellow light
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rotation speed Coriolis contrib. Experimentally verified effect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
60 rpm 6.3e-12 wavelengths 0.14 wavelengths
120 rpm 2.5e-11 wavelengths 0.28 wavelengths
300 rpm 1.6e-10 wavelengths 0.71 wavelengths
Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
That's right. This explains why the fringe pattern DOES NOT MOVE during
constant rotation.
>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?
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.
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:r255o35uu4c10jrcu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:26:10 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Androcles
On Jan 7, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> 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 v<<c 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 fuckhead.
: Your problem is that you just haven't worked out the math.
Don't be silly. Oops, you can't help it. Being a fuckhead you
would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
Your problem is you are a fuckhead.
You can point out all you want, the problem with your pointer
is that it doesn't work, you are a fuckhead.
In relativity,
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x-vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
In emission fact
t = (x-vt)/(c-v) in the forward direction and
t = (x+vt)/(c+v) in the backward direction.
Being a fuckhead you would naturally confuse + with -
as the clown Einstein did.
<snip irrelevant drool>
"Aberration has no measurable consequences" - Tusseladd.
http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/chromatic2.jpg
http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/java/aberrations/chromatic/index.html
Hey Fuckhead!
Can you see an object lens and an eyepiece in Sagnac's apparatus or
are you as blind as Fecal Jeckyl?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnac.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnacFixed.gif
(complete with tracer fire).
Jerry
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:08:07 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> 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.
Your various explanations of your theory CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
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.
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.
> >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.
> 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.
Jerry
Androcles
|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 fuckheads.
Jeckyl
There is no fringe pattern predicted by emission theory. And your
(incorrect) analysis that you've shown beofer in the inerital frame would
predict a continually changing pattern.
>>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?
Isn't that what you are doing?
> Are you stalling for time...or just too dumb to understand it?
That seems to describe your so-called explanations.
> It can be explained solely in THE NONROTATING FRAME
yes .. and you get NO sagnac effect. Unless you deliberately (or ar eyou
that stupid) ignore the fact that both the split-point and the rejoining
point are moving in the inertial frame.
> either with different path
> lengths and constant wavelength or with different frequencies and
> identical
> travel times.
No .. with IDENTICAL frequencies and IDENTICAL times .. its incredibly
obvious, I can't see how you honestly do not undersatnd it. Either you're
too arrogant or too ignorant to do so .. which is it?
> Anyone who tries to analyse Sagnac using the rotating frame risks being
> ridiculed for ignoring all the imaginary quanities that go with it.
Anyone who uses the inertla frame with the ballistic theory and gets a
non-null results needs to be ridiculed. Especialyl someone who claims to
know how baliisitc theory works.
Jeckyl
Awww .. what's wrong .. don't like having your error so glaringly pointed
out?
Jeckyl
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:53:12 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:r255o35uu4c10jrcu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:26:10 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> <plonk>
You one the plonk again. Or do you simply realise you're beaten..
Jeckyl
>
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:96996442-159d-4d33...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> 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 v<<c 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 fuckhead.
>
> : Your problem is that you just haven't worked out the math.
>
> Don't be silly. Oops, you can't help it. Being a fuckhead you
> would naturally confuse + with - as the clown Einstein did.
> Your problem is you are a fuckhead.
>
> You can point out all you want, the problem with your pointer
> is that it doesn't work, you are a fuckhead.
> 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 fuckhead you would naturally confuse + with -
> as the clown
Androcles
> did.
Jeckyl
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
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 3:45 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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?
>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.
>> 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.
Just as SR requires inertial frames, so does BaTh.
Jeckyl
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
Jerry
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> 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?
>
> >> 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.physics.relativity/msg/d198a411c8b134af
How is that consistent with one frame?
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 2:31 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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)
Jerry
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 8, 2:31 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:38:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> >> 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?
>
> >> >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.
>
> >> >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.
>
> >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/documents/handbooks/currentDHB/ch3_stis_calib5.html#369477
Jerry
Henri Wilson's Lies
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 1:50 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>> 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/documents/handbooks/currentDHB/ch3_stis_calib5.html#369477
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jerry
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:22:53 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
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.physics.relativity/msg/d198a411c8b134af
> > 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...
Androcles
: That is your problem.
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, fuckhead.
Jeckyl
>>Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d198a411c8b134af
>>
>>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.
Jeckyl
> Of course the detector experiences no doppler shift.
Neither does the source.
It is only some imagined observer (that is not actually part of the
experiment) that is fixed in the non-rotating frame that sees any doppler
shift.
The beams leaving the source travel at the same speed relative to the
source, and they have same frequency at the source and they have the same
phase at the source,
They both travel for the same time .. you have correctly shown that already
Then they arrive at the detector with the same speed relative to the
detector, and they have same frequency at the detector and they have the
same phase at the detector.
That is what ballisitc theory says. Get over it.
> Nor does it see the rays
> doppler shifted...if that's what you meant.
> YOU ARE REFERING TO THE SOURCE/DETECTOR FRAME.
Well .. that is where the source and detector are at rest .. if you want to
do the anlaysis in the non-rotating frame (as one should) one needs to know
how the light arrives at the detecrt, so you need to take that movement of
the detector in the non-rotating frame into account. You dishonestly only
consider the movement of the source.
Jeckyl
No .. he defined how clocks should be synchrnoised
> 'the "time" required by light to travel from
> A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A'
It has to be as the speed of light is the same in both directions (from
postulate 2)
> and LIED about the number of postulates
No .. that would be you
> he used we arrive
> at the ridiculous conclusion that Stella meets Terry at
> a different time to Terry meeting Stella,
Yes .. it might seem odd .. but time dilation happens. Get used to it.
> aka the twin paradox.
> That is YOUR problem, fuckhead.
That you do not understand the math, nor can you accept experimental
evidence, is yours
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 4:20 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME OBVIOUSLY.
THEY ARE DOPLER SHIFTED IN THAT FRAME FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR FLIGHT.
>You have just finished stating above,
>"Nor does it [i.e. the detector] see the rays doppler shifted."
>
>You are very, very, very confused...
Of course the bloody detector doesn't see the rays doppler shifted. IT SEESTHEM
PHASE SHIFTED.
>Jerry
> Henri Wilson's Lies
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Both the emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are static in the
nonrotating frame.
They move backwards in the rotating frame.
Your position 1 second ago is about 400 meters to the west of where you are now
IN THE EARTH'S NONROTATING FRAME.
YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT...because you are an idiot who still thinks the sun
orbits the flat earth..
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
You do realise the doppler shifting doesn't change the wave in itself ..
don't you? That it is simply the result of how the wave appears to the
observer. And that different observers will see the same identical wave
appear with different frequencies and speed. Just like aberration desn't
make rain fall at an angle instead of straight down .. but is just a
difference in how the direction of light is relative to you.
You do realise that in Sagnac, how the wave appears to an observer at rest
in the non-rotating frame for the duration of the flight is totally
irrelevant to how the wave appears at the detector .. because the detetor is
NOT at rest in the non-rotating frame.
>>You have just finished stating above,
>>"Nor does it [i.e. the detector] see the rays doppler shifted."
>>
>>You are very, very, very confused...
>
> Of course the bloody detector doesn't see the rays doppler shifted. IT
> SEESTHEM
> PHASE SHIFTED.
No .. it won't .. it can't. The light has travelled at the same frequency
for the same time relative to the detector .. that means the waves start in
phase and remain in phase .. they have to if they have the same frequency
throughout .. there is no opportunity for it to get out of phase.
It is so blatantly obvious, it is astounding that you continue to argue
against it.
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:36:52 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:v0v8o39kksdv39ohp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry
>>> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>>Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d198a411c8b134af
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
> Both the emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are static in
> the
> nonrotating frame.
No .. they are not .. they are moving points .. that have a particular
position at a particular time (as every moving object does) .. that does NOT
mean that are not moving.
I'm sure that if you got a speeding ticket from a radar gun, you would be
laughed out of court if you claimed that at the moment the radar bounced off
the car that the car was at a fixed point on the road and so you were not
moving.
> They move backwards in the rotating frame.
>
> Your position 1 second ago is about 400 meters to the west of where you
> are now
> IN THE EARTH'S NONROTATING FRAME.
> YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT...because you are an idiot who still thinks the
> sun
> orbits the flat earth..
So .. you think the sun orbits a flat earth? that would be consistent with
your lack of understanding of the bleeding obvious (let alone physics).
Jerry
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:36:52 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >news:v0v8o39kksdv39ohp...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jerry
> >> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>>Henri, you drew STATIONARY OBSERVERS and moving sources.
>
> >>>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.
>
> Both the emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are
> static in the nonrotating frame.
> They move backwards in the rotating frame.
>
> Your position 1 second ago is about 400 meters to the west of
> where you are now IN THE EARTH'S NONROTATING FRAME.
> YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT...because you are an idiot who still
> thinks the sun orbits the flat earth..
Your position 1 second ago is also about 30 km displaced from
the current position in the direction of 20 degrees ecliptic
longitude due to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, as
measured in the Sun's nonrotating frame.
Your position 1 second ago is also about 220 km displaced from
the current position due to the orbit of the Sun around the
galaxy, as measured in the Milky Way's nonrotating frame.
Your position 1 second ago is also about 600 km displaced from
the current position due to the orbit of the Milky Way galaxy
around the Local Group, as measured in the Local Group's non-
rotating frame.
These velocities completely dwarf the velocities achievable in
a typical Sagnac experiment. And in your analysis, Henri, they
should have measurable effects, because "...the bloody detector
...SEES THEM [i.e. the rays] PHASE SHIFTED"
Remember, Henri, these are all ORBITAL MOTIONS AROUND CIRCLES.
So according to you, if you have a source moving around one of
these circles, the rays detected some distance away will be
differentially PHASE SHIFTED due to the Sagnac effect. "The
emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are static
in the nonrotating frame", therefore if you have the source and
detector lined up so that the source is pointed towards Virgo,
the phase received at the detector will be advanced relative
to the source and detector lined up in the opposite direction.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:mj9ao39rhjrqouq6b...@4ax.com...
>>>> 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.physics.relativity/msg/d198a411c8b134af
>>>
>>>> > 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?
>>
>> DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME OBVIOUSLY.
>> THEY ARE DOPLER SHIFTED IN THAT FRAME FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR FLIGHT.
>
>You do realise the doppler shifting doesn't change the wave in itself ..
>don't you?
Listen you halfwit, the waves you see in my rayphases demo are identical in the
rotating frame. The frequencies are doppler shifted in the nonrotating one, as
shown. The red one is moving more slowly than the blue one in the nonrotating
frame but if you intercept the waves at the source speed, you will meet the
same number of wavecrests per second in both rays..
They both have the same wavelength, as you can see.
>That it is simply the result of how the wave appears to the
>observer. And that different observers will see the same identical wave
>appear with different frequencies and speed. Just like aberration desn't
>make rain fall at an angle instead of straight down .. but is just a
>difference in how the direction of light is relative to you.
>
>You do realise that in Sagnac, how the wave appears to an observer at rest
>in the non-rotating frame for the duration of the flight is totally
>irrelevant to how the wave appears at the detector .. because the detetor is
>NOT at rest in the non-rotating frame.
Of course not...but both the start and detection point of a particular photon
ARE stationary in the nonrotating frame.
>>>You have just finished stating above,
>>>"Nor does it [i.e. the detector] see the rays doppler shifted."
>>>
>>>You are very, very, very confused...
>>
>> Of course the bloody detector doesn't see the rays doppler shifted. IT
>> SEESTHEM
>> PHASE SHIFTED.
>
>No .. it won't .. it can't. The light has travelled at the same frequency
>for the same time relative to the detector .. that means the waves start in
>phase and remain in phase .. they have to if they have the same frequency
>throughout .. there is no opportunity for it to get out of phase.
That's true for a nonrotating ring gyro.
Now try rotating it.
>It is so blatantly obvious, it is astounding that you continue to argue
>against it.
I am really starting to feel sorry for you...and Roberts and Andersen and
Jeery.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:9lbao3pv48k2l1jnn...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:36:52 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Both the emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are static in
>> the
>> nonrotating frame.
>
>No .. they are not .. they are moving points .. that have a particular
>position at a particular time (as every moving object does) .. that does NOT
>mean that are not moving.
>
>I'm sure that if you got a speeding ticket from a radar gun, you would be
>laughed out of court if you claimed that at the moment the radar bounced off
>the car that the car was at a fixed point on the road and so you were not
>moving.
This guy can't be this stupid, surely.....
>> They move backwards in the rotating frame.
>>
>> Your position 1 second ago is about 400 meters to the west of where you
>> are now
>> IN THE EARTH'S NONROTATING FRAME.
>> YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT...because you are an idiot who still thinks the
>> sun
>> orbits the flat earth..
>
>So .. you think the sun orbits a flat earth? that would be consistent with
>your lack of understanding of the bleeding obvious (let alone physics).
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 2:33 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
That's obvious, So what?
>Your position 1 second ago is also about 220 km displaced from
>the current position due to the orbit of the Sun around the
>galaxy, as measured in the Milky Way's nonrotating frame.
That's obvious, So what?
>Your position 1 second ago is also about 600 km displaced from
>the current position due to the orbit of the Milky Way galaxy
>around the Local Group, as measured in the Local Group's non-
>rotating frame.
That's obvious, So what?
>These velocities completely dwarf the velocities achievable in
>a typical Sagnac experiment. And in your analysis, Henri, they
>should have measurable effects, because "...the bloody detector
>...SEES THEM [i.e. the rays] PHASE SHIFTED"
That's obvious.
>Remember, Henri, these are all ORBITAL MOTIONS AROUND CIRCLES.
>So according to you, if you have a source moving around one of
>these circles, the rays detected some distance away will be
>differentially PHASE SHIFTED due to the Sagnac effect.
That's obvious, So what?
>"The
>emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are static
>in the nonrotating frame", therefore if you have the source and
>detector lined up so that the source is pointed towards Virgo,
>the phase received at the detector will be advanced relative
>to the source and detector lined up in the opposite direction.
Sorry, I can't see the relevance of this.
According to you, we should see a star exactly where it currently is, not where
it was when the light left it.
>Jerry
> Henri Wilson's Lies
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:38:17 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:mj9ao39rhjrqouq6b...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> 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.physics.relativity/msg/d198a411c8b134af
>>>>
>>>>> > 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?
>>>
>>> DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME OBVIOUSLY.
>>> THEY ARE DOPLER SHIFTED IN THAT FRAME FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR FLIGHT.
>>
>>You do realise the doppler shifting doesn't change the wave in itself ..
>>don't you?
>
> Listen you halfwit, the waves you see in my rayphases demo
... are two completely different frequency waves .. your demo does not show
doppler shift at all. Get it right.
[snip nonsense from idiot HW]
>>That it is simply the result of how the wave appears to the
>>observer. And that different observers will see the same identical wave
>>appear with different frequencies and speed. Just like aberration desn't
>>make rain fall at an angle instead of straight down .. but is just a
>>difference in how the direction of light is relative to you.
>>
>>You do realise that in Sagnac, how the wave appears to an observer at rest
>>in the non-rotating frame for the duration of the flight is totally
>>irrelevant to how the wave appears at the detector .. because the detetor
>>is
>>NOT at rest in the non-rotating frame.
>
> Of course not...but both the start and detection point of a particular
> photon
> ARE stationary in the nonrotating frame.
No
>>>>You have just finished stating above,
>>>>"Nor does it [i.e. the detector] see the rays doppler shifted."
>>>>
>>>>You are very, very, very confused...
>>>
>>> Of course the bloody detector doesn't see the rays doppler shifted. IT
>>> SEESTHEM
>>> PHASE SHIFTED.
>>
>>No .. it won't .. it can't. The light has travelled at the same frequency
>>for the same time relative to the detector .. that means the waves start
>>in
>>phase and remain in phase .. they have to if they have the same frequency
>>throughout .. there is no opportunity for it to get out of phase.
>
> That's true for a nonrotating ring gyro.
> Now try rotating it.
Its the same result .. dummy. Rotating or not makes no difference.
>>It is so blatantly obvious, it is astounding that you continue to argue
>>against it.
>
> I am really starting to feel sorry for you...and Roberts and Andersen and
> Jeery.
Yes .. we have to read your crap.
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:40:44 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:9lbao3pv48k2l1jnn...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:36:52 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> Both the emission and arrival POINTS of a particular photon are static
>>> in
>>> the
>>> nonrotating frame.
>>
>>No .. they are not .. they are moving points .. that have a particular
>>position at a particular time (as every moving object does) .. that does
>>NOT
>>mean that are not moving.
>>
>>I'm sure that if you got a speeding ticket from a radar gun, you would be
>>laughed out of court if you claimed that at the moment the radar bounced
>>off
>>the car that the car was at a fixed point on the road and so you were not
>>moving.
>
> This guy can't be this stupid, surely.....
You're the stupid one Dr Half Wit. And you're too stupid to see it. Sad ..
so sad. Foruntatley the rest of us Do see it .. even Androcles does.
Jeckyl
> Sorry, I can't see the relevance of this.
You don't even know what Sagnac is, or how it works .. you aren't qualified
to comment further. Go away for a while and learn some physics .. and maybe
even try to acquire some common sense.
Jerry
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:44:59 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
Very simply, Your explanation of Sagnac predicts effects that are
never seen.
Consider two cesium atomic clocks, one clock being regarded as
the "source" S, the other clock being the "observer" O on opposite
sides of the Earth on the Equator. As the Sun rises in the East,
clock S travels along the circumference of the Earth's orbit at
30 km/s sending timing signals at a speed of 299970 km/s towards
clock O:
O --------------------<-S (c-v)
In the stationary frame of the Solar System, the radio waves
emitted by clock A will have a frequency of 9191712507 Hz.
As the Sun sets in the West, clock S is headed in the opposite
direction, and sends timing signals at a speed of 300030 km/s
towards clock O:
(c+v) S ->-------------------- O
In the stationary frame of the Solar System, the radio waves
emitted by Clock A will have a frequency of 9193551033 Hz.
Over the 12756 km diameter of the Earth, the Sagnac effect would
cause the difference in phase between signals received in the
morning by clock O from clock S versus the signals received in
the evening to be an easily detected 77071 cycles.
Your frame shifting Sagnac analysis leads to absurd predictions.
Jerry
> As the Sun sets in the West, clock S is headed in the opposite
> direction
CORRECTION: Clock S is -oriented- in the opposite direction
relative to clock O along the Earth's orbit.
The rotation of the Earth does not, of course, change the
direction in which clock S is traveling along the Earth's
orbit.
Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:8f79o3t2fpb1vfg4f...@4ax.com...
>> Of course the detector experiences no doppler shift.
>
>Neither does the source.
>
>It is only some imagined observer (that is not actually part of the
>experiment) that is fixed in the non-rotating frame that sees any doppler
>shift.
There doesn't have to be an observer, idiot.
The frequencies are DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME.
>The beams leaving the source travel at the same speed relative to the
>source, and they have same frequency at the source and they have the same
>phase at the source,
>
>They both travel for the same time .. you have correctly shown that already
>
>Then they arrive at the detector with the same speed relative to the
>detector, and they have same frequency at the detector and they have the
>same phase at the detector.
>
>That is what ballisitc theory says. Get over it.
>
>> Nor does it see the rays
>> doppler shifted...if that's what you meant.
>> YOU ARE REFERING TO THE SOURCE/DETECTOR FRAME.
>
>Well .. that is where the source and detector are at rest .. if you want to
>do the anlaysis in the non-rotating frame (as one should) one needs to know
>how the light arrives at the detecrt, so you need to take that movement of
>the detector in the non-rotating frame into account. You dishonestly only
>consider the movement of the source.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:k0pbo3dauk4a4cdp4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:38:17 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME OBVIOUSLY.
>>>> THEY ARE DOPLER SHIFTED IN THAT FRAME FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR FLIGHT.
>>>
>>>You do realise the doppler shifting doesn't change the wave in itself ..
>>>don't you?
>>
>> Listen you halfwit, the waves you see in my rayphases demo
>
>... are two completely different frequency waves .. your demo does not show
>doppler shift at all. Get it right.
OF COURSE THE WAVES HAVE DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES.
A------------------------S->v----------------------B
If a tin whistle moves away from A and towards B, naturally A hears a lower
pitch that B. If you knew anything about physics you would know that this is
called 'doppler shift'. A receives fewer cycles per second than B.
In a sagnac ring gyro, A and B represent the STATIONARY point on the
NONROTATING ring where the two oscillators will eventually reunite... Since hte
travel times are the same, the phases will be different at that point.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
All I can gather from this is that you are completely hopeless at designing and
describing experiments.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MAN? DO THE RADIO SIGNALS PASS RIGHT
THROUGH THE EARTH, OR WHAT?
>
>> According to you, we should see a star exactly where it
>> currently is, not where it was when the light left it.
>>
>
>Jerry
> Henri Wilson's Lies
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
I am still mystified as to how the signal gets from clock S to the observer.
Is the Earth hollow? I thought you believed it was flat.
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:43:13 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:8f79o3t2fpb1vfg4f...@4ax.com...
>>> Of course the detector experiences no doppler shift.
>>
>>Neither does the source.
>>
>>It is only some imagined observer (that is not actually part of the
>>experiment) that is fixed in the non-rotating frame that sees any doppler
>>shift.
>
> There doesn't have to be an observer, idiot.
Indeed .. this imagined observer in the inertial frame has no bearing on
what happens .. yet you ar efocused on him INSTEAD of what happens at the
detector .. You've said so yourself.
> The frequencies are DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME.
Totally irrelevant because the detector (where the sagnac effect is found)
is MOVING in the non-rotating frame. . so if you dppler shifted from the
source to the non-rotating frame initially, you need to doppler shift back
again .. and when you do so, you get no Sagnac effect. Gees.
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:40:36 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:k0pbo3dauk4a4cdp4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:38:17 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME OBVIOUSLY.
>>>>> THEY ARE DOPLER SHIFTED IN THAT FRAME FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR
>>>>> FLIGHT.
>>>>
>>>>You do realise the doppler shifting doesn't change the wave in itself ..
>>>>don't you?
>>>
>>> Listen you halfwit, the waves you see in my rayphases demo
>>
>>... are two completely different frequency waves .. your demo does not
>>show
>>doppler shift at all. Get it right.
>
> OF COURSE THE WAVES HAVE DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES.
Not by the amount shown .. you have two waves with INITIALLY (before
doppler) different frequencies in that example. So it is not valid
Dr. Henri Wilson
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:igbao3h3orako47ff...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:43:13 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There doesn't have to be an observer, idiot.
>
>Indeed .. this imagined observer in the inertial frame has no bearing on
>what happens .. yet you ar efocused on him INSTEAD of what happens at the
>detector .. You've said so yourself.
>
>> The frequencies are DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME.
>
>Totally irrelevant because the detector (where the sagnac effect is found)
>is MOVING in the non-rotating frame. so if you doppler shifted from the
>source to the non-rotating frame initially, you need to doppler shift back
>again .. and when you do so, you get no Sagnac effect. Gees.
Of course the fucking waves are 'doppler shifted back' in the detector frame.
They were never fucking doppler shifted at all in that frame... you fucking
moron.
The point you cannot get into your moronic head is that they were traveling for
the same short period of time at different frequencies IN THE NONROTATING
FRAME. DURING THAT TIME, THEY WENT OUT OF PHASE.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Relativists believe that a rotating Sagnac viewed in the rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating one viewed from the nonrotating frame. Hahahaha! What about all the imaginary effects?
Jeckyl
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:32:58 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:igbao3h3orako47ff...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:43:13 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> There doesn't have to be an observer, idiot.
>>
>>Indeed .. this imagined observer in the inertial frame has no bearing on
>>what happens .. yet you ar efocused on him INSTEAD of what happens at the
>>detector .. You've said so yourself.
>>
>>> The frequencies are DOPPLER SHIFTED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME.
>>
>>Totally irrelevant because the detector (where the sagnac effect is found)
>>is MOVING in the non-rotating frame. so if you doppler shifted from the
>>source to the non-rotating frame initially, you need to doppler shift back
>>again .. and when you do so, you get no Sagnac effect. Gees.
>
> Of course the fucking waves are 'doppler shifted back' in the detector
> frame.
> They were never fucking doppler shifted at all in that frame... you
> fucking
> moron.
So . glad you finally see that your analysis is wrong'
It only shows that there would be a time-varying phase shift due to
differeing frequencies for a detector that was statioanry in the inertial
frame
> The point you cannot get into your moronic head is that they were
> traveling for
> the same short period of time at different frequencies IN THE NONROTATING
> FRAME. DURING THAT TIME, THEY WENT OUT OF PHASE.
I understand it perfectly .. which is why I know it is irrelevant.
Doppler shift is an appearance .. it doesn't actually change the waves
themselves .. just how they appear to a particular observer .. that a
stationary observer would see different frequencies is completely irrelevant
to sagnac.
The waves never went out of phase wrt the detector. That is what counts.
Jerry
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:58:48 -0800 (PST), Jerry
> >Very simply, Your explanation of Sagnac predicts effects that are
> >never seen.
>
> >Consider two cesium atomic clocks, one clock being regarded as
> >the "source" S, the other clock being the "observer" O on opposite
> >sides of the Earth on the Equator. As the Sun rises in the East,
> >clock S travels along the circumference of the Earth's orbit at
> >30 km/s sending timing signals at a speed of 299970 km/s towards
> >clock O:
>
> > O --------------------<-S (c-v)
>
> >In the stationary frame of the Solar System, the radio waves
> >emitted by clock A will have a frequency of 9191712507 Hz.
>
> >As the Sun sets in the West, clock S is
> >[corrected text] oriented in the opposite direction relative to O
> >and sends timing signals at a speed of 300030 km/s
> >towards clock O:
>
> > (c+v) S ->-------------------- O
>
> >In the stationary frame of the Solar System, the radio waves
> >emitted by Clock A will have a frequency of 9193551033 Hz.
>
> >Over the 12756 km diameter of the Earth, the Sagnac effect would
> >cause the difference in phase between signals received in the
> >morning by clock O from clock S versus the signals received in
> >the evening to be an easily detected 77071 cycles.
>
> >Your frame shifting Sagnac analysis leads to absurd prediction
>
> All I can gather from this is that you are completely hopeless
> at designing and describing experiments.
>
> WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MAN? DO THE RADIO SIGNALS
> PASS RIGHT THROUGH THE EARTH, OR WHAT?
How utterly pathetic of you.
Don't you realize that your theory predicts that deviations in
light path from a straight line WILL NOT AFFECT the total phase
shift attributable to orbital motion???
For example, compare bouncing a signal from S to O up and down a
link to a communications satellite versus signals traveling in a
straight line from S to O.
/\
/ \ -----> v=30km/s
/ \
S------O
The Earth in its orbit around the Sun is moving 30 km/s to the
right.
If the distance between S and O is 10000 km, then your theory
states that the radio waves traveling in a straight line from
S to O would have a speed of 300030 km/s and would be phase
shifted by 30642 cycles relative to the situation if the Earth
were not orbiting, except for the fact that the Earth is in the
way and sending signals in a straight line from S to O is not
possible.
Instead, we bounce the beam at a 60 degree angle off the
satellite. Since cos(60 degrees) = 0.5, the speed of light up and
down the communications link is 300015 km/s over a distance of
20000 km, and again we compute 30642 cycles of phase shift
relative to the "motionless Earth" scenario.
Over a 12 hour period, your theory predicts that the cesium clock
at O receives signals from S that periodically shift in phase
by +/- 30642 cycles.
Your explanation of Sagnac behavior predicts nonsense.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Hahahahahaha! You really are funny.
How do you propose to do that? Drill a thirty degree hole through the Earth?
Even if the clocks are placed on 1000m towers the satellite would have to be a
hell of a long way off.
I guess you wanted to use a geostationary orbit which is about 36000 kms above
Earth. i'll let YOU work out how high the towers have to be.
>Since cos(60 degrees) = 0.5, the speed of light up and
>down the communications link is 300015 km/s over a distance of
>20000 km, and again we compute 30642 cycles of phase shift
>relative to the "motionless Earth" scenario.
>
>Over a 12 hour period, your theory predicts that the cesium clock
>at O receives signals from S that periodically shift in phase
>by +/- 30642 cycles.
This is not related to what happens in a ring gyro. The signal from S to O has
to be compared with one from S to O in the opposite direction....but you
wouldn't be able to detect any fringe displacement OR movement because you
cannot change the rotation speed of the Earth very easily.... and the Earth's
orbit speed around the sun is fairly constant.
You are confusing the earth's own nonrotating frame with that of its solar
orbit. The latter is close enough to being inertial and can be ignored.
>Your explanation of Sagnac behavior predicts nonsense.
You would have to send the signal right around our solar orbit to see the
effect you seem to have in mind....but even then it would only minutely
indicate the orbit's departure from circularity.
>Jerry
Jerry
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:48:28 -0800 (PST), Jerry
>
Now you are REALLY pathetic, you laughing idiot.
Where are your simple trig skills?
X
/\
/ \
/ \
S------O
\ /
\ /
\/
Y
Let X be the satellite, and Y be the center of the Earth.
angle OSX = angle SOX = 60 degrees
SO = SX = OX = 10000 km
YS = YO = 6378 km
angle YSO = angle YOS = arccos(5000/6378) = 38.37 degrees
angle YOX = angle YSX = 38.37+60 = 98.37 degrees
In other words, the satellite is visible 8.37 degrees above the
horizon as seen from either S or O.
> I guess you wanted to use a geostationary orbit which is about
> 36000 kms above Earth.
Nope. I wanted to keep my numbers VERY SIMPLE. The purpose of my
exercise was to show that, given light behaving according to your
theory, deviations of the light path from a straight line will
not affect the measured phase.
Unfortunately, even SIMPLE defeats you.
> i'll let YOU work out how high the towers have to be.
Ground level.
> >Since cos(60 degrees) = 0.5, the speed of light up and
> >down the communications link is 300015 km/s over a distance of
> >20000 km, and again we compute 30642 cycles of phase shift
> >relative to the "motionless Earth" scenario.
>
> >Over a 12 hour period, your theory predicts that the cesium clock
> >at O receives signals from S that periodically shift in phase
> >by +/- 30642 cycles.
>
> This is not related to what happens in a ring gyro. The signal
> from S to O has to be compared with one from S to O in the
> opposite direction....but you wouldn't be able to detect any
> fringe displacement OR movement because you cannot change the
> rotation speed of the Earth very easily....
Irrelevant.
> and the Earth's orbit speed around the sun is fairly constant.
Because of the rotation of the Earth, it takes a mere 12 hours
for THIS arrangement of source and detector:
O --------------------<-S (c-v)
to turn into THIS arrangement of source and detector:
(c+v) S ->-------------------- O
> You are confusing the earth's own nonrotating frame with that
> of its solar orbit.
No, I am considering the SUN'S nonrotating frame, and Earth's
(approximately) circular orbit around the Sun.
I am considering the Earth in orbit as being part of a giant
Sagnac apparatus.
> The latter is close enough to being inertial and can be ignored.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Are you saying that if an advanced civilization were to set up
a giant Sagnac experiment in orbit around a star, that they
would not detect rotation?
The word "inertial" does not appear ANYWHERE in the analysis of
the Sagnac effect. What is important is the geometric arrangement
of the optical components.
Where in your analysis do you have an equation indicating the
diminishing sensitivity of the Sagnac effect with radius?
> >Your explanation of Sagnac behavior predicts nonsense.
>
> You would have to send the signal right around our solar orbit
> to see the effect you seem to have in mind....
Nope. The edge of the "turntable" is traveling at 30 km/s. It
is not necessary to send a signal completely around the orbit,
given that we have available accurate atomic clocks to monitor
the phase shifts predicted by your theory, and the speeds
involved are so great.
> but even then it would only minutely indicate the orbit's
> departure from circularity.
Dream on, Henri... (snicker)