🚀 go-pugleaf

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message 
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0712220626070.616@serene.st...
: On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Jeckyl wrote:
:
: > In the rotating frame the distance and speeds are the same.  The light
: > leaves the source travelling at speed c in opposite directions, it 
traverse
: > the same distance and arrives back at the detector at the same time and 
the
: > same speed travelling the same distance for a null Sagnac effect
: >
: > So where is the detected Sagnac effect?
: >
: > See http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html for a ballistic vs
: > relativistic animation comparison .. no sagnac effect for ballistic 
theory.
:
: It wasn't for nothing that Sagnac wrote his paper as an experimental
: detection of the aether, in direct contradiction to ballistic theory.
: Michelson-Morely, OTOH, contradicts (stationary) aether and supports
: ballistic theory. Special relativity provides a synthesis of these two
: antithetical views - it agrees with everyone, so why do so many complain
: on the ngs?
:

Baloney, Nieminen.
You can't even spell "Morley", let alone simulate Sagnac or provide
any mathematics. You are a bullshitter, Sagnac is entirely consistent
with emission fact and isomorphic to the crank Einstein's thought
experiment (without his blunder).
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

That you are too stupid to understand simple algebra is your problem.
Catch 22:
  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery  et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is  petitio principii, circularity.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
 The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a 
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with 
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton