🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message 
news:6j6i241dbneq6tdg9d02jlt2rmk2vn0e89@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:33:04 +0100, "Androcles" 
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
| >news:31hh24tmp5eg2jog2agl4d1nd3gv20jfut@4ax.com...
|
| >| >| 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.
|
| Look, I've tried to explain this to relativists but they're too dumb to
| understand. You are more intelligent so can probably see what's going on. 
Read
| carefully.

Ok, then read my replies carefully.


| Consider you are on the ring and rotating with it at v.
| Next to you is another ring that is NOT rotating.

If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS rotating 
in the
opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting my 
ring,
crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun 
are
two such rings.
  I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate 
definition
for me to understand your intent at this stage.


| At  certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite directions 
around
| the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
|
| What happens to the mark?
| Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.

Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.

| By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.

The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
directions and continue forever.
You are not doing a very good job here with your specialising in teaching
physics to engineers and mathematicians... or perhaps you are, this
is typical of the kind of undefined crap we've come to expect of
physicists. It is also why your programs are loaded down with constants,
you fail to define them at the beginning, inventing them as you need them.
That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined 
throughout.
I never write 3.141592653589790
 as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.


Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
  http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov


| Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the original
| position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a peripheral 
speed
| of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from you 
at c
| and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
| mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.

I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
"out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.
Here's some pictures of it:
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnac.gif
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnacFixed.gif




|
| This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be 
misleading.
| In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING FRAME.
| AND their wavelengths are the same.

In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their fucking
teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact, actually.
You are full of shit, 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.
|
| We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
| Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated nonrotating 
frame
| perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
|
You are full of shit, Wilson.

| >|
| >| 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
|
| It isn't a rotating 'frame'....as in 'picture frame'.....as you seemed to
| believe at the time.

You are full of shit, Wilson.

|
| >"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
| >   http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
|
| I clearly stated, "there is no doppler shift AT THE SOURCE in BaTh".

You are full of shit, Wilson.

|
| >Why should I waste my time with crap like that?
|
| You waste your time writing crap most of the time.

You are full of shit, Wilson.


|
| >| 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.
|
| I'd like to know what happened to Dishman. He was good value. I fear he is 
not
| with us any longer.

You are full of shit, Wilson.
|
|
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....
You are full of shit, Wilson.