🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > It is interesting to read up on the History.
>
> But that is irrelevant to the physics. And I suspect your source is
> heavily biased....
>
>         [But _I_ don't care, as I am interested in physics, not
>          history.]
>
> > So now it has been found that it can be considered as being consistent
> > with SR it is claimed as its saviour disproving all other theories :o)
>
> Please think about what a physical theory is. 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. I am going to repeat what I have already said but in
Einstein zombie world this is unavoidable:

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. The Doppler
shift, just like the gravitational redshift, obeys the formula

F = S/L

where F is the frequency measured by the receiver, S is the sum of the
speeds of the light and the receiver at the moment of reception and L
is the wavelength. According to the ballistic theory (see above), 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".

> You are letting your (biased?) view of history color what you
> think is physics.
>
> And, of course, one experiment cannot possibly "disprove all other
> [theories]".
>
> > We think of the planets going around the sun but I have no doubt it
> > would be possible with suitable transforms to base "theory"  or at least
> > a mathematical model on the assumption that everything goes around the
> > earth.
>
> Sure. There is a long history of this. While complicated it is most
> definitely possible.
>
> > The vast number of times relativity and ballistic theory give the
> > same result - often unexpectedly - does not seem to me to be a
> > coincidence.
>
> There are not a "vast number" of such "times". Look here and count them: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

A rather silly site. I don't think any clever Einsteinian would ever
refer to it. Almost no analysis and when there is some, it is clearly
camouflage (why don't you even mention that the Michelson-Morley
experiment, in the absence of miracles such as time dilation and
length contraction, confirms the emission (ballistic) theory and
refutes relativity?):

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the earth relative to the "lumeniferous æther"
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

> > What you have is the wrong basis for theory transformed in
> > order to get the right answers.
>
> What God whispered in you ear and told you this?
>
> What YOU have is an inability to distinguish between your personal
> fantasies and actual physics.
>
> > For that reason I am confident that it
> > is possible to show that Sagnac is consistent with Ballistic theory.
>
> Nope. To do that you must make "ballistic theory" not be "ballistic". Or
> wallow in nonsense like Henri Wilson.
>
>         Just think of the machine gun analogy (bullets fired
>         tangentially inside a frictionless circular pipe) --
>         it is QUITE CLEAR that there is no difference in time
>         delay around the circle for the two directions, independent
>         of the rotation of the machine gun. Any "ballistic theory"
>         that does not agree with this is not "ballistic". And,
>         of course, for light such theories are refuted, even
>         though they work quite well for bullets.

It is by no means QUITE CLEAR Roberts Roberts. 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. This seems to be an advantage allowing
c-v photons to arrive at the end point earlier than c+v photons. The
problem is purely mathematical but its rigorous solution seems
difficult for the moment.

> > I
> > have some ideas I am working on although why it should be left to me an
> > amateur who claims to be neither a physicist nor a mathematician I
> > cannot imagine.
>
> Because all the real physicists already know that ballistic theories are
> soundly refuted.

You are simply lying Roberts Roberts. 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. You have been silent all along and now: "all the real
physicists"! Who are "all the real physicists" Roberts Roberts? You
and the zombies Moortel, Jeckyl and Dono?

> And we also know that there is essentially no hope that
> such theories can explain other related phenomena, such as time
> dilation, relativistic kinematics, CPT and Lorentz invariance, etc.

Here I must admit you are absolutely correct Roberts Roberts. Also,
the emission theory will never be able to explain the fact that
Einsteinians can trap a long train inside a short tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=

and also a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com