🚀 go-pugleaf

On 17 Mag, 08:59, old...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 10 Mag, 10:55, old...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mag, 06:19, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 9, 7:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > i beg you pardon for the intrusion..but when i read 'dark matter' , i
> > think with amusement that all should fall down if the cosmic distances
> > ( measured today only with the sacred redshift ) were overextimed ..
> > ( in that fantavision , i address to the works of Arp, Van Flandern
> > and the hipotesis of my dog inwww.bbamateur.bizhosting.comand  in
> > 'co(s)mic observations' in  www.bbamateur.blogspot.com) ..some days
> > ago i proposed the knowing of the experiment of Hayden : perheps
> > somebody is drinking bier in the shadow to counting belches ... where
> > are the smarting minds of the Androcles ( with lions ) , Valevs , Van
> > Mortens, Andersons, Kholklovs ... don't say something to somebody the
> > name H. C.Hayden ?( Haydin was a classic musician , no rock ) ..i
> > report the words of    Selleri '' We finish noting that the  resultats
> > gotten untill here , confirm the qualitative observation (( not only ,
> > like i showed in 'some years later ..clock in washmachine' )) di
> > Hayden : there are necessary to the electromagmetic signals about 300
> > ns. 'in plus' for doing the complete turn of the planet verso east
> > than verso owest ; the fact can only signify that the speed of ligth
> > is different in the two senses '' ... now boys : you have  a week for
> > make and post a small thougth ...our ambition is joint quantitatively
> > the experiments of Sagnac  ''Compt. Rend. 157,708 and 1410 (1913) ; J.
> > de Phys. 4,177 (1914) '' ..Michelson e Gale Astroph. J. 61, 137
> > (1925) ..H.C.Hayden Physics Essays 8,366(1995) ...Einstein knew well
> > works of Michelson also around the Sagnac effect , but in all his life
> > cunningly did not make little thougths over the word Sagnac ..
>
> ..first concusions..: Sagnac did a logic formula which forecast the
> fringes' movement in a rotating device ; he forecasted so convincently
> (a device 1000 time bigger than his platform ) that Michelson & Gale
> ( two yankies   ! ) realized in 300.000 m.^2 of land with positive
> resultat ...: Einstein and his relativity should not have done that :
> he remained in the shadow cashing E=m*V^2  ...and then, why V^2 or not
> 1/2*V^2 , for example ?

so..: the experiments of Sagnac (1910), Michelson and Gale
(1925),Hayden (1995) are approximately the same-ones ( in the sense
that you can go through them with only some adjustment of
proportionality ..)..of course we shall touch Michelson and Morley ,
Einstein ... and firstly i want explain the words 'necessary
approximation' and how this-ones are functioning in that field of
experiments.. let's me adjust the crime' scene : i am in the site A ,
near a river ; B and C are sites at 15 and 30 km against the stream ;
the river is flowing at 3 km/hour and my bout goes at 30km/hour . If i
go in C (30 km) , the  necessary time shall be 1,11111 hours and i
conclude : the necessary approximation in time'measure for understand
the stream, must be better than 10% ; if i go from C to A , the time
employed is 0.9090 and for relieving the river'speed , it is necessary
again an approximation of 10% ; if i do the go-and-back travel , the
total time shall be 2,0202 ..: the necessary approximation becomes
1/100 of total time ...conclusion : for a single trip, nec. approx. is
1/n , for a double travel nec. approx. becomes 1/n*n ..if something is
wrong , you can say .. to next weekkk