Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672147 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-17 23:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 12:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 23:33 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:41 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 10:43 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 18:30 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-23 23:45 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 11:55 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-24 16:13 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-24 08:04 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:38 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 11:36 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 11:52 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:39 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 12:56 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:09 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:07 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:28 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:08 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 13:18 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-19 15:34 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:19 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-19 18:47 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 06:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 08:14 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 10:33 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 08:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 11:31 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 09:35 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 12:30 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:54 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 16:25 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 14:36 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 16:58 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:00 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:14 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:25 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:40 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:42 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 19:43 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:21 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-24 19:48 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:16 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 06:23 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 20:43 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 20:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 07:03 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 06:50 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:19 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:15 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 19:04 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 14:38 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 18:21 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-24 22:01 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 11:26 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-26 14:19 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-26 15:40 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 19:45 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-26 23:00 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 06:02 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 07:42 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 07:43 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-28 09:59 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:04 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 02:29 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:58 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-29 13:10 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 13:13 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:32 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 08:33 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 13:36 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 20:56 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 13:37 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 20:02 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:51 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:06 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-28 12:01 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:34 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 11:35 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-29 13:58 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-29 14:30 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:41 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-30 11:50 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 13:36 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 11:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 14:30 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 07:28 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:51 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 17:16 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-01 10:52 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-01 11:23 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 11:59 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 20:44 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 22:11 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 18:04 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 18:05 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:32 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 20:52 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:21 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:10 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:12 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:14 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 19:04 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-06 11:55 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 10:48 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-06 11:38 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:08 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 14:52 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-06 14:55 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 08:56 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 07:26 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 14:29 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 07:55 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 08:03 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 15:12 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 08:42 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 10:43 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:15 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 19:05 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 09:35 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 23:44 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 17:40 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 02:25 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:07 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:09 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:24 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:27 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:39 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:42 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-08 17:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:54 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 09:21 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-08 17:42 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 18:34 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 18:15 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:01 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:41 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-07 12:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 20:20 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:28 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:20 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 15:50 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 20:30 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-30 11:58 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 08:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-31 13:34 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 09:20 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-18 21:30 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:29 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 11:37 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 13:23 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:25 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 21:29 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 15:50 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-21 11:34 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 11:52 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 12:09 -0700
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 11:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18cf5649c10181fd$188465$566809$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672391 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:16:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 22:01:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its >> >> constant wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence >> >> length another. That is one reason why all experiment involving >> >> interferometry that claim to refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. >> >> The moving mirror experiments of Q. Majorana are good examples of >> >> that. They actually serve to verify BaTh, not refute it. >> >> >> >> > To calculate the equation for a FOG, you can't ignore that a FOG >> >> > consist of a fiber and not of vacuum (or air). >> >> > >> >> > And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >> >> > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >> >> > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >> >> >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what >> >> the correct answer should be...or why. >> > >> > No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. >> >> At present, there are many different theories. > > Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. > This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually the same as that of Newton. > Jan > > [1] Simpler example: You don't say either that the sum of the angles of > a triangle theorem is just Euclids // postulate in disguise. > (unless you want to be silly) > Given the // postulate it is a direct consequence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 14:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0gaz7.1gaoj491t8sum9N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672424 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:16:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 22:01:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its > >> >> constant wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence > >> >> length another. That is one reason why all experiment involving > >> >> interferometry that claim to refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. > >> >> The moving mirror experiments of Q. Majorana are good examples of > >> >> that. They actually serve to verify BaTh, not refute it. > >> >> > >> >> > To calculate the equation for a FOG, you can't ignore that a FOG > >> >> > consist of a fiber and not of vacuum (or air). > >> >> > > >> >> > And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". > >> >> > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > >> >> > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf > >> >> > >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what > >> >> the correct answer should be...or why. > >> > > >> > No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. > >> > >> At present, there are many different theories. > > > > Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. > > This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. > > For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually > the same as that of Newton. Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the partial aether dragging. (as discovered by Fizeau) Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could handle correctly, (using his aether theory) Einstein (1905) made it easy, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cf5ea136292e3a$2227442$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672425 |
On 8/26/2026 2:19 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:16:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 22:01:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its >>>>>> constant wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence >>>>>> length another. That is one reason why all experiment involving >>>>>> interferometry that claim to refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. >>>>>> The moving mirror experiments of Q. Majorana are good examples of >>>>>> that. They actually serve to verify BaTh, not refute it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> To calculate the equation for a FOG, you can't ignore that a FOG >>>>>>> consist of a fiber and not of vacuum (or air). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >>>>>>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what >>>>>> the correct answer should be...or why. >>>>> >>>>> No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. >>>> >>>> At present, there are many different theories. >>> >>> Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. >>> This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. >> >> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually >> the same as that of Newton. > > Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) > nothing to say about the partial aether dragging. > (as discovered by Fizeau) > > Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem > that only Lorentz could handle correctly, > (using his aether theory) > > Einstein (1905) made it easy, Sure, sure. And then the idiot has got even more mad and announced that basic math must be false, as it doesn't want to fit his brilliant postulates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18cf72891ec6e9ad$126378$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672425 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:19:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear >> >> >> what the correct answer should be...or why. >> >> > >> >> > No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. >> >> >> >> At present, there are many different theories. >> > >> > Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. >> > This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. >> >> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually >> the same as that of Newton. > > Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the > partial aether dragging. > (as discovered by Fizeau) Rubbish. Aether dragging was a suggested reason why Fizeau's TWLS measurements would not detect Earth's movement through the supposed Aether. Fizeau designed and performed the first workable experiment to test the idea. He didn't discover 'Aether dragging' because there is no Aether. There are numerous modern theories about light moving through moving media. .and the differ markedly. Why don't you do some research and learn a few truths. > Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could > handle correctly, > (using his aether theory) There is no Aether. > Einstein (1905) made it easy, In you dreams. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0gy69.ojv6pz1tpep13N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672438 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:19:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > >> >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear > >> >> >> what the correct answer should be...or why. > >> >> > > >> >> > No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. > >> >> > >> >> At present, there are many different theories. > >> > > >> > Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. > >> > This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. > >> > >> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually > >> the same as that of Newton. > > > > Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the > > partial aether dragging. > > (as discovered by Fizeau) > > Rubbish. Aether dragging was a suggested reason why Fizeau's TWLS > measurements would not detect Earth's movement through the supposed > Aether. Fizeau designed and performed the first workable experiment to > test the idea. He didn't discover 'Aether dragging' because there is no > Aether. > There are numerous modern theories about light moving through moving > media. .and the differ markedly. Why don't you do some research and learn > a few truths. The rubbish is all yours. You are confusing two entirely different experiments by Fizeau. 1) His measurement of the speed of light. and 2) His discovery of 'partial aether dragging'. What follows next in your paragraph above is rubbish. > > Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could > > handle correctly, > > (using his aether theory) > > There is no Aether. You are being disingenious. We are discussing those experiments in the language that was used to describe them when they were done. (and which is in some cases still used, instead of 'light dragging') And since Lorentz aether theory is fully equivalent with special relativity having or not having an aether is purely a matter of taste, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 06:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cf8dab9a94e4c5$2270758$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672440 |
On 8/26/2026 11:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:19:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear >>>>>>>> what the correct answer should be...or why. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. >>>>>> >>>>>> At present, there are many different theories. >>>>> >>>>> Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. >>>>> This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. >>>> >>>> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually >>>> the same as that of Newton. >>> >>> Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the >>> partial aether dragging. >>> (as discovered by Fizeau) >> >> Rubbish. Aether dragging was a suggested reason why Fizeau's TWLS >> measurements would not detect Earth's movement through the supposed >> Aether. Fizeau designed and performed the first workable experiment to >> test the idea. He didn't discover 'Aether dragging' because there is no >> Aether. >> There are numerous modern theories about light moving through moving >> media. .and the differ markedly. Why don't you do some research and learn >> a few truths. > > The rubbish is all yours. > You are confusing two entirely different experiments by Fizeau. > 1) His measurement of the speed of light. > and > 2) His discovery of 'partial aether dragging'. > What follows next in your paragraph above is rubbish. > >>> Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could >>> handle correctly, >>> (using his aether theory) >> >> There is no Aether. > > You are being disingenious. We are discussing those experiments > in the language that was used to describe them when they were done. > (and which is in some cases still used, instead of 'light dragging') > And since Lorentz aether theory is fully equivalent with special > relativity having or not having an aether is purely a matter of taste, And having or not relativity is also. But LT is not fully equivalent to The Shit. LET predicts the GPS corrections, while The Shit is forbidding them. > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XY-cna6K0ses0A33nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672440 |
On 08/26/2026 02:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:19:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear >>>>>>>> what the correct answer should be...or why. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. >>>>>> >>>>>> At present, there are many different theories. >>>>> >>>>> Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. >>>>> This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. >>>> >>>> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually >>>> the same as that of Newton. >>> >>> Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the >>> partial aether dragging. >>> (as discovered by Fizeau) >> >> Rubbish. Aether dragging was a suggested reason why Fizeau's TWLS >> measurements would not detect Earth's movement through the supposed >> Aether. Fizeau designed and performed the first workable experiment to >> test the idea. He didn't discover 'Aether dragging' because there is no >> Aether. >> There are numerous modern theories about light moving through moving >> media. .and the differ markedly. Why don't you do some research and learn >> a few truths. > > The rubbish is all yours. > You are confusing two entirely different experiments by Fizeau. > 1) His measurement of the speed of light. > and > 2) His discovery of 'partial aether dragging'. > What follows next in your paragraph above is rubbish. > >>> Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could >>> handle correctly, >>> (using his aether theory) >> >> There is no Aether. > > You are being disingenious. We are discussing those experiments > in the language that was used to describe them when they were done. > (and which is in some cases still used, instead of 'light dragging') > And since Lorentz aether theory is fully equivalent with special > relativity having or not having an aether is purely a matter of taste, > > Jan > That's like saying that water and electricity are compatible because either has a fluid model. What it fails to mention is that accounts after Lorentz invariance and "the Lorentzians" make for otherwise quite different ways of looking at things. Typical a-typical SR-ian. If you're going to say "Lorentz Aether Theory", or "Lorentz Ether Theory", you might as well say "FitzGerald Lorentz Ether Theory", that where the theory comes from, Lorentz just having added a different of Laplacians opposite a raw second partial differential. Which leaves a lot, "un-said". Then, though I suppose that's fair, because now, from a typical SR-ian, that makes a lot of what you said before to be wished "un-said". Or, "de-said", I suppose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XY-cnamK0sf20A33nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672448 |
On 08/27/2026 07:42 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 08/26/2026 02:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:19:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear >>>>>>>>> what the correct answer should be...or why. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At present, there are many different theories. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. >>>>>> This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. >>>>> >>>>> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is >>>>> virtually >>>>> the same as that of Newton. >>>> >>>> Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the >>>> partial aether dragging. >>>> (as discovered by Fizeau) >>> >>> Rubbish. Aether dragging was a suggested reason why Fizeau's TWLS >>> measurements would not detect Earth's movement through the supposed >>> Aether. Fizeau designed and performed the first workable experiment to >>> test the idea. He didn't discover 'Aether dragging' because there is no >>> Aether. >>> There are numerous modern theories about light moving through moving >>> media. .and the differ markedly. Why don't you do some research and >>> learn >>> a few truths. >> >> The rubbish is all yours. >> You are confusing two entirely different experiments by Fizeau. >> 1) His measurement of the speed of light. >> and >> 2) His discovery of 'partial aether dragging'. >> What follows next in your paragraph above is rubbish. >> >>>> Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could >>>> handle correctly, >>>> (using his aether theory) >>> >>> There is no Aether. >> >> You are being disingenious. We are discussing those experiments >> in the language that was used to describe them when they were done. >> (and which is in some cases still used, instead of 'light dragging') >> And since Lorentz aether theory is fully equivalent with special >> relativity having or not having an aether is purely a matter of taste, >> >> Jan >> > > > That's like saying that water and electricity are compatible > because either has a fluid model. > > What it fails to mention is that accounts after Lorentz invariance > and "the Lorentzians" make for otherwise quite different ways of > looking at things. > > Typical a-typical SR-ian. > > If you're going to say "Lorentz Aether Theory", or "Lorentz Ether > Theory", you might as well say "FitzGerald Lorentz Ether Theory", > that where the theory comes from, Lorentz just having added a > different of Laplacians opposite a raw second partial differential. > > Which leaves a lot, "un-said". > > Then, though I suppose that's fair, because now, from a typical SR-ian, > that makes a lot of what you said before to be wished "un-said". > > Or, "de-said", I suppose. > > > > Sometimes it's a usual course of learning to "un-learn" things. Can't "un-say" anything, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 09:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0is79.161nq8t1fajjhtN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672448 |
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/26/2026 02:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:19:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear > >>>>>>>> what the correct answer should be...or why. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No theory is needed. The effect is purely kinematic. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At present, there are many different theories. > >>>>> > >>>>> Not if you dismiss the ones that are not Lorentz-invariant. > >>>>> This was Einstein's 1905 great clean-up. > >>>> > >>>> For the speeds used, Einstein's velocity addition equation is virtually > >>>> the same as that of Newton. > >>> > >>> Yes, but irrelevant. Newton had (and has) nothing to say about the > >>> partial aether dragging. > >>> (as discovered by Fizeau) > >> > >> Rubbish. Aether dragging was a suggested reason why Fizeau's TWLS > >> measurements would not detect Earth's movement through the supposed > >> Aether. Fizeau designed and performed the first workable experiment to > >> test the idea. He didn't discover 'Aether dragging' because there is no > >> Aether. > >> There are numerous modern theories about light moving through moving > >> media. .and the differ markedly. Why don't you do some research and learn > >> a few truths. > > > > The rubbish is all yours. > > You are confusing two entirely different experiments by Fizeau. > > 1) His measurement of the speed of light. > > and > > 2) His discovery of 'partial aether dragging'. > > What follows next in your paragraph above is rubbish. > > > >>> Before 1905 this was a very difficult problem that only Lorentz could > >>> handle correctly, > >>> (using his aether theory) > >> > >> There is no Aether. > > > > You are being disingenious. We are discussing those experiments > > in the language that was used to describe them when they were done. > > (and which is in some cases still used, instead of 'light dragging') > > And since Lorentz aether theory is fully equivalent with special > > relativity having or not having an aether is purely a matter of taste, > > > > Jan > > > > > That's like saying that water and electricity are compatible > because either has a fluid model. Throwing water on your fuse box should convince you of the incompatibility [snip more verbal rubish] Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 23:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <116ibku$379b9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672375 |
Den 24.08.2026 20:21, skrev HenryWilson: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:38:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 23.08.2026 21:04, skrev HenryWilson: >>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 21:15:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> Den 20.08.2026 01:19, skrev Henry Wilson: >>> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf >>>>> >>>>> The Sagnac effect is very simply explained by the Ballistic theory. >>>> >>>> I challenge you to show how the Ballistic theory can lead to this >>>> equation for the phase difference in a FOG: >>>> Δϕ = 8πNAω/λc >>> >>> That is very easy. >>> >>> Newton says light's wavelength is absolute. The optical path lengths >>> are equal to 2πR(c-v)/c and 2πR(c+v)/c, the difference being 4πRv/c. >>> Dividing that by the wavelength gives the correct equation for fringe >>> displacement, 4πRv/cλ (or 4Aѡ/cλ). >> >> This is the prediction for a simple Sagnac ring (but for a small typo). >> Δϕ ≃ 8πAω/λc >> >> It is quite similar to the equation for a FOG, >> but you can't ignore the fact that the speed of light in a fiber is c/n >> relative to the fiber. > > >> Your equation 2πR(c ± v)/c should be 2πR(c/n ± v)/(c/n) and then the >> whole thing will be wrong. > > There is a lot more to my above equation than I have stated. > Before continuing, I would like to know what you think the 'interference > pattern' of a FOG or pulsed laser gyro actually looks like. There are two kind of optical gyroscopes, Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOG) and Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG). They are very different in that FOGs only measure the rotation, that is ω , while RLGs measure the angle rotated since the gyro was started. RLGs are preferred in inertial navigation system (INS) because it quite directly gives the orientation of it axis. In FOGs the angle is the integral of ω. Pulsed laser gyros is a variant of the RLG. In RLGs there is a minimum angle which can be detected. To overcome this problems the RLG is vibrating fast so that it rotates back and forth more than the minimum angle. Another way to overcome the problem is to pulse the laser. The pulsed RLG will be more precise than an ordinary RLG. A FOG is a ring of optical fibre, usually with many turns. At one point there is a monochromatic light source (laser) which is sending light in both direction. This will give a standing wave pattern in the fibre ring. The position of the maxima and minima will depend on the rotation speed. When the two light beams have gone around the loop and are back at the source, the phase difference will be proportional to the rotation speed ω, Δϕ ≃ 8πAω/λc . There are different ways of measuring this phase difference. Look it up. > > I think it just flips for black to white during an angular acceleration > and the amount is then integrated with time to give rotation. ???? > At any > constant rotation speed, the interference pattern should be the same and > static. Yes, the standing wave pattern is static, but the position of the maxima and minima relative the source will depend on the rotation speed ω. > The pulsed laser method greatly improves the integration > accuracy.. But a pulsed ring laser is not a FOG. But there may be pulsed FOGs, for all I know. >> It is remarkable that the index of refraction n doesn't appear in the >> equation Δϕ = 8πNAω/λc, but I have shown exactly why it doesn't. > > Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its constant > wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence length another. That > is one reason why all experiment involving interferometry that claim to > refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. The moving mirror experiments of Q. > Majorana are good examples of that. They actually serve to verify BaTh, > not refute it. Most experiments will confirm more than one theory. Your BaTh is falsified by several experiments. SR is not falsified by any experiment. Not being falsified is more important than being confirmed! > >> To calculate the equation for a FOG, you can't ignore that a FOG consist >> of a fiber and not of vacuum (or air). >> >> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf > > Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what the > correct answer should be...or why. Don't be ridiculous. SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! Will you now continue? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 02:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18ceeb763c1fbe21$188395$566809$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672379 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.08.2026 20:21, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:38:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 23.08.2026 21:04, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 21:15:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Den 20.08.2026 01:19, skrev Henry Wilson: >>>> >>>> >>>> Newton says light's wavelength is absolute. The optical path lengths >>>> are equal to 2πR(c-v)/c and 2πR(c+v)/c, the difference being 4πRv/c. >>>> Dividing that by the wavelength gives the correct equation for fringe >>>> displacement, 4πRv/cλ (or 4Aѡ/cλ). >>> >> >> There is a lot more to my above equation than I have stated. >> Before continuing, I would like to know what you think the >> 'interference pattern' of a FOG or pulsed laser gyro actually looks >> like. > > There are two kind of optical gyroscopes, Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOG) > and Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG). They are very different in that FOGs > only measure the rotation, that is ω , while RLGs measure the angle > rotated since the gyro was started. > RLGs are preferred in inertial navigation system (INS) because it quite > directly gives the orientation of it axis. In FOGs the angle is the > integral of ω. > > Pulsed laser gyros is a variant of the RLG. > In RLGs there is a minimum angle which can be detected. To overcome this > problems the RLG is vibrating fast so that it rotates back and forth > more than the minimum angle. Another way to overcome the problem is to > pulse the laser. The pulsed RLG will be more precise than an ordinary > RLG. > > A FOG is a ring of optical fibre, usually with many turns. > At one point there is a monochromatic light source (laser) > which is sending light in both direction. This will give a standing wave > pattern in the fibre ring. The position of the maxima and minima will > depend on the rotation speed. > > When the two light beams have gone around the loop and are back at the > source, the phase difference will be proportional to the rotation speed > ω, Δϕ ≃ 8πAω/λc . > There are different ways of measuring this phase difference. > Look it up. I have tried and it is not explained properly. >> I think it just flips for black to white during an angular acceleration >> and the amount is then integrated with time to give rotation. How can a 'line of fringes' be produce from a 5000 turns of a 100 micron fibre? Is some kind of optical wedge used? > ???? During acceleration, the brightness exiting the fibre must be cycling between 100% light and dark. I want to know how is that presented and monitored? >> At any constant rotation speed, the interference pattern should be the >> same and static. > > Yes, the standing wave pattern is static, but the position of the maxima > and minima relative the source will depend on the rotation speed ω' Yes. The pattern, whatever that is, moves only during an acceleration and remains where it is when that ceases. >> The pulsed laser method greatly improves the integration accuracy.. > > But a pulsed ring laser is not a FOG. > > But there may be pulsed FOGs, for all I know. > >>> It is remarkable that the index of refraction n doesn't appear in the >>> equation Δϕ = 8πNAω/λc, but I have shown exactly why it doesn't. >> >> Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its constant >> wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence length another. >> That is one reason why all experiment involving interferometry that >> claim to refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. The moving mirror >> experiments of Q. Majorana are good examples of that. They actually >> serve to verify BaTh, not refute it. > > Most experiments will confirm more than one theory. > > Your BaTh is falsified by several experiments. Name one. You will find that the full ramifications of BaTh have not been properly considered. > SR is not falsified by any experiment. It is true that MEASURED light speed can always appear to have the value c by applying imaginary mathematical transforms appropriately. That aspect of SR is workable...but insane, overly complicated and unnecessary...and it does not prove or even suggest that light moves at the same speed c through space. > Not being falsified is more important than being confirmed! It is falsified but you will have to buy my almost ready book to see how and why. >>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what >> the correct answer should be...or why. > > Don't be ridiculous. Sorry that appears to be true. There are many conflicting arguments about this experiment. You have probably only read the ones that support Einstein. > SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. So do many other theories, including BaTh...but the phenomenon itself is not understood. > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). > > Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! Let light speed 'u' always have the value c u = c = c(c-v)/(c-v) = (c-v)/(1-v/c) = (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2)) = (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] ...where v can have any value. > Will you now continue? You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 06:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cef33a6f1d0e24$36581$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672384 |
On 8/25/2026 4:29 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > It is true that MEASURED light speed can always appear to have the value c > by applying imaginary mathematical transforms appropriately. Measuring is not about applying mathematical transforms, it is something else. Of course, light measured always as c is a very impudent Shit's lie, with the measurement procedures as they were when the idiot lived and mumbled it could no way happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0e6gn.1kbzpqa1d5rm0yN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672384 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 24.08.2026 20:21, skrev HenryWilson: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:38:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >>> Den 23.08.2026 21:04, skrev HenryWilson: > >>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 21:15:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Den 20.08.2026 01:19, skrev Henry Wilson: > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> Newton says light's wavelength is absolute. The optical path lengths > >>>> are equal to 2πR(c-v)/c and 2πR(c+v)/c, the difference being 4πRv/c. > >>>> Dividing that by the wavelength gives the correct equation for fringe > >>>> displacement, 4πRv/c? (or 4A?/c?). > >>> > > >> > >> There is a lot more to my above equation than I have stated. > >> Before continuing, I would like to know what you think the > >> 'interference pattern' of a FOG or pulsed laser gyro actually looks > >> like. > > > > There are two kind of optical gyroscopes, Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOG) > > and Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG). They are very different in that FOGs > > only measure the rotation, that is ? , while RLGs measure the angle > > rotated since the gyro was started. > > RLGs are preferred in inertial navigation system (INS) because it quite > > directly gives the orientation of it axis. In FOGs the angle is the > > integral of ?. > > > > Pulsed laser gyros is a variant of the RLG. > > In RLGs there is a minimum angle which can be detected. To overcome this > > problems the RLG is vibrating fast so that it rotates back and forth > > more than the minimum angle. Another way to overcome the problem is to > > pulse the laser. The pulsed RLG will be more precise than an ordinary > > RLG. > > > > A FOG is a ring of optical fibre, usually with many turns. > > At one point there is a monochromatic light source (laser) > > which is sending light in both direction. This will give a standing wave > > pattern in the fibre ring. The position of the maxima and minima will > > depend on the rotation speed. > > > > When the two light beams have gone around the loop and are back at the > > source, the phase difference will be proportional to the rotation speed > > ?, ?? ? 8πA?/?c . > > There are different ways of measuring this phase difference. > > Look it up. > > I have tried and it is not explained properly. > > >> I think it just flips for black to white during an angular acceleration > >> and the amount is then integrated with time to give rotation. > > How can a 'line of fringes' be produce from a 5000 turns of a 100 micron > fibre? > Is some kind of optical wedge used? > > > ???? > > During acceleration, the brightness exiting the fibre must be cycling > between 100% light and dark. I want to know how is that presented and > monitored? > > >> At any constant rotation speed, the interference pattern should be the > >> same and static. > > > > Yes, the standing wave pattern is static, but the position of the maxima > > and minima relative the source will depend on the rotation speed ?' > > Yes. The pattern, whatever that is, moves only during an acceleration and > remains where it is when that ceases. > > >> The pulsed laser method greatly improves the integration accuracy.. > > > > But a pulsed ring laser is not a FOG. > > > > But there may be pulsed FOGs, for all I know. > > > >>> It is remarkable that the index of refraction n doesn't appear in the > >>> equation ?? = 8πNA?/?c, but I have shown exactly why it doesn't. > >> > >> Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its constant > >> wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence length another. > >> That is one reason why all experiment involving interferometry that > >> claim to refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. The moving mirror > >> experiments of Q. Majorana are good examples of that. They actually > >> serve to verify BaTh, not refute it. > > > > Most experiments will confirm more than one theory. > > > > Your BaTh is falsified by several experiments. > > Name one. You will find that the full ramifications of BaTh have not been > properly considered. > > > SR is not falsified by any experiment. > > It is true that MEASURED light speed can always appear to have the value c > by applying imaginary mathematical transforms appropriately. That aspect > of SR is workable...but insane, overly complicated and unnecessary...and > it does not prove or even suggest that light moves at the same speed c > through space. > > > Not being falsified is more important than being confirmed! > > It is falsified but you will have to buy my almost ready book to see how > and why. > > >>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". > >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > >>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf > >> > >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what > >> the correct answer should be...or why. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. > > Sorry that appears to be true. There are many conflicting arguments about > this experiment. You have probably only read the ones that support > Einstein. There are always more wrong ones. Of course the correct answer is known, from everyday experience even. > > SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. > > So do many other theories, including BaTh...but the phenomenon itself is > not understood. > > > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). > > > > Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! > > > Let light speed 'u' always have the value c > > u = c > = c(c-v)/(c-v) > = (c-v)/(1-v/c) > = (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2)) > = (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] ...where v can have any value. > > > Will you now continue? > > You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. Gettit? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d01d81e4fd70b0$133894$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672392 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:16:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >> >>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >> >>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >> >> >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what >> >> the correct answer should be...or why. >> > >> > Don't be ridiculous. >> >> Sorry that appears to be true. There are many conflicting arguments >> about this experiment. You have probably only read the ones that >> support Einstein. > > There are always more wrong ones. > Of course the correct answer is known, > from everyday experience even. Hahaha! very funny >> > SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. >> >> So do many other theories, including BaTh...but the phenomenon itself >> is not understood. >> >> > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). >> > >> > Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! >> >> >> Let light speed 'u' always have the value c >> >> u = c = c(c-v)/(c-v) >> = (c-v)/(1-v/c) >> = (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2)) >> = (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] ...where v can have any value. >> >> > Will you now continue? >> >> You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. > > Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. > > Gettit? Yes. You believe postulates are true by definition. What does that say? > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0lm1s.17v9wm6mv4sc4N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672525 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:16:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > > >> > >> >>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". > >> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > >> >>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf > >> >> > >> >> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what > >> >> the correct answer should be...or why. > >> > > >> > Don't be ridiculous. > >> > >> Sorry that appears to be true. There are many conflicting arguments > >> about this experiment. You have probably only read the ones that > >> support Einstein. > > > > There are always more wrong ones. > > Of course the correct answer is known, > > from everyday experience even. > > Hahaha! very funny > > >> > SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. > >> > >> So do many other theories, including BaTh...but the phenomenon itself > >> is not understood. > >> > >> > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). > >> > > >> > Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! > >> > >> > >> Let light speed 'u' always have the value c > >> > >> u = c = c(c-v)/(c-v) > >> = (c-v)/(1-v/c) > >> = (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2)) > >> = (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] ...where v can have any value. > >> > >> > Will you now continue? > >> > >> You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. > > > > Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. > > > > Gettit? > > Yes. You believe postulates are true by definition. Of course postulates and axioms are true be definition. They define a universe of discourse, in which you can prove theorems and/or build theories. So postulates can only be judged by their usefulness, and empirical adequacy of the theories that are built on them. > What does that say? That you don't understand the first things about mathematics and physics, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 13:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d042606ba257b7$2499160$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672533 |
On 8/29/2026 1:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:16:09 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >>>>>>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what >>>>>> the correct answer should be...or why. >>>>> >>>>> Don't be ridiculous. >>>> >>>> Sorry that appears to be true. There are many conflicting arguments >>>> about this experiment. You have probably only read the ones that >>>> support Einstein. >>> >>> There are always more wrong ones. >>> Of course the correct answer is known, >>> from everyday experience even. >> >> Hahaha! very funny >> >>>>> SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. >>>> >>>> So do many other theories, including BaTh...but the phenomenon itself >>>> is not understood. >>>> >>>>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! >>>> >>>> >>>> Let light speed 'u' always have the value c >>>> >>>> u = c = c(c-v)/(c-v) >>>> = (c-v)/(1-v/c) >>>> = (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2)) >>>> = (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] ...where v can have any value. >>>> >>>>> Will you now continue? >>>> >>>> You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. >>> >>> Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. >>> >>> Gettit? >> >> Yes. You believe postulates are true by definition. > > Of course postulates and axioms are true be definition. > They define a universe of discourse, > in which you can prove theorems and/or build theories. > > So postulates can only be judged by their usefulness, > and empirical adequacy of the theories that are built on them. Unfortunately, The idiot's postulates compared to Euclid's they're refuting - can only make sane people rotfl.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 05:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d07e54cf9890aa$134870$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672533 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 13:10:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> >> You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. >> > >> > Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. >> > >> > Gettit? >> >> Yes. You believe postulates are true by definition. > > Of course postulates and axioms are true be definition. > They define a universe of discourse, > in which you can prove theorems and/or build theories Ok, I will postulate that whenever I drive though a city, in my car frame the road surface always approaches head on and at precisely 60 km/hr. the whole city terrain shrinks, expands and rotates madly as I go. From that I can produce a theory that is identical to SR. The city's properties are transformed with the LTs, using where c = 16.67 According to you it must be corect because it is a postulate. > So postulates can only be judged by their usefulness, > and empirical adequacy of the theories that are built on them. > >> What does that say? > > That you don't understand the first things about mathematics and > physics, It is hard to believe that you have been posting to the NG for fifty years and still don't understand what a postulate is. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0nhr6.12sriyx10huiqsN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672561 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 13:10:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. > >> > > >> > Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. > >> > > >> > Gettit? > >> > >> Yes. You believe postulates are true by definition. > > > > Of course postulates and axioms are true be definition. > > They define a universe of discourse, > > in which you can prove theorems and/or build theories > > Ok, I will postulate that whenever I drive though a city, in my car frame > the road surface always approaches head on and at precisely 60 km/hr. I hope for you there isn't a SUV in your way. > the whole city terrain shrinks, expands and rotates madly as I go. > From that I can produce a theory that is identical to SR. The city's > properties are transformed with the LTs, using where c = 16.67 > According to you it must be corect because it is a postulate. You still haven't got it, eh? 'Correct' is not a property of postulates. They are what they are. Same with systems of postulates, as long as they are self-consistent. Only complete fools, like our local one, insist that for example the axioms ofEuclidean geometry are somehow 'correct' while all others are somehow wrong. As for yours, if they really reproduce special relativity there is nothing wrong with them. But I gather from your description that there is nothing to them beyond choosing a particular frame of reference, (which isn't a postulate) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-31 08:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d0d6c55a32a878$136055$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672566 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 13:10:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. >> >> > >> >> > Of course. It is a postulate. There is nothing to 'prove'. >> >> > >> >> > Gettit? >> >> >> >> Yes. You believe postulates are true by definition. >> > >> > Of course postulates and axioms are true be definition. >> > They define a universe of discourse, >> > in which you can prove theorems and/or build theories >> >> Ok, I will postulate that whenever I drive though a city, in my car >> frame the road surface always approaches head on and at precisely 60 >> km/hr. > > I hope for you there isn't a SUV in your way. > >> the whole city terrain shrinks, expands and rotates madly as I go. >> From that I can produce a theory that is identical to SR. The city's >> properties are transformed with the LTs, using where c = 16.67 >> According to you it must be corect because it is a postulate. > > You still haven't got it, eh? > 'Correct' is not a property of postulates. But you just said they were. > They are what they are. > Same with systems of postulates, > as long as they are self-consistent. Postulates are things one tries to see if they work. If they do then one must refine the postulates and look a bit deeper. > Only complete fools, like our local one, > insist that for example the axioms of Euclidean geometry are somehow > 'correct' while all others are somehow wrong.... Did you know that Euclidean geometry is purely psychological. Our minds create the three axes at right angles. just like how a TV turns electrical signals into a 2D graphic. > > As for yours, if they really reproduce special relativity there is > nothing wrong with them. Postulating any speed to be frame independent will produce the same kind of theory...and the same logical impossibility that I have now exposed. Speeds are frame dependent by very definition. Since light takes time to go from A to B is has a ordinary speeds just like everything else.. . > But I gather from your description that there is nothing to them beyond > choosing a particular frame of reference, > (which isn't a postulate) Einstein tried P2 because Lorentz reckoned he found a way to make it work. Einstein started with Lorentz's conclusion and worked backwards. He thought he was onto something good but P2 has now been shown to be logically impossible. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 13:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <116jun0$3mgdb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672384 |
Den 25.08.2026 04:29, skrev HenryWilson: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 24.08.2026 20:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:38:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> Den 23.08.2026 21:04, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 21:15:59 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Den 20.08.2026 01:19, skrev Henry Wilson: >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Newton says light's wavelength is absolute. The optical path lengths >>>>> are equal to 2πR(c-v)/c and 2πR(c+v)/c, the difference being 4πRv/c. >>>>> Dividing that by the wavelength gives the correct equation for fringe >>>>> displacement, 4πRv/cλ (or 4Aѡ/cλ). >>>> > >>> >>> There is a lot more to my above equation than I have stated. >>> Before continuing, I would like to know what you think the >>> 'interference pattern' of a FOG or pulsed laser gyro actually looks >>> like. >> >> There are two kind of optical gyroscopes, Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOG) >> and Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG). They are very different in that FOGs >> only measure the rotation, that is ω , while RLGs measure the angle >> rotated since the gyro was started. >> RLGs are preferred in inertial navigation system (INS) because it quite >> directly gives the orientation of it axis. In FOGs the angle is the >> integral of ω. >> >> Pulsed laser gyros is a variant of the RLG. >> In RLGs there is a minimum angle which can be detected. To overcome this >> problems the RLG is vibrating fast so that it rotates back and forth >> more than the minimum angle. Another way to overcome the problem is to >> pulse the laser. The pulsed RLG will be more precise than an ordinary >> RLG. >> >> A FOG is a ring of optical fibre, usually with many turns. >> At one point there is a monochromatic light source (laser) >> which is sending light in both direction. This will give a standing wave >> pattern in the fibre ring. The position of the maxima and minima will >> depend on the rotation speed. >> >> When the two light beams have gone around the loop and are back at the >> source, the phase difference will be proportional to the rotation speed >> ω, Δϕ ≃ 8πAω/λc . >> There are different ways of measuring this phase difference. >> Look it up. > > I have tried and it is not explained properly. > >>> I think it just flips for black to white during an angular acceleration >>> and the amount is then integrated with time to give rotation. > > How can a 'line of fringes' be produce from a 5000 turns of a 100 micron > fibre? > Is some kind of optical wedge used? > >> ???? > > During acceleration, the brightness exiting the fibre must be cycling > between 100% light and dark. I want to know how is that presented and > monitored? > >>> At any constant rotation speed, the interference pattern should be the >>> same and static. >> >> Yes, the standing wave pattern is static, but the position of the maxima >> and minima relative the source will depend on the rotation speed ω' > > Yes. The pattern, whatever that is, moves only during an acceleration and > remains where it is when that ceases. > >>> The pulsed laser method greatly improves the integration accuracy.. >> >> But a pulsed ring laser is not a FOG. >> >> But there may be pulsed FOGs, for all I know. >> >>>> It is remarkable that the index of refraction n doesn't appear in the >>>> equation Δϕ = 8πNAω/λc, but I have shown exactly why it doesn't. >>> >>> Interferometry is generally not sensitive to light speed. Its constant >>> wavelength is the important factor. In FOGs coherence length another. >>> That is one reason why all experiment involving interferometry that >>> claim to refute BaTh are fundamentally flawed. The moving mirror >>> experiments of Q. Majorana are good examples of that. They actually >>> serve to verify BaTh, not refute it. >> >> Most experiments will confirm more than one theory. >> >> Your BaTh is falsified by several experiments. > > Name one. You will find that the full ramifications of BaTh have not been > properly considered. > >> SR is not falsified by any experiment. > > It is true that MEASURED light speed can always appear to have the value c > by applying imaginary mathematical transforms appropriately. That aspect > of SR is workable...but insane, overly complicated and unnecessary...and > it does not prove or even suggest that light moves at the same speed c > through space. > >> Not being falsified is more important than being confirmed! > > It is falsified but you will have to buy my almost ready book to see how > and why. > >>>> And then you can't escape from addressing the "Fizeau phenomenon". >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >>> >>> Nobody has a firm theory about this phenomenon. It is not clear what >>> the correct answer should be...or why. >> >> Don't be ridiculous. > > Sorry that appears to be true. There are many conflicting arguments about > this experiment. You have probably only read the ones that support > Einstein. > >> SR explain "this phenomenon" very well. > > So do many other theories, including BaTh...but the phenomenon itself is > not understood. > >> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See equation (16) and (17). >> >> Einstein's velocity transformation equation again! > > > Let light speed 'u' always have the value c > > u = c > = c(c-v)/(c-v) > = (c-v)/(1-v/c) > = (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2)) > = (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] ...where v can have any value. > >> Will you now continue? The question was if you would continue with your derivation of the equation Δϕ = 8πNAω/λc. Are you giving up? > > You are proving light speed = c by assuming light speed = c. > You must be _very_ ignorant of elementary logic if you think that Einstein's thought experiment is meant to prove that the speed of light is c in all inertial frames. I have told you many times what a thought experiment is, but you never learn and do still not know it. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web