🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:10:18 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message 
>news:t3d5n391dh2d1u0puudooqie0ab1d1l05u@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>Irrelevant, as the detector is NOT stationary in the non-rotating frame .. 
>whne you doppler shift back to take the speed of the detectors into account, 
>they have the ame wavelength .  Gees .. this has been explained to you 
>countless times

Listen you pathetic halfwit, the detector frame is NOT the nonrotating frame.
 
>
>> 'Nonsense' that produces the correct answer......
>> Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
>
>No
>



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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