🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 26, 7:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.

Roberts Roberts you have snipped an explanation of mine which is
relevant. I am giving it again, with some elaboration:

The Doppler shift, like the gravitational redshift, is defined in
terms of the relashionship between the light source and the detector,
as you do above Roberts Roberts, but at the moment the light reaches
the detector, that relationship becomes immaterial and the only
relevant question is:

WHAT IS THE SUM OF THE SPEEDS OF THE LIGHT AND THE DETECTOR AS SEEN
FROM AN INERTIAL FRAME?

That is the only relevant question Roberts Roberts because the Doppler
shift, just like the gravitational redshift, obeys the formula

F = S/L

where F is the frequency measured by the detector, S is the sum of the
speeds of the light and the detector at the moment of reception and L
is the wavelength. According to the ballistic theory, in the Sagnac
experiment S=c in both directions and therefore the prediction is: "no
Doppler shift". Relativity gives S=c-v in the co-rotating direction,
S=c+v in the counter-rotating direction and therefore the prediction
is: "two different Doppler shifts". Clearly the absence of a Doppler
shift "in the DEVICE ITSELF" confirms the ballistic theory and refutes
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. (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.

Note that I am talking about the SIDES of the c-v polygon inscribed in
the rotating circular loop which are LONGER than the SIDES of the c+v
polygon inscribed in the rotating circular loop. Think more Roberts
Roberts.

> >> 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.

Roberts Roberts you are right when you say that "NONE of those people
have stated that Sagnac "is compatible with ballistic theory". But
they have not stated Sagnac is compatible with relativity either.
Superior brothers are just silent about Sagnac Roberts Roberts. Why?
Perhaps they, unlike you, somehow feel that, if both Michelson-Morley
and Pound-Rebka are compatible with Newton's emission theory of light
that contradicts Einstein's 1905 light postulate, it would be too
silly to claim that Sagnac, whose setup does not involve an
essentially different physics, is compatible with Einstein's 1905
light postulate that contradicts Newton's emission theory of light.
Too silly Roberts Roberts. Superior brothers just do not want to be
authors of such a silly statement that would be exposed forever in the
internet.

> 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).

This "statistical" way of verifying theories is camouflage devised in
Einstein criminal cult Roberts Roberts. Just analyse correctly ONE
experiment, e.g. Pound-Rebka, in PHYSICAL terms, and you will be able
to prove rigorously that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
relevant in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent
equation c'=c+v relevant in the absence of a gravitational filed are
BOTH CORRECT.

> > 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.)

I don't.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com