🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message 
news:31hh24tmp5eg2jog2agl4d1nd3gv20jfut@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:56:20 +0100, "Androcles" 
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
| >news:ijse24pthttvhu76cqau15r4rkj43rauk2@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:56:20 +0100, "Androcles"
|
| >
| >
| >|
| >| >For one ray, (c+v)t = (2pi+alpha)R, for the other (c-v)t = 
(2pi-alpha)R.
| >|
| >| alphaR = vt, you silly old dope.
| >| You are saying that ct = 2piR.
| >
| >Which it does, and
| >(c+v)t = (2pi + alpha)R,
| >(c-v)t = (2pi - alpha)R.
|
| OK, that's viewed in the nonrotating frame. Alpha is the angle the
| source/detector moves through during the time it takes for light to go 
around
| the ring.
|
Ok... that's fucking obvious.



| My equation is for the rotating frame in which both rays appear to move at 
c
| wrt the source/detector.
| ct = 2piR + alphaR

In the rotating frame the "observer" (what or whomever that may be) doesn't
move at all, he goes along with the rotating frame. You don't move with 
respect
to the city of Sydney, but you do move around the Sun by one degree a day 
(alpha).
As far as you are concerned the speed of light from your home to downtown 
Sydney
is c and the distance is ct.  It is NOT ct-alpha.R, you have to be off the 
Earth to make
that determination. You can't frame hop, Wilson.


| Alpha is the angle through which the STATIONARY EMISSION POINT of each 
'ray
| element' moves (backwards) in the rotating frame.

We know that, but the  STATIONARY EMISSION POINT is OUT IN SPACE
for a TV signal sent from a tower in Sydney, and even then it is not 
stationary,
the Sun moves too.
|
| Relativists Roberts, Andersen et al have persistently failed to 
acknowlegde
| that this happens...which is why their traditional refutation of BaTh 
using
| Sagnac is a joke. They consider that viewing a rotating ringgyro in the
| rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating gyro in the nonrotating 
frame.

Those are clueless shitheads that never understood the simple mathematics
of the Principle of Relativity, which is nothing more than the vector 
addition
of velocities. Where YOU go wrong is that you make stupid and untrue
statements like

"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
  news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jgdnss0ddualtsrnm7n@4ax.com

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
   http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

Why should I waste my time with crap like that?

| Relativists belong at the arse end of Physics I'm afraid...but I'm sure 
you
| know that already..


Of course I know it. Fucking cranks, the lot of them.

|
| >Moreover, I can make v = c/2 and it is still correct, alpha = pi, whereas
| >you have a
| >straight line effectively subtracted from a semicircle.
| >
| >Look, you stupid old sheep shagger, I know what you MEAN but all we are
| >debating here is the correct way to describe it algebraically.
| >That means no fucking change in t, only a change in distance.
| >
| >t = (2pi + alpha)R / (c+v)
| >t = (2pi - alpha)R / (c-v)
| >t = 2pi.R/c
| >
| >Now we do NOT have t on both sides of the equation, but your way we do.
| >
| >| >t is the same in both cases, only the distance changes.
| >| >
| >| >Ewe are near enough to a sheep, ewe have the same mathematical
| >| >abilities as one. The drunken mind of an aussie sheep shagger works
| >| >in strange ways, making two spelling mistakes in one sentence,
| >| >"enought" and "straght".
| >|
| >| Fuck off.
| >
| >Don't you mean Fuckt of?
| >
| >Where's Poe? He's dropped off the radar for three weeks now and I
| >had him on the hook, begging me to tell him the experiment that
| >proves SR is crap. All my ducks in a row and he vanishes.
|
| They usually disappear when they know they're beaten....
|
Yes, but mostly they come back for another hiding under a new name
so that I can plonk them again. Perhaps the old chap isn't feeling so good.