Another Bogus BaTh Refutation Unmasked.

HGWilson, DSc.

unread,

Sep 21, 2016, 1:40:46 PM9/21/16

to

References are often made here to moving mirror experiments that are
reputed to show light speed to be constant to about ten significant
figures. (such as those of K. Brecher or Q. Majorama).

These experiments use interferometers to supposedly detect the very
small differences in travel times of light beams reflected from rapidly
moving mirrors.

The error lies in the apparent assumption that light behaves like a
simple oscillator, when in fact the number of wavelengths in each beam
is entirely determined by the distance through which it travels,
irrespective of the time taken.

Since the path lengths of the two beams do not depend on mirror speed,
it is obvious that no fringe displacement should be expected.

The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
pedal speeds.

Anyone who tries to refute BaTh should try to understand its principles
before making stupid claims.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 23, 2016, 4:51:13 AM9/23/16

to

On 21.09.2016 19:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> References are often made here to moving mirror experiments that are
> reputed to show light speed to be constant to about ten significant
> figures. (such as those of K. Brecher or Q. Majorama).
>
> These experiments use interferometers to supposedly detect the very
> small differences in travel times of light beams reflected from rapidly
> moving mirrors.
>
> The error lies in the apparent assumption that light behaves like a
> simple oscillator, when in fact the number of wavelengths in each beam
> is entirely determined by the distance through which it travels,
> irrespective of the time taken.

The following is a good explanation for why emission theories
predict that there should be no fringe shift in the Sagnac experiment.

> Since the path lengths of the two beams do not depend on mirror speed,
> it is obvious that no fringe displacement should be expected.
>
> The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
> facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
> pedal speeds.

Quite.
According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
at all radial velocities of the interferometer.

As illustrated here:
https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html

> Anyone who tries to refute BaTh should try to understand its principles
> before making stupid claims.

Thanks for the explanation for why the BaTh predicts no fringe shift
in the Sagnac experiment.

Well done, Ralph. :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 23, 2016, 9:21:35 AM9/23/16

to

On 23.09.2016 10:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 21.09.2016 19:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> References are often made here to moving mirror experiments that are
>> reputed to show light speed to be constant to about ten significant
>> figures. (such as those of K. Brecher or Q. Majorama).
>>
>> These experiments use interferometers to supposedly detect the very
>> small differences in travel times of light beams reflected from rapidly
>> moving mirrors.
>>
>> The error lies in the apparent assumption that light behaves like a
>> simple oscillator, when in fact the number of wavelengths in each beam
>> is entirely determined by the distance through which it travels,
>> irrespective of the time taken.
>
> The following is a good explanation for why emission theories
> predict that there should be no fringe shift in the Sagnac experiment.
>
>> Since the path lengths of the two beams do not depend on mirror speed,
>> it is obvious that no fringe displacement should be expected.
>>
>> The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
>> facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
>> pedal speeds.
>
> Quite.
> According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
> around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
> at all radial velocities of the interferometer.

.. at all angular velocities ..

HGW

unread,

Sep 23, 2016, 7:12:37 PM9/23/16

to

On 23/09/16 23:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 23.09.2016 10:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 21.09.2016 19:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> References are often made here to moving mirror experiments that are
>>> reputed to show light speed to be constant to about ten significant
>>> figures. (such as those of K. Brecher or Q. Majorama).
>>>
>>> These experiments use interferometers to supposedly detect the very
>>> small differences in travel times of light beams reflected from rapidly
>>> moving mirrors.
>>>
>>> The error lies in the apparent assumption that light behaves like a
>>> simple oscillator, when in fact the number of wavelengths in each beam
>>> is entirely determined by the distance through which it travels,
>>> irrespective of the time taken.
>>
>> The following is a good explanation for why emission theories
>> predict that there should be no fringe shift in the Sagnac experiment.

Paul becomes confused when he tries to use rotating frames.

>>> Since the path lengths of the two beams do not depend on mirror speed,
>>> it is obvious that no fringe displacement should be expected.
>>>
>>> The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
>>> facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
>>> pedal speeds.
>>
>> Quite.
>> According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
>> around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
>> at all radial velocities of the interferometer.

Do you really think I have not worked that out already.
When the ring is rotating, the path lengths are different...and
therefore the number of wavelengths in each is also different.
You make shameful mistakes when you try to use a rotating frame to
analyze Sagnac. For one thing, if the inertial emission point is marked,
it MOVES in the rotating frame. That means wavelengths appear contracted
and expanded in the rotating frame. It is an imaginary effect that
exemplifies why amateurs should not try to dabble with rotating frames.

> .. at all angular velocities ..
>
>>
>> As illustrated here:
>> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>>
>>> Anyone who tries to refute BaTh should try to understand its principles
>>> before making stupid claims.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation for why the BaTh predicts no fringe shift
>> in the Sagnac experiment.
>>

>> Well done, Henry. :-D

Thank you. I am always proud of my achievements

--

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 24, 2016, 8:28:14 AM9/24/16

to

On 24.09.2016 01:12, HGW wrote:
> On 23.09.2016 10:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> The following is a good explanation for why emission theories
>> predict that there should be no fringe shift in the Sagnac experiment.
>
> Paul becomes confused when he tries to use rotating frames.
>
>>> Since the path lengths of the two beams do not depend on mirror speed,
>>> it is obvious that no fringe displacement should be expected.
>>>
>>> The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
>>> facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
>>> pedal speeds.
>>
>> Quite.
>> According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
>> around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same

>> at all angular velocities of the interferometer.

>
> Do you really think I have not worked that out already.
> When the ring is rotating, the path lengths are different...and
> therefore the number of wavelengths in each is also different.

I see.
So according to the WBCE the number of links in a chain around
four cogwheels arranged in square will change when the square
is rotating.

> You make shameful mistakes when you try to use a rotating frame to
> analyze Sagnac. For one thing, if the inertial emission point is marked,
> it MOVES in the rotating frame. That means wavelengths appear contracted
> and expanded in the rotating frame. It is an imaginary effect that
> exemplifies why amateurs should not try to dabble with rotating frames.

:-D

https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

>>
>> As illustrated here:
>> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>>
>>> Anyone who tries to refute BaTh should try to understand its principles
>>> before making stupid claims.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation for why the BaTh predicts no fringe shift
>> in the Sagnac experiment.
>>
>> Well done, Henry. :-D
>
> Thank you. I am always proud of my achievements
>

..even when the achievement is to shoot yourself in the foot! :-D

http://tinyurl.com/mvvg4b3

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

HGWilson, DSc.

unread,

Sep 24, 2016, 3:50:26 PM9/24/16

to

On 24/09/16 22:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 01:12, HGW wrote:
>> On 23.09.2016 10:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>> Quite.
>>> According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
>>> around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
>>> at all angular velocities of the interferometer.
>>
>> Do you really think I have not worked that out already.
>> When the ring is rotating, the path lengths are different...and
>> therefore the number of wavelengths in each is also different.
>
> I see.
> So according to the WBCE the number of links in a chain around
> four cogwheels arranged in square will change when the square
> is rotating.

Both your analogy and your reasoning is logically flawed. To explain the
Sagnac effect with the WBCE you must consider two such bicycles rotating
in opposite directions around their pedal axes.
The number of links that pass two non-rotating points on two cogs, as
viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
Majorama did not rotate his whole apparatus so the path lengths were
always identical. It is a different experiment altogether. In Sagnac,
the path lengths are different. That is the whole point.

>> You make shameful mistakes when you try to use a rotating frame to
>> analyze Sagnac. For one thing, if the inertial emission point is marked,
>> it MOVES in the rotating frame. That means wavelengths appear contracted
>> and expanded in the rotating frame. It is an imaginary effect that
>> exemplifies why amateurs should not try to dabble with rotating frames.
>
> :-D
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

....both very amusing....Your dementia is causing your message writing
style to become ominously similar to that of the late Androcles before
complete insanity took over his mind.

>>>
>

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Sep 24, 2016, 6:20:42 PM9/24/16

to

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:50:26 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> Both your analogy and your reasoning is logically flawed. To explain the
> Sagnac effect with the WBCE you must consider two such bicycles rotating
> in opposite directions around their pedal axes.
> The number of links that pass two non-rotating points on two cogs, as
> viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
> Majorama did not rotate his whole apparatus so the path lengths were
> always identical. It is a different experiment altogether. In Sagnac,
> the path lengths are different. That is the whole point.

So Ralphie-boy has to invent another layer of irrationality to explain
the Sagnac effect with his refuted BaThWater :-))

His dementia is causing his message writing style to become ominously

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 25, 2016, 3:43:05 PM9/25/16

to

On 24.09.2016 21:50, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 24/09/16 22:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 24.09.2016 01:12, HGW wrote:
>>> On 23.09.2016 10:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>

>>>> The following is a good explanation for why emission theories
>>>> predict that there should be no fringe shift in the Sagnac experiment.
>>>>

>>> > On 21.09.2016 19:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
>>>>> facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
>>>>> pedal speeds.
>>>>

>>>> Quite.
>>>> According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
>>>> around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
>>>> at all angular velocities of the interferometer.
>>>
>>> Do you really think I have not worked that out already.
>>> When the ring is rotating, the path lengths are different...and
>>> therefore the number of wavelengths in each is also different.
>>
>> I see.
>> So according to the WBCE the number of links in a chain around
>> four cogwheels arranged in square will change when the square
>> is rotating.
>
> Both your analogy and your reasoning is logically flawed. To explain the
> Sagnac effect with the WBCE you must consider two such bicycles rotating
> in opposite directions around their pedal axes.
> The number of links that pass two non-rotating points on two cogs, as
> viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
> Majorama did not rotate his whole apparatus so the path lengths were
> always identical. It is a different experiment altogether. In Sagnac,
> the path lengths are different. That is the whole point.

I see.
If you have two equal chains on two sets of four cogwheels
arranged in a square, and these chains are rotating with
the same speed in opposite directions relative to the cogwheels,
and the square is rotating, then - according to the WBCE -
the number of links in the two chains will be different
because the number of links that pass two non-rotating points

on two cogs, as viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.

You can see the two chains (red and blue) here:
https://paulba.no/temp/Sagnac.pdf

When the two chains appear to have the same number of links, it
is probably because of the imaginary effect that make the length of the
links appear contracted as Ralph is explaining here:

>>> You make shameful mistakes when you try to use a rotating frame to
>>> analyze Sagnac. For one thing, if the inertial emission point is marked,
>>> it MOVES in the rotating frame. That means wavelengths appear contracted
>>> and expanded in the rotating frame. It is an imaginary effect that
>>> exemplifies why amateurs should not try to dabble with rotating frames.

https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html

--
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

HGWilson, DSc.

unread,

Sep 26, 2016, 1:19:40 PM9/26/16

to

On 26/09/16 05:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 21:50, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> Quite.
>>>>> According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
>>>>> around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
>>>>> at all angular velocities of the interferometer.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think I have not worked that out already.
>>>> When the ring is rotating, the path lengths are different...and
>>>> therefore the number of wavelengths in each is also different.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So according to the WBCE the number of links in a chain around
>>> four cogwheels arranged in square will change when the square
>>> is rotating.
>>
>> Both your analogy and your reasoning is logically flawed. To explain the
>> Sagnac effect with the WBCE you must consider two such bicycles rotating
>> in opposite directions around their pedal axes.
>> The number of links that pass two non-rotating points on two cogs, as
>> viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
>> Majorama did not rotate his whole apparatus so the path lengths were
>> always identical. It is a different experiment altogether. In Sagnac,
>> the path lengths are different. That is the whole point.
>
> I see.

No you do not. You are incapable.

> If you have two equal chains on two sets of four cogwheels
> arranged in a square, and these chains are rotating with
> the same speed in opposite directions relative to the cogwheels,
> and the square is rotating, then - according to the WBCE -
> the number of links in the two chains will be different
> because the number of links that pass two non-rotating points
> on two cogs, as viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.

No, you are considering how things appear in the rotating frame....and
making a terrible mistake. If a Sagnac Gyro is considered in that frame,
the wavelength experiences an IMAGINARY change.... But I'm sure that is
far too hard for you....

> You can see the two chains (red and blue) here:
> https://paulba.no/temp/Sagnac.pdf

Well done Paul. You have successfully drawn a non-rotating Sagnac
interferometer.

> When the two chains appear to have the same number of links, it
> is probably because of the imaginary effect that make the length of the

> links appear contracted as Henry is explaining here:

>

>
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html

You have used the wrong theory. That is why you have produced nonsense.
>

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 26, 2016, 2:35:47 PM9/26/16

to

On 21.09.2016 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| The 'Wilson Bicycle Chain Effect' (WBCE) clearly illustrates the true
| facts. The number of links between the cogs remains the same at all
| pedal speeds.

On 23.09.2016 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| Quite.
| According to the WBCE: the number of wavelengths (chain links)
| around the four mirror Sagnac ring should remain the same
| at all angular velocities of the interferometer.

On 24.09.2016 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| Do you really think I have not worked that out already.
| When the ring is rotating, the path lengths are different...and
| therefore the number of wavelengths in each is also different.

On 24.09.16 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| I see.
| So according to the WBCE the number of links in a chain around
| four cogwheels arranged in square will change when the square
| is rotating.

On 24.09.2016 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| Both your analogy and your reasoning is logically flawed. To explain the
| Sagnac effect with the WBCE you must consider two such bicycles rotating
| in opposite directions around their pedal axes.
| The number of links that pass two non-rotating points on two cogs, as
| viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.

On 25.09.2016 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| I see.

| If you have two equal chains on two sets of four cogwheels
| arranged in a square, and these chains are rotating with
| the same speed in opposite directions relative to the cogwheels,
| and the square is rotating, then - according to the WBCE -
| the number of links in the two chains will be different
| because the number of links that pass two non-rotating points
| on two cogs, as viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
|

| You can see the two chains (red and blue) here:
| https://paulba.no/temp/Sagnac.pdf

On 26.09.2016 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| No, you are considering how things appear in the rotating frame....and
| making a terrible mistake. If a Sagnac Gyro is considered in that frame,
| the wavelength experiences an IMAGINARY change.... But I'm sure that is
| far too hard for you....

We can now consider the bogus BaTh refutation thoroughly unmasked
by Ralph's very clear explanation of why the number of links in
a bicycle chain will change if the bicycle is rotated.

'nuff said!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

HGW

unread,

Sep 26, 2016, 7:12:42 PM9/26/16

to

On 27/09/16 04:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 21.09.2016 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:

>

> On 24.09.2016 Dr. Wilson wrote:
> | Both your analogy and your reasoning is logically flawed. To explain the
> | Sagnac effect with the WBCE you must consider two such bicycles rotating
> | in opposite directions around their pedal axes.
> | The number of links that pass two non-rotating points on two cogs, as
> | viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
>
> On 25.09.2016 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> | I see.
> | If you have two equal chains on two sets of four cogwheels
> | arranged in a square, and these chains are rotating with
> | the same speed in opposite directions relative to the cogwheels,
> | and the square is rotating, then - according to the WBCE -
> | the number of links in the two chains will be different
> | because the number of links that pass two non-rotating points
> | on two cogs, as viewed in the non-rotating frame, is then different.
> |
> | You can see the two chains (red and blue) here:
> | https://paulba.no/temp/Sagnac.pdf
>

> On 26.09.2016 Dr. Wilson wrote:
> | No, you are considering how things appear in the rotating frame....and
> | making a terrible mistake. If a Sagnac Gyro is considered in that frame,
> | the wavelength experiences an IMAGINARY change.... But I'm sure that is
> | far too hard for you....
>
> We can now consider the bogus BaTh refutation thoroughly unmasked

> by Henry's very clear explanation of why the number of links in

> a bicycle chain will change if the bicycle is rotated.

I knew this would be too hard for a laboratory attendant like yourself.

Paul, do you really think NUMBER is frame dependent?....just like your
colleague Bodkin does.

Paul, in the inertial frame, the path lengths of a sagnac gyro are
different during rotation.
Do you really believe you can change that fact just by converting to the
rotating frame? You cannot. You have made a gross error.

The answer is that the wavelength experiences an imaginary contraction
in one path and an elongation in the other.
Another way to look at that is to regard the (inertial frame) emission
point as having an imaginary movement in the rotating frame. It actually
moves backwards if PLOTTED in the rotating frame....DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

> 'nuff said!

I think that should be now clear.

--