🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 18, 07:06, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
> ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
> the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.

Roberts Roberts let's get things straight. So far you have claimed
that:

1. The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the emission
(ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
postulate c'=c.

2. The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission
(ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
postulate c'=c.

However above you seem to claim that:

3. The Sagnac experiment is INcompatible with the emission (ballistic)
theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light postulate
and for that reason the Sagnac experiment REFUTES the equation c'=c+v
and GLORIFIES Einstein's light postulate c'=c.

Is that true Roberts Roberts? You have already said so but just
confirm it even more explicitly. Then we will have to ask the editors
of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Rotating-Frames-Relativistic-Fundamental/dp/1402018053
"For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
relativistic theory."

to explain why they did not invite YOU to defend Einstein's idiocies.

The only problem with the Sagnac experiment Roberts Roberts is that
its analysis is somewhat complicated, difficult to discuss on a forum
like this and so criminals like you can relatively safely say
anything. However be careful: note that brothers much cleverer than
you NEVER mention Sagnac. Try to find a discussion of Sagnac by John
Norton for instance.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com