🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 20, 10:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e4d6d3a0-d2f1-487a-acbb-19017d35b8b4@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> : In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
> : make the following mistake:
> :
> :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> : "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
> : then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
> : the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
> : point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
> : rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
> : classical and the relativistic contexts."
> :
> : The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
> : relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
> : the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
> : observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
> : in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
> : so the correct text would be:
> :
> : "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
> : then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
> : the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
> : point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
> : direction."
>
>    http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
>
> 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.

I love infinite discussion loops.