🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:47:40 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
>news:ek30451v2s3384mppgu4ij1lm9545bpchl@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:08:56 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>>news:u1dt35l0i09skmi40v9784usslcr15sla3@4ax.com...
>>>> According to BaTh and WaSh, the INTRINSIC wavelength of a photon changes
>>>> whenever the photon experiences a speed change. This means that
>>>> conventional
>>>> VDoppler wavelength shift is a true indicator of source speed relative 
>>>> to
>>>> any
>>>> observer.
>>>
>>>Ballistic theories using Galilean transforms have been refuted
>>>experimentally though.
>>
>> They have not.
>
>Yes .. they have .. you're in denial
>
>> Past 'refutations' have all been shown to be flawed.
>
>No .. they have not.  Sagnac is one particular example that fails with 
>ballistic theory.  


Hahahahhahahahahhah! Have another think....

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm

>Of course, flawed math and mis-interpreting results can 
>trick you into thinking you've refuted it .. but it has been thoroughly and 
>irrefutably shown that ballistic theory does not explain Sagnac.

Listen dopey, the standard relativist claim is that when the sagnac experiment
is considered from the point of view of the rotating frame, there can be no
fringe displacement. This is so ridiculous it is pathetic ...but not unexpected
when one considers the relativist mentality. 
Obviously, a rotating object in its rotating frame is NOT the same as a
nonrotating object in the nonrotating frame.  There are hidden imaginary
effects in the former.



Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...