SAGNAC AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT

On May 27, 8:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Dono wrote:
On May 27, 8:24 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
On May 26, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface of the
earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from down,
for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. [...]

This is interesting, much more interesting than all the crackpot stuff
that started the discussion. Is the proof easy to derive? Can you do a
short writeup? (the math associated with it would be great).

Already posted to this newsgroup, long ago (1998):http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/dd9168f6ec3...

(I of course applied the equivalence principle to convert the
conclusions of this SR computation to the earth's surface.)

That is a computation in SR, in GR one would integrate the metric over
the light path. That's more complicated, but for the Schwarzschild
manifold and vertical paths it can be done. Somewhere I have a
Mathematica notebook with this computation for LIGO detecting sun and
moon (unfortunately they have no sensitivity at all for signals of this
frequency). The conclusions are essentially the same, but the details
differ a bit....

Tom Roberts

Thank you!
Much appreciated.

See something much simpler:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...ch13.pdfpp.2-4

What speed of light does the receiver (observer) measure? Let me tell
you: the receiver under the tower will measure c'=c(1+V/c^2) whereas
the accelerated receiver will measure c'=c+v, where v is the relative
speed of the light source and the receiver. if you do not believe me,
ask Master Tom Roberts - he may explain in a private message.

There is no reason to believe your imbecilities, you are a troll after
all.

"Dono" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On May 27, 8:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Dono wrote:
: On May 27, 8:24 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
: Dono wrote:
: On May 26, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts
wrote:
: But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface
of the
: earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from
down,
: for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. [...]
:
: This is interesting, much more interesting than all the crackpot
stuff
: that started the discussion. Is the proof easy to derive? Can you
do a
: short writeup? (the math associated with it would be great).
:
: Already posted to this newsgroup, long ago
(1998):http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/dd9168f6ec3...
:
: (I of course applied the equivalence principle to convert
the
: conclusions of this SR computation to the earth's surface.)
:
: That is a computation in SR, in GR one would integrate the metric
over
: the light path. That's more complicated, but for the Schwarzschild
: manifold and vertical paths it can be done. Somewhere I have a
: Mathematica notebook with this computation for LIGO detecting sun
and
: moon (unfortunately they have no sensitivity at all for signals of
this
: frequency). The conclusions are essentially the same, but the
details
: differ a bit....
:
: Tom Roberts
:
: Thank you!
: Much appreciated.
:
: See something much simpler:
:
: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...ch13.pdfpp.2-4
:
: What speed of light does the receiver (observer) measure? Let me tell
: you: the receiver under the tower will measure c'=c(1+V/c^2) whereas
: the accelerated receiver will measure c'=c+v, where v is the relative
: speed of the light source and the receiver. if you do not believe me,
: ask Master Tom Roberts - he may explain in a private message.
:
: There is no reason to believe your imbecilities, you are a troll after
: all.

There is no reason to heed you, you are a stupid dumb**** after all.
*plonk*

On May 27, 2:06 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On May 27, 8:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:: Dono wrote:

: On May 27, 8:24 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
: Dono wrote:
: On May 26, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts
wrote:
: But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface
of the
: earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from
down,
: for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. [...]
:
: This is interesting, much more interesting than all the crackpot
stuff
: that started the discussion. Is the proof easy to derive? Can you
do a
: short writeup? (the math associated with it would be great).
:
: Already posted to this newsgroup, long ago
(1998):http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/dd9168f6ec3...
:
: (I of course applied the equivalence principle to convert
the
: conclusions of this SR computation to the earth's surface.)
:
: That is a computation in SR, in GR one would integrate the metric
over
: the light path. That's more complicated, but for the Schwarzschild
: manifold and vertical paths it can be done. Somewhere I have a
: Mathematica notebook with this computation for LIGO detecting sun
and
: moon (unfortunately they have no sensitivity at all for signals of
this
: frequency). The conclusions are essentially the same, but the
details
: differ a bit....
:
: Tom Roberts
:
: Thank you!
: Much appreciated.
:
: See something much simpler:
:
: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...ch13.pdfpp.2-4
:
: What speed of light does the receiver (observer) measure? Let me tell
: you: the receiver under the tower will measure c'=c(1+V/c^2) whereas
: the accelerated receiver will measure c'=c+v, where v is the relative
: speed of the light source and the receiver. if you do not believe me,
: ask Master Tom Roberts - he may explain in a private message.
:
: There is no reason to believe your imbecilities, you are a troll after
: all.

There is no reason to heed you, you are a stupid dumb**** after all.
*plonk*



Sure, go ahead and feel free to go **** yourself, wacko.

On May 27, 11:34 am, "Androcles" wrote:
Oh, so gravity is a force, then?
Dear or dear, and there was I starting to believe it was a curvature
in "spaceTIME", as Humpty Roberts calls it.

When the Equivalence Principle applies, the two mean exactly the same
thing and are mathematically equivalent descriptions of the very same
thing. An equivalence-principle respecting force can ALWAYS be
equivalently described via the geodesic law for a curved spacetime and
vice versa.

This is theory-independent and has nothing, per se, to do with general
relativity or anything else. It applies across the board -- even to
Newtonian gravity, whose (equivalent and then genrealized) formulation
in the language of curved spacetime geometries is the Newton-Cartan
spacetimes (ultimately arising from the founder of modern differential
geometry, Elie Cartan). It would even apply to Aristotlean physics, if
such as were ever to have been defined.

wrote in message
oups.com...
: On May 27, 11:34 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: Oh, so gravity is a force, then?
: Dear or dear, and there was I starting to believe it was a curvature
: in "spaceTIME", as Humpty Roberts calls it.
:
: When the Equivalence Principle applies, the two mean exactly the same
: thing and are mathematically equivalent descriptions of the very same
: thing. An equivalence-principle respecting force can ALWAYS be
: equivalently described via the geodesic law for a curved spacetime and
: vice versa.

: This is theory-independent and has nothing, per se, to do with general
: relativity or anything else.

Listen up, boy. When you ride Einstein's elevator you accelerate.
When I sit in my chair at my desk I do not accelerate.
That's call the "Difference Principle" or the Principle of Difference.
There are no forces in "spacetime", boy.
Forces are measured in newtons, not ****ing einsteins or minkowskis, boy.

An apple may be equivalent to an orange, having the same mass and radius.
The Difference Principle says apples are not oranges, boy, and if you think
they
are then someone should put you in the stocks and pelt you with rotten fruit
until your washed brain gets a little dirt on it and begins to function.

Androcles (world famous discoverer of the "Principle of Difference").

On May 27, 8:24 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
On May 26, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface of the
earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from down,
for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. [...]

This is interesting, much more interesting than all the crackpot stuff
that started the discussion. Is the proof easy to derive? Can you do a
short writeup? (the math associated with it would be great).

Already posted to this newsgroup, long ago (1998):http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/dd9168f6ec3...

(I of course applied the equivalence principle to convert the
conclusions of this SR computation to the earth's surface.)

That is a computation in SR, in GR one would integrate the metric over
the light path. That's more complicated, but for the Schwarzschild
manifold and vertical paths it can be done. Somewhere I have a
Mathematica notebook with this computation for LIGO detecting sun and
moon (unfortunately they have no sensitivity at all for signals of this
frequency). The conclusions are essentially the same, but the details
differ a bit....

Tom Roberts



Here is another very nice paper that supports your point of view (the
anisotropy is non local, when the intervals are reduced to small
vicinities, the anisotropy vanishes):

http://freeweb.supereva.com/solciclos/sorge_d.pdf

Dono wrote:
Here is another very nice paper that supports your point of view (the
anisotropy is non local, when the intervals are reduced to small
vicinities, the anisotropy vanishes):
http://freeweb.supereva.com/solciclos/sorge_d.pdf

This is not really a "point of view" that requires "support". This is a
well-known aspect of GR. One could find "support" in any GR textbook.


Tom Roberts

On May 31, 11:10 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
Here is another very nice paper that supports your point of view (the
anisotropy is non local, when the intervals are reduced to small
vicinities, the anisotropy vanishes):
http://freeweb.supereva.com/solciclos/sorge_d.pdf

This is not really a "point of view" that requires "support". This is a
well-known aspect of GR. One could find "support" in any GR textbook.

Tom Roberts

Yes, I know.