🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
news:2rc045905r3enrv5o8pcjvtlauobkbu5ck@4ax.com...
> 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....

No need to.  I've gone through the SR explanation and it is correct, there 
is no self-violation in SR involved as you claim out of ignorance.  I've 
gone through the ballistic interpretation and it does not predict the 
observed Sagnac effect.  It is well known that your calculations are 
incorrect because you do not understand the physics and misapply them.  Are 
you not surprised that you are the only person who gets the answer you do 
after so many years?  You think every single physicist and mathematician is 
wrong?  And no .. I'm not saying you're wrong JUST because everyone else is 
right.  You're wrong because your analysis is flawed.

Sad .. very sad.

[snip nonsense]