Sagnac Idiocy

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright.

You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac.

And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop it before the
beams return to the source .. I wonder why), and shows the ballistic theory
prediction that the pulses will meet the source at the same place at the
same time and so with no phase difference, which does not give the observed
results (Sagnac refutes ballistic theories and support SR ad ether
theories).

Q. Why does the idiot Androcles get this wrong?

It the stationary inertial frame, we have that the distance the beam (moving
in the same direction as the moving source) needs to travel to return to the
moving source is:

2.pi.r + vt

Where v is the speed that the source moves, and t the time taken for the
beam to return to the source

So, as the beam travels at c in the stationary inertial frame, the time
taken to return to the source is:

t = (2.pi.r + vt)/c
t = 2.pi.r/c + vt/c
t - vt/c = 2.pi.r/c
t(1 - v/c) = 2.pi.r/c
t(c - v)/c = 2.pi.r/c
t = 2.pi.r(c - v)

Its just simple math .. So why do you get it wrong?

A. Because you are stupid.

PS. Thanks for pointing out to us all just what an idiot you are (for those
who hadn't seen your posts before)

On Sep 16, 8:27 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright.

You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac.

And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop
it before the beams return to the source .. I wonder why),

Androcles obviously misunderstands the Sagnac experimental
setup, and believes that interference fringes are formed on a
screen mounted in the stationary inertial frame. The c+v
and c-v beams would arrive at the stationary screen out of
phase with respect to each other, whereas beams emitted at c
would alway arrive in phase at the stationary screen.

Through this complete perversion of understanding, it would
appear that Androcles has convinced himself that the Sagnac
experiment supports ballistic theory and disproves SR.

and shows the ballistic theory prediction that the pulses
will meet the source at the same place at the same time and
so with no phase difference, which does not give the observed
results (Sagnac refutes ballistic theories and support SR ad ether
theories).

[...]

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...

: "Androcles" wrote in message
: . uk...
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

[Moron Fecal Jeckyll deleted unread.]



: Androcles obviously misunderstands the Sagnac experimental
: setup, and believes that interference fringes are formed on a
: screen mounted in the stationary inertial frame. The c+v
: and c-v beams would arrive at the stationary screen out of
: phase with respect to each other, whereas beams emitted at c
: would alway arrive in phase at the stationary screen.

beams emitted at c would alway[s] arrive in phase at the moving
screen, which is what happens in MMX, the Earth is moving.


:
: Through this complete perversion of understanding, it would
: appear that Androcles has convinced himself that the Sagnac
: experiment supports ballistic theory and disproves SR.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" --Albert Einstein.

He didn't get the distance right, though, he left out alpha, a mere
schoolchild error.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif


Through this complete perversion of understanding, it is certain
that Einstein has convinced his worshipping ****head Dingleberries
he had a theory.

Did you know you are a ****head, Tom & Jeery?

--


'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: ups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 8:27 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright.

You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac.

And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop
it before the beams return to the source .. I wonder why),

Androcles obviously misunderstands the Sagnac experimental
setup, and believes that interference fringes are formed on a
screen mounted in the stationary inertial frame. The c+v
and c-v beams would arrive at the stationary screen out of
phase with respect to each other, whereas beams emitted at c
would alway arrive in phase at the stationary screen.

He did at first but some time ago, this was discussed
in some detail. He posted an analogy of kids on a
roundabout being watched by grandad on the ground. If
you search for the phrase "grandad is on the roundabout"
you should find the thread.

If you see some of his other illustrations, he also fails
to grasp the mirror orientation. He shows the light
reflecting continuously round a loop which is the ring
gyro configuration, he has a 90 degree error in the beam
splitter orientation.

Through this complete perversion of understanding, it would
appear that Androcles has convinced himself that the Sagnac
experiment supports ballistic theory and disproves SR.

I think he originnaly worked out the experimental setup
starting from ballistic theory. If the apparatus was the
way he thought, he would be right.

George

On Sep 16, 1:24 am, "Androcles" wrote:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm



Umm, no. Here is a correct explanation:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

PS: there are many more on the web, try learning how to use google
before you post stupidities. :-)

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 8:27 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright.

You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac.

And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop
it before the beams return to the source .. I wonder why),

Androcles obviously misunderstands the Sagnac experimental
setup, and believes that interference fringes are formed on a
screen mounted in the stationary inertial frame. The c+v
and c-v beams would arrive at the stationary screen out of
phase with respect to each other, whereas beams emitted at c
would alway arrive in phase at the stationary screen.

He did at first but some time ago, this was discussed
in some detail. He posted an analogy of kids on a
roundabout being watched by grandad on the ground. If
you search for the phrase "grandad is on the roundabout"
you should find the thread.

If you see some of his other illustrations, he also fails
to grasp the mirror orientation. He shows the light
reflecting continuously round a loop which is the ring
gyro configuration, he has a 90 degree error in the beam
splitter orientation.

I have you seen his MMX-mirror orientation on
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../AndroMMX.html
?

Dirk Vdm

On Sep 16, 6:27 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message

. uk...

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright.

You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac.

I think what he is doing is simply asking in his inimitable fashion
how one derives the correct formula. Of course this is Androcles, so
instead of just asking: "How does one derive it?", he:

1. first posts some random nonsense,
2. points out it's nonsense (easy to do as it was designed by him to
be so),
3. finally asks the question in a disguised "Q&A" form:
"why do the [idiots/physicists/whoever] think this nonsense is
correct? Because they are stupid."

9 time out of 10 this routine provokes someone to provide the correct
derivation (it has happened already) and then the following happens:

either:
- Androcles silently adopts the new derivation as if it was what he
had always been saying,

or:
- if the above would situate him too close to accepting SR, he'd just
change the subject (e.g., in the middle of a discussion about the
Schwarzschild radius he'd point out how "stupid" it is to assume that
"time from A to B is equal to time from B to A", etc.)

--
Jan Bielawski

"Dono" wrote in message
s.com...
On Sep 16, 1:24 am, "Androcles" wrote:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm



Umm, no. Here is a correct explanation:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

PS: there are many more on the web, try learning how to use google
before you post stupidities. :-)

Androcles is well aware of that page; as a simple comparison with his own
page makes plain. It's strange he didn't acknowledge the original, he's
usually such a stickler for correctness.

"JanPB" wrote in message ups.com...
On Sep 16, 6:27 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message

. uk...

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright.

You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac.

I think what he is doing is simply asking in his inimitable fashion
how one derives the correct formula. Of course this is Androcles, so
instead of just asking: "How does one derive it?", he:

1. first posts some random nonsense,
2. points out it's nonsense (easy to do as it was designed by him to
be so),
3. finally asks the question in a disguised "Q&A" form:
"why do the [idiots/physicists/whoever] think this nonsense is
correct? Because they are stupid."

9 time out of 10 this routine provokes someone to provide the correct
derivation (it has happened already) and then the following happens:

either:
- Androcles silently adopts the new derivation as if it was what he
had always been saying,

or:
- if the above would situate him too close to accepting SR, he'd just
change the subject (e.g., in the middle of a discussion about the
Schwarzschild radius he'd point out how "stupid" it is to assume that
"time from A to B is equal to time from B to A", etc.)

--
Jan Bielawski

Excellent characterisation :-)

Dirk Vdm