Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402911 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-24 19:02 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-30 08:16 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 390 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-24 19:02 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 01:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 01:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-25 08:39 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 14:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-25 18:29 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 01:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 05:23 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-25 12:29 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 08:08 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-25 13:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-27 11:08 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 05:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-28 11:22 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 12:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 08:17 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-24 22:38 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-25 08:11 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-24 06:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-25 08:16 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-25 08:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 05:25 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-25 10:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 08:12 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-25 19:21 -0600
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 03:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-28 11:26 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-26 09:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-28 11:28 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-28 09:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-29 06:37 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-29 11:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:03 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-29 14:10 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 11:23 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-30 11:52 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-31 07:31 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 03:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-05 08:32 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-24 16:35 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-25 08:17 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-25 05:19 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-25 18:32 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-25 15:38 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-12-24 16:07 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-24 20:33 -0600
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 18:43 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-12-25 08:25 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 05:37 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 04:59 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 00:09 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-28 11:46 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 19:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-28 18:53 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 16:54 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-29 06:03 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 02:43 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:06 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 22:25 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 11:26 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-30 01:06 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 14:28 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-25 07:35 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-26 07:53 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 09:47 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:08 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-28 11:27 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:01 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 14:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 11:19 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-29 06:32 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-28 22:26 +0100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 07:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:27 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 13:55 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 10:52 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:47 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-31 07:34 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 14:20 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-30 14:50 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 06:27 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 01:10 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 09:31 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-03 13:03 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 18:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-01-04 03:52 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-04 10:45 +0100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-05 08:22 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-05 11:19 +0100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-06 08:54 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 14:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-06 15:53 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 03:12 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-01-07 05:44 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 14:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 15:16 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 15:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 17:25 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 20:38 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 20:50 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 20:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 21:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 21:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 21:20 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 21:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 22:08 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 02:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 04:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 05:26 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 08:02 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 09:42 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 09:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 16:21 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 16:33 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 17:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 17:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 17:43 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:58 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 21:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 21:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 00:36 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 07:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 21:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 01:08 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 07:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 17:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 17:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 18:00 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 18:09 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 01:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 01:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 06:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 06:49 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 08:12 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 08:16 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 16:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 16:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 17:27 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 19:00 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 19:10 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 00:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-10 00:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 07:48 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 07:58 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 08:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-09 10:32 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 12:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 13:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 15:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 15:46 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 16:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 16:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 17:09 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 17:19 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 17:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 17:59 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 17:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 17:26 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 17:32 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 18:09 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 18:12 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 20:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 22:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 00:08 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 06:43 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 19:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 19:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 19:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 19:36 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 19:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 19:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 20:00 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 20:32 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 21:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 21:26 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 21:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-11 18:26 -0600
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-11 19:31 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 19:55 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 01:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 06:32 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 09:20 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 09:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 09:49 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 07:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 09:07 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 10:13 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 12:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 12:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 12:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 13:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 15:11 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 15:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 15:25 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 01:58 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-14 17:50 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 02:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 07:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 15:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 09:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-14 18:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 18:43 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-14 18:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 20:08 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 20:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-14 21:02 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 10:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-15 18:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 22:08 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-16 19:53 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-16 20:20 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-16 20:49 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-16 22:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 07:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 08:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 08:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 08:54 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 09:21 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 09:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 11:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 11:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 12:50 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 13:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 14:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 14:48 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 15:12 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 17:09 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 18:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-17 18:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 17:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 17:52 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 18:00 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 19:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 20:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 21:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 04:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 05:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 07:55 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 11:20 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 11:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 12:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 15:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 16:38 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 17:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 17:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 18:49 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 07:46 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 21:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 01:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:32 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 21:49 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 22:16 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 22:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 23:00 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 07:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 17:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 18:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 19:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 20:29 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 22:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 22:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 01:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 01:59 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 06:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 06:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 06:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 09:38 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 09:55 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 10:48 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 11:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 11:49 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 12:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 13:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 15:26 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 16:27 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-20 12:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 20:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 20:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 22:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-21 13:35 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 15:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-21 16:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 16:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-21 18:13 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 19:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-21 20:48 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 20:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 22:07 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 22:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 22:18 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 22:21 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 22:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 23:07 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 02:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 08:12 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 08:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 08:31 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 08:42 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 09:04 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 09:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 09:29 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 15:36 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-21 22:22 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 23:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 08:36 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 09:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 10:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 11:20 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 11:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 11:50 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 15:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 15:29 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 15:42 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 17:03 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 17:46 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 18:03 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 18:47 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 19:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 19:38 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 20:36 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 22:03 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 23:03 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 05:44 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 07:55 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 08:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 08:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-23 12:19 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 14:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-23 16:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 17:35 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-23 18:42 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 20:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-23 22:17 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 22:40 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 17:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 19:57 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 21:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 08:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-25 08:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 08:51 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-25 09:58 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 10:35 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:30 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 10:41 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 11:35 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 12:03 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 01:35 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-26 02:05 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-26 15:39 +0100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-27 20:33 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-24 22:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 08:06 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2017-01-23 13:19 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 13:54 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:01 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 14:24 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:17 -0600
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 14:23 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:34 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 14:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-24 13:25 -0600
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 01:02 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-12 01:37 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-22 14:42 -0600
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 15:14 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 06:56 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 21:32 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 01:39 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 06:45 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 08:00 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 05:17 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-07 11:48 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-08 10:37 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 17:25 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-08 15:42 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-08 05:51 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-01-09 04:56 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-08 19:31 +0000
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-09 08:06 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 17:26 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-06 08:17 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-04 09:21 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +1100
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 12:28 -0800
Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:16 +1100
Page 1 of 20 [1] 2 3 … 20 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 19:02 +1100 |
| Subject | Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro? |
| Message-ID | <o3la2k$kut$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed wavelength. SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct answer? --
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 01:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17b60e3f-2f77-4b21-a43d-d62bcc07a5a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402911 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 2:02:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two > beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move > at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath > says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator > and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different > phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed > wavelength. > > SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the > difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. > Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) > > BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are > (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. > Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. > > So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct > answer? This is because the version of BaTh that you use in your ring gyro analysis is not the same version that you use in your variable star analysis. If you analyze your "rayphases" program output carefully, you will see that it actually assumes the existence of an absolute frame. Your oppositely traveling rays originate from a fixed point in absolute space, and as the ring rotates, the distance of an observer from this fixed point continuously increases or decreases. The observer thus counts differing numbers of waves arriving from the CW or CCW direction. *** THIS MECHANISM DOES NOT DEPEND ON ROTATION *** You can straighten out the ring and observe exactly the same thing. In the following diagram, I have straightened out a fiber optic gyroscope and mounted a straight section onto a board which I set swinging back and forth. A laser feeds light into the mounted section from both ends. The rays meet in the middle at phase detector. Because of the absolute space that you unwittingly postulate, BaTh predicts that the central phase detector will detect fringe shift as the board swings back and forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 01:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ead48f7-f281-4cdb-bc02-12316f993bab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402911 |
(forgot to include link to diagram in deleted post) On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 2:02:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two > beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move > at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath > says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator > and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different > phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed > wavelength. > > SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the > difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. > Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) > > BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are > (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. > Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. > > So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct > answer? This is because the version of BaTh that you use in your ring gyro analysis is not the same version that you use in your variable star analysis. If you analyze your "rayphases" program output carefully, you will see that it actually assumes the existence of an absolute frame. Your oppositely traveling rays originate from a fixed point in absolute space, and as the ring rotates, the distance of an observer from this fixed point continuously increases or decreases. The observer thus counts differing numbers of waves arriving from the CW or CCW direction. *** THIS MECHANISM DOES NOT DEPEND ON ROTATION *** You can straighten out the ring and observe exactly the same thing. In the following diagram, I have straightened out a fiber optic gyroscope and mounted a straight section onto a board which I set swinging back and forth. A laser feeds light into the mounted section from both ends. The rays meet in the middle at a phase detector. Because of the absolute space that you unwittingly postulate, BaTh predicts that the central phase detector will detect fringe shift as the board swings back and forth. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 08:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3mpva$tu5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402916 |
On 24/12/16 20:40, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > (forgot to include link to diagram in deleted post) > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 2:02:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two >> beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move >> at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath >> says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator >> and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different >> phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed >> wavelength. >> >> SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the >> difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. >> Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) >> >> BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are >> (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. >> Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. >> >> So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct >> answer? > > This is because the version of BaTh that you use in your ring gyro analysis is > not the same version that you use in your variable star analysis. If you analyze > your "rayphases" program output carefully, you will see that it actually assumes > the existence of an absolute frame. Your oppositely traveling rays originate > from a fixed point in absolute space, and as the ring rotates, the distance of > an observer from this fixed point continuously increases or decreases. The > observer thus counts differing numbers of waves arriving from the CW or CCW > direction. > > *** THIS MECHANISM DOES NOT DEPEND ON ROTATION *** The BaTh analysis certainly does not assume absolute space. It DOES assume the well known truism that rotation is absolute and it is therefore perfectly legitimate to do the analysis from the POV of the non-rotating frame. The only assumption BaTh makes is that both rays leave the source at c, which is obviously true. Nothing else can influence their speeds so they have no other reference. > You can straighten out the ring and observe exactly the same thing. ...and you can get it all wrong.... > In the > following diagram, I have straightened out a fiber optic gyroscope and mounted > a straight section onto a board which I set swinging back and forth. A laser > feeds light into the mounted section from both ends. The rays meet in the > middle at a phase detector. Because of the absolute space that you unwittingly > postulate, BaTh predicts that the central phase detector will detect fringe > shift as the board swings back and forth. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms It is nonsense. In the non-rotating frame, the two rays have different path lengths. That has nothing to do with any 'absolute space' and if you straighten it out, that what you have to draw. On the other hand, Einstein's explanation clearly requires absolutism to cause the two rays to move at different speeds relative to the common source. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 14:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f0cfbb33-b1f8-423d-b4d4-2704e6f6927f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402940 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:39:58 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > On 24/12/16 20:40, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > (forgot to include link to diagram in deleted post) > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 2:02:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > >> So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct > >> answer? > > > > This is because the version of BaTh that you use in your ring gyro analysis is > > not the same version that you use in your variable star analysis. If you analyze > > your "rayphases" program output carefully, you will see that it actually assumes > > the existence of an absolute frame. Your oppositely traveling rays originate > > from a fixed point in absolute space, and as the ring rotates, the distance of > > an observer from this fixed point continuously increases or decreases. The > > observer thus counts differing numbers of waves arriving from the CW or CCW > > direction. > > > > *** THIS MECHANISM DOES NOT DEPEND ON ROTATION *** > > The BaTh analysis certainly does not assume absolute space. It DOES > assume the well known truism that rotation is absolute and it is > therefore perfectly legitimate to do the analysis from the POV of the > non-rotating frame. The only assumption BaTh makes is that both rays > leave the source at c, which is obviously true. Nothing else can > influence their speeds so they have no other reference. > > > > You can straighten out the ring and observe exactly the same thing. > > ...and you can get it all wrong.... > > > In the > > following diagram, I have straightened out a fiber optic gyroscope and mounted > > a straight section onto a board which I set swinging back and forth. A laser > > feeds light into the mounted section from both ends. The rays meet in the > > middle at a phase detector. Because of the absolute space that you unwittingly > > postulate, BaTh predicts that the central phase detector will detect fringe > > shift as the board swings back and forth. > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms > > It is nonsense. In the non-rotating frame, the two rays have different > path lengths. That has nothing to do with any 'absolute space' and if > you straighten it out, that what you have to draw. > On the other hand, Einstein's explanation clearly requires absolutism to > cause the two rays to move at different speeds relative to the common > source. As I have repeatedly noted, Henry: You simply do not understand BaTh to comment intelligently about it. Your BaTh is not one single consistent theory, but instead constitutes SEVERAL inconsistent imaginings with ad hoc elements tacked on or dropped as necessary to "explain" one or another phenomenon. On one occasion, you invoke extinction to explain lack of observation of variable light from known binaries; on other occasions you drop extinction. For Sagnac, you unknowingly invoke absolute space, which you promptly drop when faced with a demonstration that this assumption coupled with your other postulates would result in a sort of pseudo-relativity of pseudo-simultaneity in a linear version of Sagnac. You have little or no idea of what is going on, and BaTh is out of your control.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 18:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3nshf$582$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402941 |
On 25/12/16 09:37, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:39:58 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >>> In the >>> following diagram, I have straightened out a fiber optic gyroscope and mounted >>> a straight section onto a board which I set swinging back and forth. A laser >>> feeds light into the mounted section from both ends. The rays meet in the >>> middle at a phase detector. Because of the absolute space that you unwittingly >>> postulate, BaTh predicts that the central phase detector will detect fringe >>> shift as the board swings back and forth. >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms >> >> It is nonsense. In the non-rotating frame, the two rays have different >> path lengths. That has nothing to do with any 'absolute space' and if >> you straighten it out, that what you have to draw. >> On the other hand, Einstein's explanation clearly requires absolutism to >> cause the two rays to move at different speeds relative to the common >> source. > > As I have repeatedly noted, Henry: You simply do not understand BaTh to comment > intelligently about it. Your BaTh is not one single consistent theory, but > instead constitutes SEVERAL inconsistent imaginings with ad hoc elements tacked > on or dropped as necessary to "explain" one or another phenomenon. On one > occasion, you invoke extinction to explain lack of observation of variable light > from known binaries; on other occasions you drop extinction. For Sagnac, you > unknowingly invoke absolute space, which you promptly drop when faced with a > demonstration that this assumption coupled with your other postulates would > result in a sort of pseudo-relativity of pseudo-simultaneity in a linear version > of Sagnac. > > You have little or no idea of what is going on, and BaTh is out of your control. Gawd! Dono is right about you. You are proving to be the biggest idiot here...and that's pretty hard to achieve. You obviously do not have the intelligence to even understand what I have said and are wingeing and whining purely for ideological reasons. BaTh's Sagnac analysis assumes only one thing, that light moves at c relative to its source. It uses the non-rotating frame, which is perfectly normal and valid. By the time a particular photon reaches the detector, the latter has moved. Both rays take the same time to reach it but there are more (absolute) wavelengths in one than the other when the thing is rotating. How much simpler can one get? If the rotating frame is used, as Roberts and Andersen attempt to do, they get completely stuffed up by the fact that there is an imaginary change in wavelength. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 01:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4189b378-fa45-40b0-b238-2e51bae7fc9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402953 |
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 1:29:53 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > On 25/12/16 09:37, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > As I have repeatedly noted, Henry: You simply do not understand BaTh to comment > > intelligently about it. Your BaTh is not one single consistent theory, but > > instead constitutes SEVERAL inconsistent imaginings with ad hoc elements tacked > > on or dropped as necessary to "explain" one or another phenomenon. On one > > occasion, you invoke extinction to explain lack of observation of variable light > > from known binaries; on other occasions you drop extinction. For Sagnac, you > > unknowingly invoke absolute space, which you promptly drop when faced with a > > demonstration that this assumption coupled with your other postulates would > > result in a sort of pseudo-relativity of pseudo-simultaneity in a linear version > > of Sagnac. > > > > You have little or no idea of what is going on, and BaTh is out of your control. > > Gawd! Dono is right about you. You are proving to be the biggest idiot > here...and that's pretty hard to achieve. > > You obviously do not have the intelligence to even understand what I > have said and are wingeing and whining purely for ideological reasons. > BaTh's Sagnac analysis assumes only one thing, that light moves at c > relative to its source. It uses the non-rotating frame, which is > perfectly normal and valid. > By the time a particular photon reaches the detector, the latter has > moved. Both rays take the same time to reach it but there are more > (absolute) wavelengths in one than the other when the thing is rotating. > How much simpler can one get? > If the rotating frame is used, as Roberts and Andersen attempt to do, > they get completely stuffed up by the fact that there is an imaginary > change in wavelength. Henry, here is an exercise for you: PART 1: In rayphases, you have outlined the bidirectional propagation of photons from an emission point on a rotating ring. At any one moment, because of ballistic c ± v emission, the forwards photon has moved ahead of the detector the same distance that the reverse photon has moved behind. The wavelengths of the forwards and reverse photons are the same. The phase of the forwards photon advances more rapidly than the phase of the reverse photon. Because of the differences in rate of phase advancement (I know that you hate the word "frequency"), when the photons meet, they are of different phase. PART 2: Replace the one-dimensional waveguide used in PART 1 with a two-dimensional spherical waveguide sheet, an optical "soap bubble" waveguide. Spin the bubble at 0.2 c and at time t=0, emit a circular ring of photons. Because of ballistic c + v cos(θ) emission, the photons in all directions are the same distance from the detector at any moment. The phases of the forwards photons advance more rapidly than the phases of the sideways photons, which advance more rapidly than the phases of the rearwards photons. Draw the photon phases from the frame of the detector. Better yet, animate them. I know what it looks like, and it makes no sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-26 05:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3p2q5$1mun$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402955 |
On 25/12/16 20:30, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 1:29:53 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >>> >>> You have little or no idea of what is going on, and BaTh is out of your control. >> >> Gawd! Dono is right about you. You are proving to be the biggest idiot >> here...and that's pretty hard to achieve. >> >> You obviously do not have the intelligence to even understand what I >> have said and are wingeing and whining purely for ideological reasons. >> BaTh's Sagnac analysis assumes only one thing, that light moves at c >> relative to its source. It uses the non-rotating frame, which is >> perfectly normal and valid. >> By the time a particular photon reaches the detector, the latter has >> moved. Both rays take the same time to reach it but there are more >> (absolute) wavelengths in one than the other when the thing is rotating. >> How much simpler can one get? >> If the rotating frame is used, as Roberts and Andersen attempt to do, >> they get completely stuffed up by the fact that there is an imaginary >> change in wavelength. > > Henry, here is an exercise for you: > > PART 1: > In rayphases, you have outlined the bidirectional propagation of photons from > an emission point on a rotating ring. At any one moment, because of ballistic > c ± v emission, the forwards photon has moved ahead of the detector the same > distance that the reverse photon has moved behind. The wavelengths of the > forwards and reverse photons are the same. The phase of the forwards photon > advances more rapidly than the phase of the reverse photon. Because of the > differences in rate of phase advancement (I know that you hate the word > "frequency"), when the photons meet, they are of different phase. Look, you poor little fellow, I know it requires superior intelligence to understand this stuff....but you can at least make an effort. During an angular acceleration, waves pass from one path to the other...so when the ring is rotating, there are already more waves in one path than the other. Therefore, at the instant a particular 'wavecrest' leaves the source, it has the same phase in the two rays... but the ones arriving there at that same instant are NOT in phase... because the number that pass through the detector from each direction during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. At constant rotation speed, the waves leave at the same rate and arrive at the same rate but they are already out of phase on arrival because of a prior acceleration. That should be simple enough to understand now that I have explained it in such simple terms. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f06f911-a685-401e-9d46-74e6b9942508@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402969 |
W dniu niedziela, 25 grudnia 2016 19:23:05 UTC+1 użytkownik HGW napisał: > > Look, you poor little fellow, I know it requires superior intelligence > to understand this stuff....but you can at least make an effort. > > During an angular acceleration, waves pass from one path to the > other...so when the ring is rotating, there are already more waves in > one path than the other. Therefore, at the instant a particular > 'wavecrest' leaves the source, it has the same phase in the two rays... > but the ones arriving there at that same instant are NOT in phase... Forget for a wfile about acceleration. Both rays traveled the same time, so they were emitted at the same time, so they have the same starting phase, and... from the second assumption, they did not change the phase. > because the number that pass through the detector from each direction > during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. No. Solve it, draw a graph, write a program... During acceleration according to the emission theory (more precisely that one with v = c + v_source(time_of_emission) ) you do not get different frequencies, you only get phase shift. This is quite interesting;-) According to theories with constant signal velocity (like SR) phase shift appears when device rotates. According to the emission/ballistic theory(that one discuses here) phase shift appears when there is angular acceleration. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-26 08:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3pcgi$5oe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402978 |
On 26/12/16 07:29, bartekltg@gmail.com wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 25 grudnia 2016 19:23:05 UTC+1 użytkownik HGW napisał: > >> >> Look, you poor little fellow, I know it requires superior intelligence >> to understand this stuff....but you can at least make an effort. >> >> During an angular acceleration, waves pass from one path to the >> other...so when the ring is rotating, there are already more waves in >> one path than the other. Therefore, at the instant a particular >> 'wavecrest' leaves the source, it has the same phase in the two rays... >> but the ones arriving there at that same instant are NOT in phase... > > Forget for a wfile about acceleration. It cannot be forgotten. It plays a fundamental role. > Both rays traveled the same time, so they were emitted at the > same time, so they have the same starting phase, and... from > the second assumption, they did not change the phase. Light is not a simple oscillator so your second assumption is invalid. The phases of the elements that are arriving at the receiver at any instant are already out of phase. Look, let's say there are 100 wavelengths in one ray and 102 in the other. During the time the next emitted one goes from source to the receiver (same time in each ray) 100 waves will enter the receiver from one ray and 102 from the other. Get it? >> because the number that pass through the detector from each direction >> during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. > > No. If you cannot see it now you never will... > > Solve it, draw a graph, write a program... > During acceleration according to the emission theory > (more precisely that one with v = c + v_source(time_of_emission) ) > you do not get different frequencies, you only get > phase shift. > > This is quite interesting;-) According to theories with > constant signal velocity (like SR) phase shift appears > when device rotates. > According to the emission/ballistic theory(that one discuses > here) phase shift appears when there is angular acceleration. Not correct. In a sagnac interferometer, there is fringe MOVEMENT during an acceleration. That results in a fringe DISPLACEMENT when the acceleration stops. There is no fringe movement during constant rotation. The idea is to keep a record of the number of displaced fringes during acceleration because the running total is a direct indicator of angular deviation from the predefined start direction. > > bartekltg > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 13:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55c65fa2-3571-4489-83ed-cc3200cda20b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402982 |
W dniu niedziela, 25 grudnia 2016 22:08:38 UTC+1 użytkownik HGW napisał: . > > > Both rays traveled the same time, so they were emitted at the > > same time, so they have the same starting phase, and... from > > the second assumption, they did not change the phase. > > Light is not a simple oscillator so your second assumption is invalid. My assumption? This is _your_ assumption, from your first post: >>..>> BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed wavelength. Keep your theory together ;-) > >> because the number that pass through the detector from each direction > >> during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. > > > > No. > > If you cannot see it now you never will... Because it is wrong. Calculate it carefully (you have to do it anyway if you want to convince anyone), you will see where your mistake come from. > > Not correct. In a sagnac interferometer, there is fringe MOVEMENT during > an acceleration. You have write it a couple of times. I asked you to derive this results. To prove it. I see from where you get this conviction, but it is not true. Do you think different? Show us. Do not repeat yourself but show us. Do not use capitalics, they are not arguments, use math and logic, without skips. I think the simplest way is to write a very simple program that simulate whole process. But analytical/graphical method is not much harder. I can write a quite convincing solution for this problem, but I doubt you would read it now, so it would be a waste of time. But if you are interested, I will write it. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-27 11:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3sbd9$71q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402987 |
On 26/12/16 08:40, bartekltg@gmail.com wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 25 grudnia 2016 22:08:38 UTC+1 użytkownik HGW napisał: > >>>> because the number that pass through the detector from each direction >>>> during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. >>> >>> No. >> >> If you cannot see it now you never will... > > Because it is wrong. Calculate it carefully > (you have to do it anyway if you want to convince anyone), > you will see where your mistake come from. Hey Basketcase, it is an obvious fact... >> Not correct. In a sagnac interferometer, there is fringe MOVEMENT during >> an acceleration. > > You have write it a couple of times. Everybody knows it happens...except you, apparently. > I asked you to derive this results. To prove it. > I see from where you get this conviction, but it is not true. > > Do you think different? Show us. Do not repeat yourself but > show us. Do not use capitalics, they are not arguments, > use math and logic, without skips. > > I think the simplest way is to write a very simple program > that simulate whole process. But analytical/graphical method > is not much harder. > > I can write a quite convincing solution for this problem, There is no problem. The BaTh analysis explains the Sagnac effect quite scientifically and convincingly. You are obviously not a physicist and don't have the intelligence to understand how the number of wavelengths in each path changes during an angular acceleration...which is something everyone knows. You don't have the ability to understand that during the time a particular element of a ray goes from the source to the receiver, the number of wavelengths that enters the receiver from one ray is not the same as that which enters from the other ray. > but I doubt you would read it now, so it would be a waste of time. > But if you are interested, I will write it. > > bartekltg >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-27 05:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bca62851-f110-4f46-a347-7714d9d1713f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403060 |
W dniu wtorek, 27 grudnia 2016 01:08:13 UTC+1 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: > > > > I can write a quite convincing solution for this problem, > > There is no problem. The BaTh analysis explains the Sagnac effect quite > scientifically and convincingly. You are still repeting yourself. > You are obviously not a physicist Are you sure? Did you saw physicist in your life? ;-) > and don't have the intelligence to > understand how the number of wavelengths in each path changes during an > angular acceleration...which is something everyone knows. I only see that you are troll (Statements about intelligence of other peoples, repeated a couple of times too. Are you six?) and can't back your claim by derivation. You was asked about that and the only answer was a repetition of the statement. This most likely means that you can't prove your statement, you only feel the result intuitively. This do not mean anything in physics. I do not know if you tried and failed or you do not know even how to start such calculation. At this moment it is not important. Wrong intuition isn't that bad. The real problem is a combination of the two things: you do not see a need of proving your intuition not onlt to yourself, but during a discusion too, and you can't do a simple (first years student level!) analysis of a simple physical system. > You don't have the ability to understand that A second tantrum in one post? > during the time a > particular element of a ray goes from the source to the receiver, the > number of wavelengths that enters the receiver from one ray is not the > same as that which enters from the other ray. I have done the calculation. The problem is simple, Your result is wrong. Just do the calculation. The real one, not 'I think so'. Or ask, if you want to see my, I will post the solution:> Hint (not the whole solution). How many "wavelengths" (how many impulses that are send from emitter in regular time intervals) are between emitter and receiver as a function of angular velocity (constant velocity, so it is only a hint, not the whole solution). As everyone can see, the history how the system evolved to this state. Count it. How many is for velocity 0, how many for velocity V, how many for velocity -V... See? ;> bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-28 11:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3v0jq$cc5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403080 |
On 28/12/16 00:23, bartekltg@gmail.com wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 27 grudnia 2016 01:08:13 UTC+1 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: > > A second tantrum in one post? > >> during the time a >> particular element of a ray goes from the source to the receiver, the >> number of wavelengths that enters the receiver from one ray is not the >> same as that which enters from the other ray. > > I have done the calculation. The problem is simple, > Your result is wrong. > > Just do the calculation. The real one, not 'I think so'. > > Or ask, if you want to see my, I will post the solution:> > > Hint (not the whole solution). How many "wavelengths" (how many impulses > that are send from emitter in regular time intervals) are between > emitter and receiver as a function of angular velocity (constant > velocity, so it is only a hint, not the whole solution). > As everyone can see, the history how the system evolved to this state. > > Count it. How many is for velocity 0, how many for velocity V, > how many for velocity -V... hey, idiot troll Basketcase, read all about it here: www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > See? ;> > > bartekltg > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 12:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <780c7016-c8a7-4115-bcab-b6c7894e5639@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402969 |
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 12:23:05 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > On 25/12/16 20:30, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Henry, here is an exercise for you: > > > > PART 1: > > In rayphases, you have outlined the bidirectional propagation of photons from > > an emission point on a rotating ring. At any one moment, because of ballistic > > c ± v emission, the forwards photon has moved ahead of the detector the same > > distance that the reverse photon has moved behind. The wavelengths of the > > forwards and reverse photons are the same. The phase of the forwards photon > > advances more rapidly than the phase of the reverse photon. Because of the > > differences in rate of phase advancement (I know that you hate the word > > "frequency"), when the photons meet, they are of different phase. > > Look, you poor little fellow, I know it requires superior intelligence > to understand this stuff....but you can at least make an effort. > > During an angular acceleration, waves pass from one path to the > other...so when the ring is rotating, there are already more waves in > one path than the other. Therefore, at the instant a particular > 'wavecrest' leaves the source, it has the same phase in the two rays... > but the ones arriving there at that same instant are NOT in phase... > because the number that pass through the detector from each direction > during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. > At constant rotation speed, the waves leave at the same rate and arrive > at the same rate but they are already out of phase on arrival because of > a prior acceleration. > > That should be simple enough to understand now that I have explained it > in such simple terms. I *TOLD* you that I already know what it looks like. *YOU* don't because you have never animated it. There are two possible interpretations of how your model would look in two dimensions (given ambiguities in your description), and both interpretations have serious counting issues that become quite obvious if you ever actually got off your lazy complacent butt and actually programmed a simulation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-26 08:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3pd1b$6b0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402979 |
On 26/12/16 07:39, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 12:23:05 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> On 25/12/16 20:30, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> Henry, here is an exercise for you: >>> >>> PART 1: >>> In rayphases, you have outlined the bidirectional propagation of photons from >>> an emission point on a rotating ring. At any one moment, because of ballistic >>> c ± v emission, the forwards photon has moved ahead of the detector the same >>> distance that the reverse photon has moved behind. The wavelengths of the >>> forwards and reverse photons are the same. The phase of the forwards photon >>> advances more rapidly than the phase of the reverse photon. Because of the >>> differences in rate of phase advancement (I know that you hate the word >>> "frequency"), when the photons meet, they are of different phase. >> >> Look, you poor little fellow, I know it requires superior intelligence >> to understand this stuff....but you can at least make an effort. >> >> During an angular acceleration, waves pass from one path to the >> other...so when the ring is rotating, there are already more waves in >> one path than the other. Therefore, at the instant a particular >> 'wavecrest' leaves the source, it has the same phase in the two rays... >> but the ones arriving there at that same instant are NOT in phase... >> because the number that pass through the detector from each direction >> during the travel time of a particular element is different in each ray. >> At constant rotation speed, the waves leave at the same rate and arrive >> at the same rate but they are already out of phase on arrival because of >> a prior acceleration. >> >> That should be simple enough to understand now that I have explained it >> in such simple terms. > > I *TOLD* you that I already know what it looks like. You don't have a clue. > *YOU* don't because you have never animated it. I animated it apparently well before you were born...about ten years ago... > There are two possible interpretations of how your model > would look in two dimensions (given ambiguities in your description), and both > interpretations have serious counting issues that become quite obvious if you > ever actually got off your lazy complacent butt and actually programmed a > simulation. ...as I said to bartek, let's say there are 100 wavelengths in one ray and 102.3 in the other. During the time the next emitted one goes from source to the receiver (same time in each ray) 100 waves will enter the receiver from one ray and 102.3 from the other. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 22:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ec750sFo1b3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #402911 |
On 24/12/2016 7:02 PM, HGW wrote: > When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two > beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move > at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath > says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator > and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different > phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed > wavelength. > > SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the > difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. > Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) > > BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are > (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. > Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. > > So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct > answer? > > It just means they reduce to the same math for the particular scenario. Happens all the time. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 08:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3mo9u$rm0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402918 |
On 24/12/16 22:38, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 24/12/2016 7:02 PM, HGW wrote: >> When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two >> beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move >> at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath >> says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator >> and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different >> phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed >> wavelength. >> >> SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the >> difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. >> Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) >> >> BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are >> (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. >> Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as >> before. >> >> So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct >> answer? >> >> > > It just means they reduce to the same math for the particular scenario. > Happens all the time. No it does not mean that. There are different principles involved. I think Einstein gets it right for the same reason that Earth Centrism does occasionally. Two errors cancel each other. The SR analysis say that the number of cycles in each ray is different. BaTh says the number of wavelengths is different. The problem for SR is that light does not have 'cycles' and there is no way the rays can 'know' that they have to leave the source at c+v and c-v in order to make the travel times different. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87e9e580-ccb5-40ed-8727-44195719d5c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402911 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 09:02:32 UTC+1 użytkownik HGW napisał: > When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two > beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move > at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath > says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator > and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different > phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed > wavelength. > > SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the > difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. > Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) > > BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are > (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. > Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. > > So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct > answer? > > > -- You should first define what is the BaTh in your stupid speech.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 08:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o3moip$rvn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402923 |
On 25/12/16 01:53, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 09:02:32 UTC+1 użytkownik HGW napisał: >> When viewed in the inertial frame, both SR and BaTh agree that the two >> beams of a ring gyro travel different distances. SR says both beams move >> at c in the non-rotating frame and have different travel times, Bath >> says the travel times are the same. SR says light is a simple oscillator >> and since both rays leave together, they must reunite with different >> phase. BaTh says light does not oscillate during travel but has a fixed >> wavelength. >> >> SR says the travel times are 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v) and the >> difference is = 2piR(2v/(c^2-v^2)) = 4Aw /c^2. >> Therefore phase difference at receiver is = 4Aw/(c.Lambda) >> >> BaTh says both travel times are: t = 2piR/c and the path lengths are >> (c+v)t and (c-v)t. Therefore the difference in path lengths is 4piRv/c. >> Since lambda is constant, the phase difference = 4Aw/(c.lambda) as before. >> >> So how can two diametrically opposed theories produce the same correct >> answer? >> >> >> -- > > You should first define what is the BaTh in your stupid speech. Here is an autographed copy: http://www.scisite.info/wilsonsbath.html --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 20 [1] 2 3 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web