🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:29:03 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> sci.physics.relativity:

>
>
>> 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. 

Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their frequencies
are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.

Even YOU should know that two clocks that begin in synch and are running at
different rates will subsequently read different times.
 

>>> 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).

'Nonsense' that produces the correct answer......
Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.

>> 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



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm