🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 22, 6:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> > SR TRIES to explain Sagnac but has to rely on what you agree with above...that
> > the rays travel at c+v and c-v wrt the source...which immediately refutes the
> > second postulate..
>
> You are completely incompetent to describe what SR says, or how one
> analyzes a Sagnac interferometer using SR. Your statements above are
> just plain wrong, and do not describe SR at all.
>
> In SR, the speed of light is isotropically c in any INERTIAL frame. This
> can of course be used to determine the speed of light that would be
> measured in an accelerated (or rotating) system, and in general light
> speed will be ANISOTROPIC in such systems.
>
> One problem in this thread is that the idiots are attempting to define
> how one analyzes a Sagnac interferometer, and they make silly statements
> about Doppler shift and other irrelevancies. The most straightforward
> way to analyze a Sagnac interferometer is to determine the time delay
> from source to detector for the two rays -- for a given source this can
> be directly converted into a fringe position. The frequency of the light
> is not important, as there cannot possibly be any frequency difference
> in the two rays MEASURED BY THE DETECTOR (because there is no place for
> cycles to be lost or created).

Roberts Roberts people do not always understand the twists and turns
of criminal Einsteinians. Let me explain for non-criminals:

The frequency of the light is not important, as there cannot possibly
be any frequency difference in the two rays MEASURED BY THE DETECTOR,
and that is what the ballistic theory predicts (relativity predicts
two different frequency shifts for the co-rotating and the counter-
rotating light). That is the reason why the frequency of the light is
not important, and any faithful Einsteinian should always ignore it.
If anti-relativists somehow manage to convince the world that the
frequency of the light in the Sagnac interferometer IS important and
therefore Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false whereas the
equation c'=c+v given by the emission (ballistic) theory of light is
true, then Einstein criminal cult will immediately readvance the old
and partially forgotten theory of Levy-Leblond-Roberts according to
which Einstein's 1905 light postulate itself is not important and
therefore, even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform", SPECIAL RELATIVITY "WOULD BE
UNAFFECTED":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com