🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>> Sagnac has been consistent
>> with SR from the beginning, regardless of which people actually knew it
>> or not.
> 
> No Roberts Roberts, Sagnac has ALWAYS been inconsistent with
> relativity.

This is just plain not true. SR correctly and accurately predicts the 
fringe shifts observed in Sagnac interferometers and fiber gyroscopes.


> I am going to repeat what I have already said 

That is ALL YOU EVER DO -- repeat your mistakes over and over and over. 
Why don't you STUDY what SR actually says instead? -- then you could get 
off your endless cycle and actually do something useful.


> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> "It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
> Sagnac device..."
> 
> If this is experimentally confirmed, then the Sagnac effect clearly
> confirms the ballistic theory and refutes relativity.

Nonsense. There would indeed be a Doppler shift _IF_ one observed the 
light from an inertial frame, due to the motion of the source relative 
to that frame. But in a Sagnac DEVICE the detector is co-rotating with 
the source, and this EXACTLY cancels the Doppler shift as seen from an 
inertial frame. In the DEVICE ITSELF there is no Doppler shift, as 
stated above. This is fully compatible with the predictions of SR.


> If one sticks to the
> ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
> the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
> co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
> relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
> rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
> polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
> polygon covered by c+v photons. 

You got it BACKWARDS. Given your assumptions (i.e. in this ballistic 
theory, using the inertial frame of the center), it is the c+v light ray 
that has a longer path, and the c-v ray that has a shorter path [#]. And 
if you work it out algebraically you'll find the different speeds and 
distances cancel and both rays take exactly the same time to go around 
their polygons (the two polygons are not congruent); v cancels out and 
that equal-time result holds independent of v, so this ballistic theory 
predicts no fringe shift, and is thus refuted by the observations. (This 
is easiest to see if one considers the circular path; the polygon 
complicates the math considerably.)

	[#] for a circular interferometer rotating clockwise relative
	to the inertial frame of its center, the "c+v ray" moves
	clockwise and the "c-v ray" moves counter-clockwise. The
	former must travel more than the circumference of the circle
	to get back to the detector and the latter must travel less,
	because the instrument is ROTATING CLOCKWISE.


>> Because all the real physicists already know that ballistic theories are
>> soundly refuted.
> 
> You are simply lying Roberts Roberts. 

No. It's just that YOU are unable to read accurately. <shrug>


> I have referred countless times
> to what inportant Einsteinians such as John Norton, John Stachel, Jean
> Eisenstaedt and Banesh Hoffmann think of the emission (ballistic)
> theory. 

No, you have NOT done that. All you have done (over and over and over 
again) is to quote a statement to the effect that ONE EXPERIMENT 
(Michelson and Morley) is "compatible with ballistic theory". NONE of 
those people have stated that Sagnac "is compatible with ballistic 
theory", and indeed, the Sagnac experiment is one of the ones that 
refute emission/ballistic theories.

You REALLY need to learn how to read more accurately. <shrug>

And you need to understand that even though ONE experiment is compatible 
with multiple theories, the true test of a theory is being compatible 
with ALL of the experiments. SR passes this last test, and 
emission/ballistic theories do not (Henri Wilson's nonsense 
notwithstanding).


> You have been silent all along and now: "all the real
> physicists"! Who are "all the real physicists" Roberts Roberts? 

All the physicists who have written relevant textbooks, have taught 
relevant courses, or have thought about this. <shrug>


I repeat: Learn some physics, stop endlessly repeating nonsense, and 
above all: GROW UP!

	(Don't expect me to respond until you do.)


Tom Roberts