A lesson in Rotating Frames for Andersen, Roberts and Jerry..

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.

I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.

Loading Image...

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

Are you aware the ring light speed is not c,
as there is medium and not vacuum ?

According to your diagram,
your real life sitting position is not where you are sitting,
as common sense is referring to a rotating frame.

For every rotating frame we can find non rotating frame
with identical coordination origins, not always inertial,
if rotating frame is accelerating.

Calculations are easier in non rotating frame,
but this does not give to non rotating frame
any coordinate superiority.

There are no such things as
"real" coordinates in non rotating frame
and "imaginary" coordinates in rotating frame.

Both ones are equally real or imaginary.
There is infinite number of equally valid coordinates.

What is different is
just additional imaginary forces due rotation.



Interesting article is here:
http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

Are you aware the ring light speed is not c,
as there is medium and not vacuum ?

......don't worry about it. The speed can equal c/n if you wish but writing
c is simpler.

Post by Poutnik
According to your diagram,
your real life sitting position is not where you are sitting,
as common sense is referring to a rotating frame.

Can't you understand anything? My diagram includes both inertial and
rotating observers.

Post by Poutnik
For every rotating frame we can find non rotating frame
with identical coordination origins, not always inertial,
if rotating frame is accelerating.

Yes yes we know that.

Post by Poutnik
Calculations are easier in non rotating frame,
but this does not give to non rotating frame
any coordinate superiority.

It is not really a question of 'superiority'.
Rotation is an absolute quantity that must be considered 'abnormal'. It can
always be detected and measured.

Post by Poutnik
There are no such things as
"real" coordinates in non rotating frame
and "imaginary" coordinates in rotating frame.

There are imaginary effects in a rotating frame.

Post by Poutnik
Both ones are equally real or imaginary.

Not true.

Post by Poutnik
There is infinite number of equally valid coordinates.

irrelevant

Post by Poutnik
What is different is
just additional imaginary forces due rotation.

not relevant to the sagnac effect

Post by Poutnik
http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html

Not good....quite ridiculous in fact.

Here is the simple analysis:

www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg
www.scisite.info/sagnac.jpg

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Are you aware the ring light speed is not c,
as there is medium and not vacuum ?

......don't worry about it. The speed can equal c/n if you wish but writing
c is simpler.

Is simpler, but in context of talking about RT,
no matter if you agree with it, it is principal difference.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
According to your diagram,
your real life sitting position is not where you are sitting,
as common sense is referring to a rotating frame.

Can't you understand anything? My diagram includes both inertial and
rotating observers.

I am aware. Note that in reality
you can SELDOM compare rotating and inertial frame.

And, I was talking about you, not about your diagram.
If rotating frame coordinates are imaginary,
so do your coordinates are imaginary.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Calculations are easier in non rotating frame,
but this does not give to non rotating frame
any coordinate superiority.

It is not really a question of 'superiority'.
Rotation is an absolute quantity that must be considered 'abnormal'. It can
always be detected and measured.

No doubts about that.
Rotation and acceleration is absolute even acc. to SRT.

But that is not reason to take it as abnormal.
Coordinates in rotating frame are equally valid as in non rotating.
Especially if "non rotating frame" is rotating too.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
There are no such things as
"real" coordinates in non rotating frame
and "imaginary" coordinates in rotating frame.

There are imaginary effects in a rotating frame.

Do not confuse imaginary effects/forces
and "imaginary" coordinates.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html

Not good....quite ridiculous in fact.
www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg
www.scisite.info/sagnac.jpg

It is selftestimony, what we should not accept.

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
There are no such things as
"real" coordinates in non rotating frame
and "imaginary" coordinates in rotating frame.

There are imaginary effects in a rotating frame.

Do not confuse imaginary effects/forces
and "imaginary" coordinates.

Note that accelerating non rotating frames
manifests imaginary forces too,
and neither here is need to claim
related coodinates are imaginary.

They are perfectly valid.

In fact, all coordinates are imaginary,
being human construct to describe reality
and its behaviior.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
There are no such things as
"real" coordinates in non rotating frame
and "imaginary" coordinates in rotating frame.

There are imaginary effects in a rotating frame.

to use your terms,
For EVERY frame the only "real" coordinates are those
related to this frame,
no matter if inertial, no matter if rotating.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

Are you aware the ring light speed is not c,
as there is medium and not vacuum ?

Here you can see why the medium doesn't affect
the phase difference in a Sagnac ring.

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Poutnik
Are you aware the ring light speed is not c,
as there is medium and not vacuum ?

Here you can see why the medium doesn't affect
the phase difference in a Sagnac ring.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

Yes, I know, it is also here http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html
I have pointed it out for other reasons.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

When the reader is through laughing at the hilarious
statements like "number of wavelengths in the path.."
he can see why Sagnac falsifies the emission theory here:

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

When the reader is through laughing at the hilarious
statements like "number of wavelengths in the path.."

So how do you explain the fact that BaTh predicts the same fringe
displacement as SR/LET? (4Aw/cL)

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

It is at this address (fig4) that Paul's monumnetal error can been recorded
for all the world to see, forever.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

When the reader is through laughing at the hilarious
statements like "number of wavelengths in the path.."

So how do you explain the fact that BaTh predicts the same fringe
displacement as SR/LET? (4Aw/cL)

Even in case of proper working with rotating frames ?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

When the reader is through laughing at the hilarious
statements like "number of wavelengths in the path.."

So how do you explain the fact that BaTh predicts the same fringe
displacement as SR/LET? (4Aw/cL)

Even in case of proper working with rotating frames ?

The fringe displacement must be the same in both frames.

Anyone who calculates differently calculates wrongly.

It is not a difficult calculation. In the rotating frame, then according to
BaTh, the path lengths appear the same but the wavelengths appear different
in each ray. Both are imaginary effects.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

When the reader is through laughing at the hilarious
statements like "number of wavelengths in the path.."

So how do you explain the fact that BaTh predicts the same fringe
displacement as SR/LET? (4Aw/cL)

Even in case of proper working with rotating frames ?

The fringe displacement must be the same in both frames.
Anyone who calculates differently calculates wrongly.

E.g.if he does not use coordinates of the frame.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
of light speed in moving media :

v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

Also notice behavior of expression for n going to 1.

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

And, you have once stated
the BaTh does not apply to medium light propagation.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

And, you have once stated
the BaTh does not apply to medium light propagation.

True but not important here. The main point is that in the inertial
frame, the emission point is separated from the detection point by
distance vt.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
And, you have once stated
the BaTh does not apply to medium light propagation.

True but not important here. The main point is that in the inertial
frame, the emission point is separated from the detection point by
distance vt.

The main point is, in rotating frame it is not.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
And, you have once stated
the BaTh does not apply to medium light propagation.

True but not important here. The main point is that in the inertial
frame, the emission point is separated from the detection point by
distance vt.

The main point is, in rotating frame it is not.

You're just as clueless as Andersen and Roberts. In the rotating
frame.the point in the inertial frame where the ray was emitted is not
the same point as the detector when it arrives there. The illusion
that they are the same point is an imaginary effect. Amateurs like
you, Paul and Tom should not attempt to use rotating frames.

Post by Poutnik
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <bad72eb8-49eb-45cd-97b9-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
And, you have once stated
the BaTh does not apply to medium light propagation.

True but not important here. The main point is that in the inertial
frame, the emission point is separated from the detection point by
distance vt.

The main point is, in rotating frame it is not.

You're just as clueless as Andersen and Roberts. In the rotating
frame.the point in the inertial frame where the ray was emitted is not
the same point as the detector when it arrives there. The illusion
that they are the same point is an imaginary effect. Amateurs like
you, Paul and Tom should not attempt to use rotating frames.

I know you already well. As many people, you use such offending
approach only if you are realizing you are wrong.
If there is no such a case, you are quite a fine guy.

You have first to learn yourself working with non inertial frames,
before accusing others from being wrong.

You HAVE to chose what frame you are evaluating.

If you evaluate rotating frame,
you have to evaluate rotating frame
and rotating frame related coordinates.

Coordinate systems of inertial frames are not more real than
Coordinate systems of non inertial frames.

Coordinate system of inertial frame
is equally imaginary in noin inertial rotating frame as the opposite.

Is rotation of cyclones, anticyclones and huricanes
imaginary effect only,
based on imaginary Coriolis force of rotation frames ?

Otherwise imaginary effect of decelerating frame of you car
can imaginary crash your had.

[Poutnik]

In article <bad72eb8-49eb-45cd-97b9-

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
In the rotating frame,
the point in the inertial frame where the ray was emitted is
not the same point as the detector when it arrives there.

There are no inertial frame points in non inertial frames,
rotating or not. Not even inertial frame points
in other inertial frames.

Every frame has its own points.
If one hast to talk about "real" and "imaginary" points,
only "real points" are points of coordinate system of the frame,
all other points are "imaginary".
It is valid for all frames, inertial, non rotating non inertial,
or rotating non inertial.

Even in 2 inertial frames
2 events occur in different points in one
and in the same points in the other.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <bad72eb8-49eb-45cd-97b9-

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
In the rotating frame,
the point in the inertial frame where the ray was emitted is
not the same point as the detector when it arrives there.

There are no inertial frame points in non inertial frames,
rotating or not. Not even inertial frame points
in other inertial frames.

Hey, dopey, if you are riding on a carousel, what do you think happens to a bloke standing on the ground?

Post by Poutnik
Every frame has its own points.
If one hast to talk about "real" and "imaginary" points,
only "real points" are points of coordinate system of the frame,
all other points are "imaginary".
It is valid for all frames, inertial, non rotating non inertial,
or rotating non inertial.
Even in 2 inertial frames
2 events occur in different points in one
and in the same points in the other.

If you have another look at my diagram, you will see that in the inertial frame, the emission and detection points of a particular light element are different.

In the rotating frame, they appear to be the same....which is impossible.

If the emission and detection points are marked in the inertial frame, the two marks will remain separated in the rotating frame. The emission point actually appears to move away before the detection point is established.

Get it now?

Post by Poutnik
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <12280711.32.1334184931547.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <bad72eb8-49eb-45cd-97b9-

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
In the rotating frame,
the point in the inertial frame where the ray was emitted is
not the same point as the detector when it arrives there.

There are no inertial frame points in non inertial frames,
rotating or not. Not even inertial frame points
in other inertial frames.

Hey, dopey, if you are riding on a carousel, what do you think happens to a bloke standing on the ground?

It will move if spinning enough.
Same laws does not equal to same reality.

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
Every frame has its own points.
If one hast to talk about "real" and "imaginary" points,
only "real points" are points of coordinate system of the frame,
all other points are "imaginary".
It is valid for all frames, inertial, non rotating non inertial,
or rotating non inertial.
Even in 2 inertial frames
2 events occur in different points in one
and in the same points in the other.

If you have another look at my diagram, you will see that in the inertial frame, the emission and detection points of a particular light element are different.
In the rotating frame, they appear to be the same....which is impossible.
If the emission and detection points are marked in the inertial frame, the two marks will remain separated in the rotating frame. The emission point actually appears to move away before the detection point is established.

This only shows you do not understand working with frames.
You are mixing 2 frames together - this is impossible.

You were in fact just marking points of moving ring surrounding,
that were facing resting emission and detection points
in rotating frame.

If I am sitting in moving inertial frame,
making marks in the other inertial frame,
they will be separated either.

That is obvious and has nothing to do with rotation and inertiality.

Post by Henry Wilson
Get it now?

Not get this :

You have 2 mutually moving nonrotating non inertial frame
and INERTIAL frame.
In the former
the emission and detection points are the same,
in the latter - different. Imposssible ?

And now

You have 2 mutually moving INERTIAL frames.
In one the emission and detection points are the same,
in the other - different. Imposssible ?

In ANY frame, if a point is in the rest, it is in the rest,
even if moving in other frames.

If a frame is inertial or not is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with relativity of speed
and absolutness of rotation and acceleration.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Henry Wilson
If you have another look at my diagram, you will see that in the

inertial frame, the emission and detection points of a particular
light element are different.

Post by Henry Wilson
In the rotating frame, they appear to be the same....which is impossible.
If the emission and detection points are marked in the inertial frame, the two marks will remain separated in the rotating frame. The emission point actually appears to move away before the detection point is established.

In ANY frame, if a point is in the rest, it is in the rest,
even if moving in other frames.
If a frame is inertial or not is irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with relativity of speed
and absolutness of rotation and acceleration.

If you are sitting in the rest in the Earth surface binded frame,
performing multiple independent rotations,
you are still at the same point within this frame,
while being at different points in different time in other frames.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Henry Wilson
If you have another look at my diagram, you will see that in the

inertial frame, the emission and detection points of a particular
light element are different.

Post by Henry Wilson
In the rotating frame, they appear to be the same....which is impossible.
If the emission and detection points are marked in the inertial frame, the two marks will remain separated in the rotating frame. The emission point actually appears to move away before the detection point is established.

In ANY frame, if a point is in the rest, it is in the rest,
even if moving in other frames.
If a frame is inertial or not is irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with relativity of speed
and absolutness of rotation and acceleration.

If you are sitting in the rest in the Earth surface binded frame,
performing multiple independent rotations,
you are still at the same point within this frame,
while being at different points in different time in other frames.

correct.
Fortunately for us, the rotation speeds are slow enough for us to keep our feet on the ground.

Post by Poutnik
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Opponents of BaTh claim that when viewed in the rotating frame, the
points S and S1 must always coincide because they represent the
source/detector, which is a combined object. This is grossly
incorrect. Every rotating frame has an associated inertial one.

If origin of rotating frame is accelerating
there is no associated inertial frame.

What now ?

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Opponents of BaTh claim that when viewed in the rotating frame, the
points S and S1 must always coincide because they represent the
source/detector, which is a combined object. This is grossly
incorrect. Every rotating frame has an associated inertial one.

If origin of rotating frame is accelerating
there is no associated inertial frame.
What now ?

NOW we know that you are a waste of time and good molecular bonds..

Post by Poutnik
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <7141766.118.1334220178114.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Opponents of BaTh claim that when viewed in the rotating frame, the
points S and S1 must always coincide because they represent the
source/detector, which is a combined object. This is grossly
incorrect. Every rotating frame has an associated inertial one.

If origin of rotating frame is accelerating
there is no associated inertial frame.
What now ?

NOW we know that you are a waste of time and good molecular bonds..

From you it is equivalent to "You are right",
as admitting that would make you physical pain.

Ringgyro in the lab has attached rotating frame
wrt rotating frame of Earth with accelerating center.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <7141766.118.1334220178114.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <41869d34-c7a3-4860-bdc5-

Opponents of BaTh claim that when viewed in the rotating frame, the
points S and S1 must always coincide because they represent the
source/detector, which is a combined object. This is grossly
incorrect. Every rotating frame has an associated inertial one.

If origin of rotating frame is accelerating
there is no associated inertial frame.
What now ?

NOW we know that you are a waste of time and good molecular bonds..

From you it is equivalent to "You are right",
as admitting that would make you physical pain.
Ringgyro in the lab has attached rotating frame
wrt rotating frame of Earth with accelerating center.
--
Poutnik

A good ring gyro might be able to detect the Earth's rotation

[Poutnik]

In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson
A good ring gyro might be able to detect the Earth's rotation

Why might ? They did.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson
A good ring gyro might be able to detect the Earth's rotation

Why might ? They did.

They obviously used a good ring gyro...

Post by Poutnik
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <26233231.33.1334355125220.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson
A good ring gyro might be able to detect the Earth's rotation

Why might ? They did.

They obviously used a good ring gyro...

It was specially constructed to detect/measure Earth rotation,
even if precission is worse than by other methods.

I suppose normal gyros do not detect it.

[Poutnik]

In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
***@pbtd9>, ***@gmail.com says...
Going back to rotating frames....

What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Everything we view is from our rotating frame. Fortunately, the rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary effects.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.
Everything we view is from our rotating frame. Fortunately, the rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary effects.

You avoid answering the question.

According to you
your position in the chair
is not your real position in the given frame, as it is rotating frame.

Tangent rotation speed at equator is near 500 m/s,
so your "real position" is escaping your the chair
much more quickly than emittor/detector of the gyro.

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik
In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.
Everything we view is from our rotating frame. Fortunately, the rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary effects.

You avoid answering the question.
According to you
your position in the chair
is not your real position in the given frame, as it is rotating frame.
Tangent rotation speed at equator is near 500 m/s,
so your "real position" is escaping your the chair
much more quickly than emittor/detector of the gyro.

You have not learned yourself yet
the basics about frames of reference.

There is no real position as there
is no absolute frame of reference.

There is no real position
as each frame of reference
has for each object
its own "real position".

Your "real position" in accelerating and turning car frame
is in rest, sitting in a resting chair.

Your "real position" of frame of Earth surface
is moving by speed of car.

Your "real position" of frame of Earth oriented toward stars
performs daily Earth sideric rotation
modified by speed of car.

Your "real position" in frame of Sun oriented toward stars,
performs eliptic Earth orbit,
modified by daily Earth sideric rotation
modified by speed of car.

Your "real position" in frame of Galaxy center
oriented toward far galaxies
performs Sun system rotation around Galaxy center
modified by eliptic Earth orbit,
modified by daily Earth sideric rotation
modified by speed of car.

There is infinite number of frames
and infinite number of "real positions".

[Poutnik]

In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Your conclusion is wrong as usually.

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.

But I am glad that not always.

Post by Henry Wilson
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

Fine, but it does not help you.

Positions according to non inertial frames
are equally real as position according to inertial frames.

Your argumentation in ringgyro webpage is the same
as if you had 2 inertial frames and saying,
the rest position of the object in one is not real
as it is moving in the other one.

It does not matter if and which of frames is inertial or not.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

This is one of your mistakes. There are imaginary forces,
but the effects are not imaginary.

Would you consider rotation of hurricanes,
cyclones and anticyclones imaginary ?

[Luigi Passalaqua]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

This is one of your mistakes. There are imaginary forces,
but the effects are not imaginary.
Would you consider rotation of hurricanes,
cyclones and anticyclones imaginary ?
--
Poutnik

imaginary means to imagine the real
on alternative axis

[Poutnik]

In article <7d130322-a8f6-4a83-9eac-fb21f0ab2912
@z3g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>, ***@collector.org says...

Post by Luigi Passalaqua

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

This is one of your mistakes. There are imaginary forces,
but the effects are not imaginary.
Would you consider rotation of hurricanes,
cyclones and anticyclones imaginary ?
--
Poutnik

imaginary means to imagine the real
on alternative axis

I am not native english so I am not sure
if imaginary is the right word
for fictitious forces of non inertial frames.

In math context you are right.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Your conclusion is wrong as usually.

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.

But I am glad that not always.

Post by Henry Wilson
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

Fine, but it does not help you.
Positions according to non inertial frames
are equally real as position according to inertial frames.
Your argumentation in ringgyro webpage is the same
as if you had 2 inertial frames and saying,
the rest position of the object in one is not real
as it is moving in the other one.

Rotation is absolute. Translation is all relative.

Post by Poutnik
It does not matter if and which of frames is inertial or not.
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <3025096.786.1334442158712.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Your conclusion is wrong as usually.

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.

But I am glad that not always.

Post by Henry Wilson
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

Fine, but it does not help you.
Positions according to non inertial frames
are equally real as position according to inertial frames.
Your argumentation in ringgyro webpage is the same
as if you had 2 inertial frames and saying,
the rest position of the object in one is not real
as it is moving in the other one.

Rotation is absolute. Translation is all relative.

Sure it as, as I have already said twice.
So does acceleration.

Your "real position" in frame of accelerating car
is not less real than if it is not accelerating.

You confuse absolutness of acceleration/rotation
and frame preference.

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
It does not matter if and which of frames is inertial or not.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <3025096.786.1334442158712.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Your conclusion is wrong as usually.

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.

But I am glad that not always.

Post by Henry Wilson
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

Fine, but it does not help you.
Positions according to non inertial frames
are equally real as position according to inertial frames.
Your argumentation in ringgyro webpage is the same
as if you had 2 inertial frames and saying,
the rest position of the object in one is not real
as it is moving in the other one.

Rotation is absolute. Translation is all relative.

Sure it as, as I have already said twice.
So does acceleration.
Your "real position" in frame of accelerating car
is not less real than if it is not accelerating.

There is no such thing as 'real position'.

Position is relative.

Post by Poutnik
You confuse absolutness of acceleration/rotation
and frame preference.

YOU are the only confused person here.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
It does not matter if and which of frames is inertial or not.

--
Poutnik

[John Gogo]

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <3025096.786.1334442158712.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Your conclusion is wrong as usually.

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.

But I am glad that not always.

Post by Henry Wilson
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

Fine, but it does not help you.
Positions according to non inertial frames
are equally real as position according to inertial frames.
Your argumentation in ringgyro webpage is the same
as if you had 2 inertial frames and saying,
the rest position of the object in one is not real
as it is moving in the other one.

Rotation is absolute. Translation is all relative.

Sure it as, as I have already said twice.
So does acceleration.
Your "real position" in frame of accelerating car
is not less real than if it is not accelerating.

There is no such thing as 'real position'.
Position is relative.

Post by Poutnik
You confuse absolutness of acceleration/rotation
and frame preference.

YOU are the only confused person here.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
It does not matter if and which of frames is inertial or not.

--
Poutnik

In the end it will be our stillness compared to the rest of the
universe.

[Poutnik]

In article <7145056.796.1334448743351.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <3025096.786.1334442158712.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <17718783.36.1334355293043.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <15463997.3.1334273390595.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Going back to rotating frames....
What is your real position, sitting on the chair,
considering Earth surface as frame of common sense ?

What would YOU know about common sense? I suppose you still believe the sun orbits the Earth once per day.

Your conclusion is wrong as usually.

Post by Henry Wilson
Everything we view is from our rotating frame.

But I am glad that not always.

Post by Henry Wilson
Fortunately, the
rotation speed is small enough for us to ignore most of its imaginary
effects.

Fine, but it does not help you.
Positions according to non inertial frames
are equally real as position according to inertial frames.
Your argumentation in ringgyro webpage is the same
as if you had 2 inertial frames and saying,
the rest position of the object in one is not real
as it is moving in the other one.

Rotation is absolute. Translation is all relative.

Sure it as, as I have already said twice.
So does acceleration.
Your "real position" in frame of accelerating car
is not less real than if it is not accelerating.

There is no such thing as 'real position'.
Position is relative.

Glad to hear that.
So it is time to fix the picture...

http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
You confuse absolutness of acceleration/rotation
and frame preference.

YOU are the only confused person here.

I am glad you to say I am right.
Otherwise you would say where I am wrong, wouldn't you ?

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
It does not matter if and which of frames is inertial or not.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <2f039afb-f0d5-409a-b2dc-b5fa04055859
@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Only if n - 1 is negligible.
Unfortunately it would also diminish supposed ballitic effect.

But it is fiber optics with significant n - 1.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <2f039afb-f0d5-409a-b2dc-b5fa04055859
@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Only if n - 1 is negligible.
Unfortunately it would also diminish supposed ballitic effect.
But it is fiber optics with significant n - 1.

It make no difference to the fringe displacement.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <18bc9384-87d3-48c8-a6ff-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <2f039afb-f0d5-409a-b2dc-b5fa04055859
@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Only if n - 1 is negligible.
Unfortunately it would also diminish supposed ballitic effect.
But it is fiber optics with significant n - 1.

It make no difference to the fringe displacement.

Sure - wave interference does no depend od wave speed
by any possible way, does it ? ( sarcasm )

The problem is, it is relativistic effect.
And without it, Bath cannot explain Sagnac effect.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <18bc9384-87d3-48c8-a6ff-

On 11 Apr, 14:26, Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
In article <2f039afb-f0d5-409a-b2dc-b5fa04055859
@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

On Apr 11, 4:54 am, Poutnik

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Only if n - 1 is negligible.
Unfortunately it would also diminish supposed ballitic effect.
But it is fiber optics with significant n - 1.

It make no difference to the fringe displacement.

Sure - wave interference does no depend od wave speed
by any possible way, does it ? ( sarcasm )
The problem is, it is relativistic effect.
And without it, Bath cannot explain Sagnac effect.

'Relativistic effects' don't exist.

Bath explains the Sagnac effect very simply and correctly.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

If you have difficulty understanding it that is not my problem.

Post by Poutnik
--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <16012828.15.1334274179124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Only if n - 1 is negligible.
Unfortunately it would also diminish supposed ballitic effect.
But it is fiber optics with significant n - 1.

It make no difference to the fringe displacement.

Sure - wave interference does no depend od wave speed
by any possible way, does it ? ( sarcasm )
The problem is, it is relativistic effect.
And without it, Bath cannot explain Sagnac effect.

'Relativistic effects' don't exist.

Then neither Fresnel drag has reason to exist.
But is observed.

All your c , c + v, c - v marks are incorrect.

Post by Henry Wilson
Bath explains the Sagnac effect very simply and correctly.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg
If you have difficulty understanding it that is not my problem.

Very simply and incorrectly.

The only thing I do not understand is
if you are so blind or so shameless
to publish "article" with so many mistakes.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <16012828.15.1334274179124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

Only if n - 1 is negligible.
Unfortunately it would also diminish supposed ballitic effect.
But it is fiber optics with significant n - 1.

It make no difference to the fringe displacement.

Sure - wave interference does no depend od wave speed
by any possible way, does it ? ( sarcasm )
The problem is, it is relativistic effect.
And without it, Bath cannot explain Sagnac effect.

'Relativistic effects' don't exist.

Then neither Fresnel drag has reason to exist.
But is observed.

there is NO complete theory regarding RI or the dragging of light by moving media.
If the absorption/re-emission theory is correct, then one can only speculate on phase shifts and time delays during that process.

Post by Poutnik
All your c , c + v, c - v marks are incorrect.

That doesn't matter.... just change their positions a little to suit.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson
Bath explains the Sagnac effect very simply and correctly.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg
If you have difficulty understanding it that is not my problem.

Very simply and incorrectly.
The only thing I do not understand is
if you are so blind or so shameless
to publish "article" with so many mistakes.

I take that to mean you cannot understand it.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <14010205.39.1334355541630.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
Then neither Fresnel drag has reason to exist.
But is observed.

there is NO complete theory regarding RI or the dragging of light by moving media.
If the absorption/re-emission theory is correct, then one can only speculate on phase shifts and time delays during that process.

If RT is rejected, then the of course is not any complete theory,
explaining why the dragging coefficient is lower than 1.

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
All your c , c + v, c - v marks are incorrect.

That doesn't matter.... just change their positions a little to suit.

It does matter a lot.

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
Very simply and incorrectly.
The only thing I do not understand is
if you are so blind or so shameless
to publish "article" with so many mistakes.

I take that to mean you cannot understand it.

I have understand you cannot see your mistakes
and there is no help for you.

[Poutnik]

In article <16012828.15.1334274179124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
***@pbcgs4>, ***@gmail.com says...

Before criticizing RT, you should understand it first...

Relativity violates its own law by assuming the rays travel at c in
the non-rotating frame of the ring, in which case they clearly must
travel at c+/-v wrt the source. It calculates the fringe displacement
as (difference in travel times) divided by 'frequency', c/l .

SRT says

vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

where
vm is light speed in moving medium in inertial frame
n is refraction index of ring medium
v is speed of media = tangetial ring speed

c +/- v, even c/n +/- v is in contrary with experiments,
there is the no full medium drag, only partial one.

And even if it were in vacuum,
SRT says light speed in any inertial frame is c,
and this is not broken neither in inertal frame,
neither in rotating frame, if we take it as inertial.

Light speed wrt moving source in inertial frame
can be higher than c,
because it is c in inertial frame.
And it is c either in frame where the source is in the rest.

The problem is, you have problem with frames...

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula

vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

The sagnac effect is not an aether drag problem.
It exists identically in a vacuum or glass.
So forget it.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <5065641.819.1334443050451.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

The sagnac effect is not an aether drag problem.
It exists identically in a vacuum or glass.
So forget it.

It is medium light drag problem.

For classical physics the coefficient is equal to 1.
Experiment and RT says for v << c it is 1 - 1 / n^2

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik
In article <5065641.819.1334443050451.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

The sagnac effect is not an aether drag problem.
It exists identically in a vacuum or glass.
So forget it.

It is medium light drag problem.
For classical physics the coefficient is equal to 1.
Experiment and RT says for v << c it is 1 - 1 / n^2

Not to be understood incorrectly.
Sagnac effect of course occurs in both vacuum and medium.
But it must be explaned in both cases.
Limit of 1 - 1 / n^2 for n = 1
is not equal to 1, unfortunately.

[Poutnik]

In article <5065641.819.1334443050451.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

The sagnac effect is not an aether drag problem.
It exists identically in a vacuum or glass.
So forget it.

You could get confused thinking I consider aether
because medium light dragging was mentioned and evaluated
in context of developing aether hypothesis.

But it does have nothing to do with aether.

Post by Henry Wilson
The repercussions are that the rotating observer's determination that
the path lengths and frequencies of the two rays are equal is
incorrect.

I remember days when you were claiming light does not have frequency.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <5065641.819.1334443050451.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

The sagnac effect is not an aether drag problem.
It exists identically in a vacuum or glass.
So forget it.

You could get confused thinking I consider aether
because medium light dragging was mentioned and evaluated
in context of developing aether hypothesis.
But it does have nothing to do with aether.

Post by Henry Wilson
The repercussions are that the rotating observer's determination that
the path lengths and frequencies of the two rays are equal is
incorrect.

I remember days when you were claiming light does not have frequency.

You didn't understand what I said.

There is such a quantity as 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
It is a frequency but not an INTRINSIC one. It is dependent on relative source/observer speed.
On top of that,a photon probably does possess some kind of intrinsic oscillation or rotation that creates regular spatial features which constitute its absolute wavelength.

That's the BaTh model. Get it?

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <2140120.1595.1334539092477.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <5065641.819.1334443050451.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

Sorry, error in formula
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( 1 +/- v/(nc)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )

The sagnac effect is not an aether drag problem.
It exists identically in a vacuum or glass.
So forget it.

You could get confused thinking I consider aether
because medium light dragging was mentioned and evaluated
in context of developing aether hypothesis.
But it does have nothing to do with aether.

Post by Henry Wilson
The repercussions are that the rotating observer's determination that
the path lengths and frequencies of the two rays are equal is
incorrect.

I remember days when you were claiming light does not have frequency.

You didn't understand what I said.

Speed of incoming sodium light is variable - sci ... - Google Groups
[Popularita webu: #1] groups.google.com/.../3c63a3d7a35d943e?... -
Přeložit tuto stránku
3 Nov 2011 ? On Nov 2, 5:02 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrw. ... On Nov 1, 5:10
pm, Henry Wilson <hnr. ... Light doesn't have a frequency like a radio
signal does.

Post by Henry Wilson
There is such a quantity as 'wavecrest arrival rate'.

There is no difference between light and radio wave
on relation
phase speed = frequency * wave length
the formula is valid for waves of all the kind.

Post by Henry Wilson
It is a frequency but not an INTRINSIC one. It is dependent on
relative source/observer speed.

It is like if you were saying length is not intrinsic property,
as it depends on angle at which you attach the meter measuring tool.

Frequency is defined as number of periodic chnages per second.
Wave frequency is either this quantity,
either ratio of phase speed / wavelength
al measured in rest wrt to source in vacuum or wrt to medium.

Post by Henry Wilson
On top of that,a photon probably does possess some kind of intrinsic
oscillation or rotation that creates regular spatial features which
constitute its absolute wavelength.

Wavelength is always variable dependent on speed and frequency.

Post by Henry Wilson
That's the BaTh model. Get it?

There is no absolute wavelength as it depends to speed of EM wave
propagation. The frequency is what remains constant.

Quantification of Doppler thermal broadening
of atomic emission lines leads to fact
wavelength is changing with atomic move and is not constant.

According to BaTh, as in such a case
light is emitted from field and not by moving atoms themselves,
( You have said so )
the all wavelength, speed and frequency should remain constant,
and atomic spectral line should remain incredible sharp.

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <16012828.15.1334274179124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Before criticizing RT, you should understand it first...

Relativity violates its own law by assuming the rays travel at c in
the non-rotating frame of the ring, in which case they clearly must
travel at c+/-v wrt the source. It calculates the fringe displacement
as (difference in travel times) divided by 'frequency', c/l .

SRT says
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )
where
vm is light speed in moving medium in inertial frame
n is refraction index of ring medium
v is speed of media = tangetial ring speed
c +/- v, even c/n +/- v is in contrary with experiments,
there is the no full medium drag, only partial one.
And even if it were in vacuum,
SRT says light speed in any inertial frame is c,
and this is not broken neither in inertal frame,
neither in rotating frame, if we take it as inertial.
Light speed wrt moving source in inertial frame
can be higher than c,
because it is c in inertial frame.
And it is c either in frame where the source is in the rest.
The problem is, you have problem with frames...

Your problemis you still imagine some kind of absolute aether.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <5212006.757.1334442315192.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <16012828.15.1334274179124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
Before criticizing RT, you should understand it first...

Relativity violates its own law by assuming the rays travel at c in
the non-rotating frame of the ring, in which case they clearly must
travel at c+/-v wrt the source. It calculates the fringe displacement
as (difference in travel times) divided by 'frequency', c/l .

SRT says
vm = (c/n +/- v)/( a +/- v/(nc^2)) = c / n +/- v * ( 1 - 1/n^2 )
( for v << c )
where
vm is light speed in moving medium in inertial frame
n is refraction index of ring medium
v is speed of media = tangetial ring speed
c +/- v, even c/n +/- v is in contrary with experiments,
there is the no full medium drag, only partial one.
And even if it were in vacuum,
SRT says light speed in any inertial frame is c,
and this is not broken neither in inertal frame,
neither in rotating frame, if we take it as inertial.
Light speed wrt moving source in inertial frame
can be higher than c,
because it is c in inertial frame.
And it is c either in frame where the source is in the rest.
The problem is, you have problem with frames...

Your problemis you still imagine some kind of absolute aether.

Not at all. Another false conclusion.

[Poutnik]

In article <2f039afb-f0d5-409a-b2dc-b5fa04055859
@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

It significantly affects your c versus c +- v marks
in non rotating frame diagrams.

for n = 1.5
v = c / n + 0.56 * vm

The light will travel per second
0.56 * rotation tangent speed more or less, compared to c / n.
Still negligible ?

BaTh would like very much
if the dragging coefficient were going to 1 for n going to 1
but it unfortunately goes to zero.

The effect was observed long time before Einstein
and is *quantitatively* simply explained by RT velocity addition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Derivation_in_special_re
lativity

-
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik
In article <2f039afb-f0d5-409a-b2dc-b5fa04055859
@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
The above three gentlemen have always insisted that the ballistic theory of
light is refuted by the sagnac effect. They argue that using the rotating
frame precludes the possibility of a fringe displacement during movement.
I have outlined their fundamental error in this diagram, the basics of which
I assume every true physicist is familiar.
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro4.jpg

In lab frame you do not count with calculation
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

It significantly affects your c versus c +- v marks
in non rotating frame diagrams.
for n = 1.5
v = c / n + 0.56 * vm

In fact, by classical physics, the speed would be
v = c / n + vm
as relative wave speed wrt medium does not depend on medium movement.

You can calculate
the both direction times are in this case in this case
independent to rotation,
therefore fringes would not move wrt ring,
what it not observed.

Any wave, including light,
if facing different conditions affecting propagation speed,
are ALWAYS changing wavelength and never frequency.

Classical physics does not have explanation for Sagnac,
because the effect should not happen
with dragging coefficient equal to 1.

Post by Poutnik
The light will travel per second
0.56 * rotation tangent speed more or less, compared to c / n.
Still negligible ?
BaTh would like very much
if the dragging coefficient were going to 1 for n going to 1
but it unfortunately goes to zero.
The effect was observed long time before Einstein
and is *quantitatively* simply explained by RT velocity addition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Derivation_in_special_re
lativity
-
Poutnik

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
v = c / n + vm * ( 1 - 1 / n^2 )

I don't have to. It is negligible.

It significantly affects your c versus c +- v marks
in non rotating frame diagrams.
for n = 1.5
v = c / n + 0.56 * vm

In fact, by classical physics, the speed would be
v = c / n + vm
as relative wave speed wrt medium does not depend on medium movement.
You can calculate
the both direction times are in this case in this case
independent to rotation,
therefore fringes would not move wrt ring,
what it not observed.
Any wave, including light,
if facing different conditions affecting propagation speed,
are ALWAYS changing wavelength and never frequency.
Classical physics does not have explanation for Sagnac,
because the effect should not happen
with dragging coefficient equal to 1.

Post by Poutnik
The light will travel per second
0.56 * rotation tangent speed more or less, compared to c / n.
Still negligible ?
BaTh would like very much
if the dragging coefficient were going to 1 for n going to 1
but it unfortunately goes to zero.
The effect was observed long time before Einstein
and is *quantitatively* simply explained by RT velocity addition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Derivation_in_special_re
lativity

Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

Post by Poutnik

Post by Poutnik
-
Poutnik

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

Which reminds me:
http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg

Changed URLs referred to:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf


Ralph's calculation of what the BaTh predicts for Fizeau:
http://tinyurl.com/5tamlc
Ralph's error:
http://tinyurl.com/3xqopvb

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

I prefer this one:
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/5tamlc
http://tinyurl.com/3xqopvb

I stated at the time, BaTh does not have a firm theory about dragged light since the processes that determine RI are not known. If the absorption/re-emission theory is correct, then the time delays and phase shifts involved would contribute in a significant way.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Poutnik]

In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Funny thing is there are no references.

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/5tamlc
http://tinyurl.com/3xqopvb

I stated at the time, BaTh does not have a firm theory about dragged light since the processes that determine RI are not known. If the absorption/re-emission theory is correct, then the time delays and phase shifts involved would contribute in a significant way.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Funny thing is there are no references.

It doesn't need any. Just use google.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/5tamlc
http://tinyurl.com/3xqopvb

I stated at the time, BaTh does not have a firm theory about dragged light since the processes that determine RI are not known. If the absorption/re-emission theory is correct, then the time delays and phase shifts involved would contribute in a significant way.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <23794814.0.1334529028677.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Funny thing is there are no references.

It doesn't need any. Just use google.

With such approach you would never become Dr. Wilson......

[Henry Wilson]

Post by Poutnik
In article <23794814.0.1334529028677.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Funny thing is there are no references.

It doesn't need any. Just use google.

With such approach you would never become Dr. Wilson.....

I don't need to 'become' anything any more..

References are totally unnecessary nowadays. So are libraries.

Post by Poutnik
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <13578030.1552.1334539214492.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Poutnik
Funny thing is there are no references.

It doesn't need any. Just use google.

With such approach you would never become Dr. Wilson.....

I don't need to 'become' anything any more..

I wrote you would, not you will....

Post by Henry Wilson
References are totally unnecessary nowadays. So are libraries.

In case of usenet I agree. Not in science.

[Poutnik]

In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Specific aether models were invented by Augustin-Jean Fresnel who in
1818 proposed that the aether is partially entrained by matter. The
other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether is
completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter.

While Fresnel's almost stationary theory was apparently confirmed by
the Fizeau experiment (1851), Stokes' theory was apparently confirmed
by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881, 1887). This contradictory
situation was resolved by the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895,
1904) whose Lorentz ether theory banished any form of aether dragging,
and finally with the work of Albert Einstein (1905) whose theory of
special relativity doesn't contain the aether as a mechanical medium at
all.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik
In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Specific aether models were invented by Augustin-Jean Fresnel who in
1818 proposed that the aether is partially entrained by matter. The
other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether is
completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter.
While Fresnel's almost stationary theory was apparently confirmed by
the Fizeau experiment (1851), Stokes' theory was apparently confirmed
by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881, 1887). This contradictory
situation was resolved by the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895,
1904) whose Lorentz ether theory banished any form of aether dragging,
and finally with the work of Albert Einstein (1905) whose theory of
special relativity doesn't contain the aether as a mechanical medium at
all.

It does. P2 cannot operate without an absolute aether.
SR is identical to LET. Einstein was a plagiarizing bastard who contributed
NOTHING to science.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
In article <12975390.757.1334442904779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

Post by Henry Wilson

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson
Try this: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://tinyurl.com/cnmxxhg
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
It shows how the Fizeau experiment refutes SR.

Specific aether models were invented by Augustin-Jean Fresnel who in
1818 proposed that the aether is partially entrained by matter. The
other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether is
completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter.
While Fresnel's almost stationary theory was apparently confirmed by
the Fizeau experiment (1851), Stokes' theory was apparently confirmed
by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881, 1887). This contradictory
situation was resolved by the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895,
1904) whose Lorentz ether theory banished any form of aether dragging,
and finally with the work of Albert Einstein (1905) whose theory of
special relativity doesn't contain the aether as a mechanical medium at
all.

It does. P2 cannot operate without an absolute aether.

Not true.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

Hardly.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Einstein was a plagiarizing bastard who contributed
NOTHING to science.

IF we substitute Einstein with Henry Wilson, than yes,
if we do not count offenses.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
It does. P2 cannot operate without an absolute aether.
SR is identical to LET. Einstein was a plagiarizing bastard who contributed
NOTHING to science.

All generalisms are easy to break and only fool uses them,
unless he has strong evidence support.

You still do not get it is not SR BaTh is competing with.

SR is not theory of light, it only uses known light properties.

BaTh is competing with Theory of electromagnetism,
Quantum theory, Quantum electromagnetics,
Quantum theory of field, their applications
and many observed phenomena not explained
without QM and SR.

It was never said SR was something very new.
SR is just putting together already known facts
in a new way, that nobody dared to do so before.

Quantum theory with integrated SR
is applied on many practical fields
since hot plasma to solid phase.
It has made some the most precise predictions of the physics EVER,
and there is NO WAY how to derive them from BaTh.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
It does. P2 cannot operate without an absolute aether.
SR is identical to LET. Einstein was a plagiarizing bastard who contributed
NOTHING to science.

All generalisms are easy to break and only fool uses them,
unless he has strong evidence support.
You still do not get it is not SR BaTh is competing with.
SR is not theory of light, it only uses known light properties.
BaTh is competing with Theory of electromagnetism,
Quantum theory, Quantum electromagnetics,
Quantum theory of field, their applications
and many observed phenomena not explained
without QM and SR.
It was never said SR was something very new.
SR is just putting together already known facts
in a new way, that nobody dared to do so before.
Quantum theory with integrated SR
is applied on many practical fields
since hot plasma to solid phase.
It has made some the most precise predictions of the physics EVER,
and there is NO WAY how to derive them from BaTh.

What happens to moving charges and plasma has nothing to do with SR or BaTh.
All kinds of strange rules might apply.
Even the appearance of the 'gamma' factor would not surprise me at all
because it is just the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
It does. P2 cannot operate without an absolute aether.
SR is identical to LET. Einstein was a plagiarizing bastard who contributed
NOTHING to science.

All generalisms are easy to break and only fool uses them,
unless he has strong evidence support.
You still do not get it is not SR BaTh is competing with.
SR is not theory of light, it only uses known light properties.
BaTh is competing with Theory of electromagnetism,
Quantum theory, Quantum electromagnetics,
Quantum theory of field, their applications
and many observed phenomena not explained
without QM and SR.
It was never said SR was something very new.
SR is just putting together already known facts
in a new way, that nobody dared to do so before.
Quantum theory with integrated SR
is applied on many practical fields
since hot plasma to solid phase.
It has made some the most precise predictions of the physics EVER,
and there is NO WAY how to derive them from BaTh.

What happens to moving charges and plasma has nothing to do with SR or BaTh.
All kinds of strange rules might apply.

You do not understand physics much, do you ?

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Even the appearance of the 'gamma' factor would not surprise me at all
because it is just the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

Learn to count yourself.
that mean is SQRT (c*c - v*v ), not 1 / sqrt ( 1 - v*v/c*c )

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

Should I convince you from the lie or from mistake,
due non-careful usage of generalizing statement ?

If you are not able to recognize
it has lots to do with light emitted by moving objects
and speed relative to observers,
than it is evidence you do not understand basics of physics.

But you have no choice but denial
as BaTh has nothing to say there.

You are silent to many objections to BaTh,
with offenses as the only comments available to you.
You use them all the time when BaTh has nothing to say.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
It does. P2 cannot operate without an absolute aether.
SR is identical to LET. Einstein was a plagiarizing bastard who contributed
NOTHING to science.

All generalisms are easy to break and only fool uses them,
unless he has strong evidence support.
You still do not get it is not SR BaTh is competing with.
SR is not theory of light, it only uses known light properties.
BaTh is competing with Theory of electromagnetism,
Quantum theory, Quantum electromagnetics,
Quantum theory of field, their applications
and many observed phenomena not explained
without QM and SR.
It was never said SR was something very new.
SR is just putting together already known facts
in a new way, that nobody dared to do so before.
Quantum theory with integrated SR
is applied on many practical fields
since hot plasma to solid phase.
It has made some the most precise predictions of the physics EVER,
and there is NO WAY how to derive them from BaTh.

What happens to moving charges and plasma has nothing to do with SR or BaTh.
All kinds of strange rules might apply.

You do not understand physics much, do you ?

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Even the appearance of the 'gamma' factor would not surprise me at all
because it is just the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

Learn to count yourself.
that mean is SQRT (c*c - v*v ), not 1 / sqrt ( 1 - v*v/c*c )

Don't be so pedantic.
The important factor is the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

Should I convince you from the lie or from mistake,
due non-careful usage of generalizing statement ?
If you are not able to recognize
it has lots to do with light emitted by moving objects
and speed relative to observers,
than it is evidence you do not understand basics of physics.

ALL speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

Post by Poutnik
But you have no choice but denial
as BaTh has nothing to say there.

BaTh is well proven by variable star brightnes curves......the only credible
way to test for variable light speeds.

Post by Poutnik
You are silent to many objections to BaTh,
with offenses as the only comments available to you.
You use them all the time when BaTh has nothing to say.

Sorry, I tend to become a little impatient with slow learners like you and
Andersen.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Learn to count yourself.
that mean is SQRT (c*c - v*v ), not 1 / sqrt ( 1 - v*v/c*c )

Don't be so pedantic.
The important factor is the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

So, what about the "field emission" and spectra broadening issue ?

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

Should I convince you from the lie or from mistake,
due non-careful usage of generalizing statement ?
If you are not able to recognize
it has lots to do with light emitted by moving objects
and speed relative to observers,
than it is evidence you do not understand basics of physics.

ALL speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

..But vacuum speed of light by observation.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
But you have no choice but denial
as BaTh has nothing to say there.

BaTh is well proven by variable star brightnes curves......the only credible
way to test for variable light speeds.

No, it is the only way to hide its errors.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
You are silent to many objections to BaTh,
with offenses as the only comments available to you.
You use them all the time when BaTh has nothing to say.

Sorry, I tend to become a little impatient with slow learners like you and
Andersen.

I agree, I have difficulties to learn myself,
why you have so many troubles in basics
of so many physics branches.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Learn to count yourself.
that mean is SQRT (c*c - v*v ), not 1 / sqrt ( 1 - v*v/c*c )

Don't be so pedantic.
The important factor is the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

So, what about the "field emission" and spectra broadening issue ?

What about them? I didn't know we were discussing those topics.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

Should I convince you from the lie or from mistake,
due non-careful usage of generalizing statement ?
If you are not able to recognize
it has lots to do with light emitted by moving objects
and speed relative to observers,
than it is evidence you do not understand basics of physics.

ALL speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

..But vacuum speed of light by observation.

Nobody has measured OWLS from a moving source.
Variable star curves indicate that light speed is indeed source dependent.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
But you have no choice but denial
as BaTh has nothing to say there.

BaTh is well proven by variable star brightnes curves......the only credible
way to test for variable light speeds.

No, it is the only way to hide its errors.

You should try to find a way to hide your unwillingness to accept truth..

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
You are silent to many objections to BaTh,
with offenses as the only comments available to you.
You use them all the time when BaTh has nothing to say.

Sorry, I tend to become a little impatient with slow learners like you and
Andersen.

I agree, I have difficulties to learn myself,
why you have so many troubles in basics
of so many physics branches.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Learn to count yourself.
that mean is SQRT (c*c - v*v ), not 1 / sqrt ( 1 - v*v/c*c )

Don't be so pedantic.
The important factor is the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

So, what about the "field emission" and spectra broadening issue ?

What about them? I didn't know we were discussing those topics.

Than return back within the thread.
I have thought you skipped that intentionally.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

Should I convince you from the lie or from mistake,
due non-careful usage of generalizing statement ?
If you are not able to recognize
it has lots to do with light emitted by moving objects
and speed relative to observers,
than it is evidence you do not understand basics of physics.

ALL speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

..But vacuum speed of light by observation.

Nobody has measured OWLS from a moving source.
Variable star curves indicate that light speed is indeed source dependent.

OWLS from objects with speed comparable to c was measured many times
without seeing light speed comparable to 2c.

You have come with ad hoc hypothesis
the light is emitted from the field and not from these objects.
Nice trial, but it is betraying basic ballistic principles
and cancels the possibility
of Doppler broadening of emission/absorption lines.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
But you have no choice but denial
as BaTh has nothing to say there.

BaTh is well proven by variable star brightnes curves......the only credible
way to test for variable light speeds.

No, it is the only way to hide its errors.

You should try to find a way to hide your unwillingness to accept truth..

You are the last who can dare to say that.

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
So, what about the "field emission" and spectra broadening issue ?

What about them? I didn't know we were discussing those topics.

Than return back within the thread.
I have thought you skipped that intentionally.

I have also cut the topic into independent thread you skipped either.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Learn to count yourself.
that mean is SQRT (c*c - v*v ), not 1 / sqrt ( 1 - v*v/c*c )

Don't be so pedantic.
The important factor is the geometric mean of c+v and c-v.

So, what about the "field emission" and spectra broadening issue ?

What about them? I didn't know we were discussing those topics.

Than return back within the thread.
I have thought you skipped that intentionally.

They are irrelevant.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nothing you talk about is related to light emitted by moving objects and its
speed relative to different observers..

Should I convince you from the lie or from mistake,
due non-careful usage of generalizing statement ?
If you are not able to recognize
it has lots to do with light emitted by moving objects
and speed relative to observers,
than it is evidence you do not understand basics of physics.

ALL speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

..But vacuum speed of light by observation.

Nobody has measured OWLS from a moving source.
Variable star curves indicate that light speed is indeed source dependent.

OWLS from objects with speed comparable to c was measured many times
without seeing light speed comparable to 2c.

The radiated EM originated from objects at rest.

Post by Poutnik
You have come with ad hoc hypothesis
the light is emitted from the field and not from these objects.
Nice trial, but it is betraying basic ballistic principles
and cancels the possibility
of Doppler broadening of emission/absorption lines.

Not one of the experiments you refer to is believable.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
But you have no choice but denial
as BaTh has nothing to say there.

BaTh is well proven by variable star brightnes curves......the only credible
way to test for variable light speeds.

No, it is the only way to hide its errors.

You should try to find a way to hide your unwillingness to accept truth..

You are the last who can dare to say that.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
So, what about the "field emission" and spectra broadening issue ?

What about them? I didn't know we were discussing those topics.

Than return back within the thread.
I have thought you skipped that intentionally.

They are irrelevant.

Ignorance or lie ?
All is directly related to light emitted by moving objects.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Nobody has measured OWLS from a moving source.
Variable star curves indicate that light speed is indeed source dependent.

OWLS from objects with speed comparable to c was measured many times
without seeing light speed comparable to 2c.

The radiated EM originated from objects at rest.

No, it is not.
Don't you remember what you were claiming in the past ?

Same for moving atoms ?
Than observed spectra broadening does not exist.


In fact, for all inertial frames,
almost no object emitting EM is there in rest.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
You have come with ad hoc hypothesis
the light is emitted from the field and not from these objects.
Nice trial, but it is betraying basic ballistic principles
and cancels the possibility
of Doppler broadening of emission/absorption lines.

Not one of the experiments you refer to is believable.

Do you think so ?
All the atomic spectroscopy is based on that.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Why then is Einstein regarded more highly than Lorentz whose theory he
plagiarized.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Why your conclusions are so shallow ?
If SR and LET are the same,
than either both, either neither would suppose aether.

If some predictions of 2 theories are the same,
than it only means they are equivalent in that area.

Some predictions of BaTh and SR are the same too,
but you would take claim "BaTh and SR are same theories"
as a personal offense.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Why then is Einstein regarded more highly than Lorentz whose theory he
plagiarized.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Why your conclusions are so shallow ?
If SR and LET are the same,
than either both, either neither would suppose aether.
If some predictions of 2 theories are the same,
than it only means they are equivalent in that area.

ALL predictions of SR are IDENTICAL to those of LET. JUST ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE
PAUL ANDERSEN AND HE WILL PROVE IT.

SR AND LET ARE THE SAME THEORY.

Post by Poutnik
Some predictions of BaTh and SR are the same too,
but you would take claim "BaTh and SR are same theories"
as a personal offense.

SR says light moves at c in the source frame....that's the only similarity.
The rest of it is crap from start to finish.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Why then is Einstein regarded more highly than Lorentz whose theory he
plagiarized.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Why your conclusions are so shallow ?
If SR and LET are the same,
than either both, either neither would suppose aether.
If some predictions of 2 theories are the same,
than it only means they are equivalent in that area.

ALL predictions of SR are IDENTICAL to those of LET. JUST ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE
PAUL ANDERSEN AND HE WILL PROVE IT.
SR AND LET ARE THE SAME THEORY.

Try to shouting less and thinking more.

If one counts with and relies on existence of aether,
and the other not, how they can be the same ?

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Some predictions of BaTh and SR are the same too,
but you would take claim "BaTh and SR are same theories"
as a personal offense.

SR says light moves at c in the source frame....that's the only similarity.
The rest of it is crap from start to finish.

Because you do not understand it,
in spite of saying you understand it perfectly.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Why your conclusions are so shallow ?
If SR and LET are the same,
than either both, either neither would suppose aether.
If some predictions of 2 theories are the same,
than it only means they are equivalent in that area.

ALL predictions of SR are IDENTICAL to those of LET. JUST ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE
PAUL ANDERSEN AND HE WILL PROVE IT.
SR AND LET ARE THE SAME THEORY.

Try to shouting less and thinking more.
If one counts with and relies on existence of aether,
and the other not, how they can be the same ?

Paul proved that they are..

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Some predictions of BaTh and SR are the same too,
but you would take claim "BaTh and SR are same theories"
as a personal offense.

SR says light moves at c in the source frame....that's the only similarity.
The rest of it is crap from start to finish.

Because you do not understand it,
in spite of saying you understand it perfectly.

I understand SR well. I also understand its basic flaws.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
ALL predictions of SR are IDENTICAL to those of LET. JUST ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE
PAUL ANDERSEN AND HE WILL PROVE IT.
SR AND LET ARE THE SAME THEORY.

Try to shouting less and thinking more.
If one counts with and relies on existence of aether,
and the other not, how they can be the same ?

Paul proved that they are..

No, only that their predictions are the same.
It is not the same.

SR is generalized LET by relativity principle,
not needed to suppose aether existence anymore.
GRT is generalized Newton gravity.

The formers have the same prediction as the letters,
in scope of applicability of the latters.
But they are not same.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Some predictions of BaTh and SR are the same too,
but you would take claim "BaTh and SR are same theories"
as a personal offense.

SR says light moves at c in the source frame....that's the only similarity.
The rest of it is crap from start to finish.

Because you do not understand it,
in spite of saying you understand it perfectly.

I understand SR well. I also understand its basic flaws.

No, you do not, if you consider in many places
c + v as breaking of SR own laws.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
ALL predictions of SR are IDENTICAL to those of LET. JUST ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE
PAUL ANDERSEN AND HE WILL PROVE IT.
SR AND LET ARE THE SAME THEORY.

Try to shouting less and thinking more.
If one counts with and relies on existence of aether,
and the other not, how they can be the same ?

Paul proved that they are..

No, only that their predictions are the same.
It is not the same.
SR is generalized LET by relativity principle,
not needed to suppose aether existence anymore.
GRT is generalized Newton gravity.
The formers have the same prediction as the letters,
in scope of applicability of the latters.
But they are not same.

Crap. Einstein's P2 cannot possibly operate without an absolute light speed
reference.
Please explain how all light from totally remote galaxies can magically find
a common speed in any particular direction.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik
Some predictions of BaTh and SR are the same too,
but you would take claim "BaTh and SR are same theories"
as a personal offense.

SR says light moves at c in the source frame....that's the only similarity.
The rest of it is crap from start to finish.

Because you do not understand it,
in spite of saying you understand it perfectly.

I understand SR well. I also understand its basic flaws.

No, you do not, if you consider in many places
c + v as breaking of SR own laws.

SR is based on the totally ridiculous and logically flawed RoS.

It is therefore pure nonsense from start to finish.

[Poutnik]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
ALL predictions of SR are IDENTICAL to those of LET. JUST ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE
PAUL ANDERSEN AND HE WILL PROVE IT.
SR AND LET ARE THE SAME THEORY.

Try to shouting less and thinking more.
If one counts with and relies on existence of aether,
and the other not, how they can be the same ?

Paul proved that they are..

No, only that their predictions are the same.
It is not the same.
SR is generalized LET by relativity principle,
not needed to suppose aether existence anymore.
GRT is generalized Newton gravity.
The formers have the same prediction as the letters,
in scope of applicability of the latters.
But they are not same.

Crap. Einstein's P2 cannot possibly operate without an absolute light speed
reference.

It can.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Please explain how all light from totally remote galaxies can magically find
a common speed in any particular direction.

The light speed is property of space within inertial frame, not of
light itself, it need not to find it.

OTOH, please explain, how light knows what speed it should propagate,
in dependence on speed of distance galaxy, if EM wave equations
do not provide this info neither allow various speed,
and BaTh do not provide the equations that provide that ?

And, why light must move by speed c from rest source,
if the space has no c requirement ?

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Poutnik

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
I understand SR well. I also understand its basic flaws.

No, you do not, if you consider in many places
c + v as breaking of SR own laws.

SR is based on the totally ridiculous and logically flawed RoS.

is RoS a SR postulate ? It is not.
Can RoS be mathematically directly derived from P2 ? It can.

And it is also direct evidence you do not understand SRT.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
It is therefore pure nonsense from start to finish.

[Androcles]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

When you agree with a fool the guarantee is he's doing the same.
If you'd listened to me you'd know that LET contracts by aether
bombardment on molecules and SR expands by magic. Einstein's
words agreeing with Lorentz contradict his own equations.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Thanks.
So you admit that I was right and you were wrong, then.

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

Your opinion of SR is irrelevant to the fact that you now have
admitted being wrong when you claimed that the predictions
of SR and LET were different.

http://tinyurl.com/c6qavs9

RALPH RABBIDGE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG !!! :-)

http://tinyurl.com/ldrbnc

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Thanks.
So you admit that I was right and you were wrong, then.

Paul, you fell into my trap. You virtually proved that SR is the same theory
as LET.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

Your opinion of SR is irrelevant to the fact that you now have
admitted being wrong when you claimed that the predictions
of SR and LET were different.

Here's another problem for you.
What is the LET analysis of the 'twins paradox'?

How much younger is the traveling twin acccording to LET?

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/c6qavs9
HENRY WILSON HAS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG !!! :-)

Paul Andersen, creator of curved light beams, fell into Wilson's trap and
has now fully demonstrated that Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's aether
theory and claimed it as his own.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/ldrbnc

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:50:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
SR is identical to LET.

So you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that
the predictions of SR and LET were different.

Paul Andersen, rainbow maker, convinced me that SR and LET are the same
theory.

Thanks.
So you admit that I was right and you were wrong, then.

Paul, you fell into my trap. You virtually proved that SR is the same theory
as LET.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

Your opinion of SR is irrelevant to the fact that you now have
admitted being wrong when you claimed that the predictions
of SR and LET were different.

Here's another problem for you.
What is the LET analysis of the 'twins paradox'?
How much younger is the traveling twin acccording to LET?

Hard to spell when you are desperate to evade having to admit
that you accidentally have admitted being wrong, is it? :-)

But here is what LET predicts for the 'twins paradox':
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/c6qavs9
HENRY WILSON HAS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG !!! :-)

Paul Andersen, creator of curved light beams, fell into Wilson's trap and
has now fully demonstrated that Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's aether
theory and claimed it as his own.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/ldrbnc

So your statement: "SR is identical to LET" was a trap?

Does that mean that you still think the predictions
of SR and LET may be different?

Do you retract your admission that your claims quoted
in these papers were wrong?

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
Paul, you fell into my trap. You virtually proved that SR is the same theory
as LET.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/HenrysLET3.pdf

Your pathetic theory relies on the bogus RoS. It is nonsense from start to
finish.

Your opinion of SR is irrelevant to the fact that you now have
admitted being wrong when you claimed that the predictions
of SR and LET were different.

Here's another problem for you.
What is the LET analysis of the 'twins paradox'?
How much younger is the traveling twin acccording to LET?

Hard to spell when you are desperate to evade having to admit
that you accidentally have admitted being wrong, is it? :-)
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

HAHAHAHHAHHAHA!
Paul Andersen, bender of spoons and light beams, has analysed the case when
the stay at home twin is at rest in Lorentz's aether.

He cannot do it when the stay at home twin is moving in the aether.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/c6qavs9
HENRY WILSON HAS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG !!! :-)

Paul Andersen, creator of curved light beams, fell into Wilson's trap and
has now fully demonstrated that Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's aether
theory and claimed it as his own.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
http://tinyurl.com/ldrbnc

So your statement: "SR is identical to LET" was a trap?
Does that mean that you still think the predictions
of SR and LET may be different?

LET predicts the existence of an absolute aether.
That explains source independency of light speed.

Einstein's supporters claim there is NO universal aether and that source
independency is achieved purely through a postulate.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Do you retract your admission that your claims quoted
in these papers were wrong?
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf

Do you accept that one of your many monumental errors is published here for
all the world to see?:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

fig 4.