Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #404502

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

From	HGW <hw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?
Date	2017-01-08 10:37 +1100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<o4ru3c$3i3$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <4aa9bb73-adbc-44c7-804d-30bf90b39065@googlegroups.com> <o4n7sa$gus$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0e8cafb6-7d55-4902-9cbe-de2b644c7761@googlegroups.com> <o4ooi2$rr8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dad4c880-4a20-4585-ae9e-31a735a17fe3@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/01/17 09:34, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:44:22 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc.
> wrote:
>> On 06/01/17 22:12, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 10:53:32 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
>>>> No aspect of BaTh conflicts with Galilean relativity. BaTh is
>>>> the true form of relativity.
>>>
>>> You keep claiming that, but you words are flatly contradicted by
>>> your rayphases program, your drawing
>>> http://www.scisite.info/paths.jpg, as well as by your essay on
>>> Sagnac at http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html
>>
>> Look, I know this is hard stuff, particularly if you are not a
>> physicist. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the path
>> lengths are different. The diagram
>> http://www.scisite.info/paths.jpg shows two beams arriving at the
>> receiver. It also shows where the source was when they were
>> mutually emitted.
>
> And it invokes a serious violation of PoR.

HAHHHAHHA! THat's so stupid I can't help laughing at you.

>>
>> The elements themselves are NOT oscillating, as you, PA and the
>> whole physics community...except myself...have been led to believe
>> because of Maxwell's contribution to Aether Theory. (there being no
>> aether)
>>
>>> It is silly of you to try to deny this fact. It is right there in
>>> your writing, totally apparent in your drawing, and obvious from
>>> your animation.
>>
>> Here is the linear situation:
>>
>> P1: S~~~~~~~p(c+v)>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R P2: S~~~~~~~p(c-v)>~~~~~~~~~~R
>>
>> Both pulses leave and arrive together traveling at different
>> speeds. Each element kind of 'pushes' a different number of
>> 'wavelengths' through the receiver in traveling to it (that's one
>> way you might understand this). The arrival phase is thusly
>> determined by the PATH LENGTHS and not the travel time.
>
> Exactly. According to your description, the source pushes a different
> number of wavelengths in each direction per unit of time AS VIEWED
> FROM ITS OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE.
>
> That represents a gross violation of PoR.

Oh dear! You are even more stupid than I thought. Dono's colorful words 
sum you up well...although he is probably being kind.....
The PoR does not cover rotating frames. In Sagnac, the path lengths 
APPEAR equal and the wavelengths APPEAR contracted in the ROTATING 
source frame. These are typical imaginary consequences of the use of the 
rotating frame. Next you will probably repeat the erroneous claim of 
Andersen and Roberts, that a rotating ring gyro when viewed in the 
rotating frame is identical to a non-rotating gyro when viewed in the 
inertial frame. It is hard to believe that two grown men could come up 
with such a ridiculous 'refutation' of BaTh's Sagnac theory.

My analysis uses the inertial frame only.

> I'm glad that you agree that your theory is total nonsense.

Criticism from someone as stupid as you will always be welcome. Nothing 
you have contributed makes any sense.

>> In 2D space/time, the paths can be drawn with different slopes and
>> the 'waves' are evenly distributed as above. Note, there is no
>> movement in space/time.
>>
>> Again, the elements themselves are NOT oscillating, as you and PA
>> seem to believe.
>
> As I have stated before and will state again, you have practically
> NO understanding of BaTh, to be making such nonsense statements as
> you do.

Interestingly, Minkowski and Einstein conceived that distances could be
defined in terms of the time light takes to transit them. They used 
ct...and because they assumed constant light speed everywhere, their 
flawed 'spacetime' version led physics on a wild goose chase or 100 
years. That is largely why physics has stagnated and is now dying.

As Sagnac illustrates, if you want to associate distance with light, 
BaTh's correct space/time assess it as multiples of absolute wavelengths.

--

Thread

csiph-web