Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403835

Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?

From	HGW <hw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?
Date	2017-01-03 13:03 +1100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<o4f0pc$5vs$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <o46gcj$5bi$2@gioia.aioe.org> <4edf64c2-217c-4759-850e-4ae61816280b@googlegroups.com> <1ea54a65-8460-43b6-91dc-75478915a74a@googlegroups.com> <o4bl78$15mk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <3f0bf807-9c1a-4321-bd10-2ebf557e204d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/01/17 20:10, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

>>>> Like it or not, Henry, your Sagnac explanation depends on the existence of an
>>>> absolute frame and violates a fundamental principle of physics first expounded
>>>> by Galileo.
>>>
>>> Galileo used the standard math, this relative != relativistic!
>>>
>>> c' = c - v, etc.
>>
>> A ring gyro involves three things moving around the same circle at
>> different speeds. It is beyond the capabilities of most human minds to
>> visualize that kind of process.
>>
>> Even with computer animation, the task is difficult, particularly
>> regarding the way angular acceleration gives rise to fringe MOVEMENT.
>
> Computer animation is NOT difficult, if you have a clear understanding of what
> it is that you want to illustrate. The animation in my second link took LESS
> TIME to create than my detailed explanation of your rayphases output in the
> first link:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTmVSTUl3cGlzc2s
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcdzhsazFMZVo3cUE
>
> You *claim* that I did not understand what I was animating in my second link.
> I challenge you to spend *one evening*, just as I did, to illustrate how,
> according to BaTh "theory", the Sagnac affects the two dimensional spread of
> light from a high speed rocket zooming over a flat terrain. I will be very
> surprised if you can come up with anything that significantly alters the
> conclusions that I draw from my second link.
>
>  From the source frame, JUST AS I HAVE ILLUSTRATED, a light pulse will radiate
> outward in a spherical shell. As you ask, "What else could it possibly do?"

In the top one, you have drawn the pulse radiating out symmetrically 
from the point on the ground not from the moving source. You really do 
not have a clue about this. How could anyone be as stupid as you?


>  From the source frame, JUST AS I HAVE ILLUSTRATED, the BaTh explanation of
> Sagnac demands directional dependence of the phase of the emitted light, in
> absolute and total violation of a fundamental principle of physics that has
> been known since Galileo, the principle of relativity.
>
> The ball is in your court, Henry. You claim that I am wrong.
>
> *IF YOU CAN*, I challenge you to illustrate how light spreads from a moving
> rocket, comparing how things look from the source frame versus how they look
> from the ground. Since in BaTh, time and space are both absolute, the source
> and ground observers should essentially see the same thing. There is no RoS
> in BaTh.

Correct. Both observers 'see' the same thing.....but it is moving 
sideways in the ground frame. Of course they don't actually 'see' any of 
it at all....but they can detect it as it expands with clocks.


--

Thread

csiph-web