Sagnac Idiocy

"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


Don't be silly, when have you ever thought?

: 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

Oh, is that all? Well, it's pretty easy, really.

t = 2piR/c in the rotating frame because c = 2piR/t

t = (2pi +alpha)R/(c+v) in the stationary frame because

c+v = (2pi+alpha)R/t
= 2piR/t + alpha/t

t = (2pi -alpha)R/(c-v) in the stationary frame because

c+v = (2pi-alpha)R/t
= 2piR/t - alpha/t
Deriving a speed isn't so hard unless you are an idiot who
tries to divide the distance in one frame by the speed in the
other as that lunatic Einstein did, then you'll get three different
values for t.

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

New derivation? No, no, I'll stick with velocity = displacement/time
as it always was, even for light, and no frame jumping.

Happy now, troll?

--


'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.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

George Dishman skrev:
"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



Warning.
Trying to figure out how Androcles reasons
can seriously damage your health.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: George Dishman skrev:
: "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
:
:
:
: Warning.
: Trying to figure out how Androcles reasons
: can seriously damage your health.
:

You almost have it right, ASSistant professor Tusseladd Andersen.
It should read:

" Warning.
Trying to figure out how Androcles reasons
cannot seriously damage your insanity."

How come the idiot left out alpha in t = (2pi + alpha)R/(c+v) to do,
****headed troll?


To Dishwater:
The apparatus is exactly how I think it is, whether it
be a light guide, an infinite set of mirrors or a finite
set of mirrors, usually 3 or 4. If you leave out alpha
you have three different times, two of which Einstein
added together and divided by 2 to create his cuckoo
malformations that he blamed on Lorentz.
It was the moron Wilson who put granddad on the roundabout,
I don't play silly games as all you trolls do.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

(The best animations on the world wide web).

You blokes are so ****in' slow-witted it takes you years to figure out
velocity = displacement / time.

--


'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.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk...

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

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

[Moron Fecal Jeckyll deleted unread.]

Coward

: 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.

No .. because the screen moves

:
: 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.

You really are an idiot .. and you publicise it so well

[snip more idiocy]

"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

We know .. Adrocles left the reference to the pae from which he snipped part
of the explanation in his page

He just doesn't understand Sagnac nor SR nor the maths involved .. more to
the point, he doesn't WANT to know, because then it would prove him wrong.
He'd rather stay in blissful ignorance and feel justified in calling the
rest of the world fool. What a sad little person he must be.

"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk...

"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
Don't be silly, when have you ever thought?

[snip idiocy from Androcles .. who couldn't discuss physics if his life
depended on it and thake the cowardly approach of resortign to insults
instead]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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

Yep, and so simple too.

See how many errors you can find he

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

The obvious one is his rotating box and 'spirograph'
picture compared to the correct configuration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...rferometer.png

George

"Jeckyl" escreveu na mensagem
...
"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

We know .. Adrocles left the reference to the pae from which he snipped
part of the explanation in his page

He just doesn't understand Sagnac nor SR nor the maths involved .. more to
the point, he doesn't WANT to know, because then it would prove him wrong.
He'd rather stay in blissful ignorance and feel justified in calling the
rest of the world fool. What a sad little person he must be.


What I love the most about this article:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
is the following:
««Typically wT is extremely small, i.e., the polygon doesn't rotate
through a very large angle in the time it takes light to go from one
mirror to the next, so we can expand these equations in wT (up to
second order) and collect powers of T to give the quadratic...»»

WHAT THE **** IS THIS ?

Rotation is defined by:
x = R sin (wt)
y = R cos (wt)

and the moron of that article says that "wt" is extremely small ?

So ROTATION is gone out of the problem ?

And the final is also lovely:
««It's worth emphasizing that the Sagnac effect is purely a
classical, not a relativistic phenomenon, because it's a
"differential device", i.e., by running the light rays around
the loop in opposite directions and measuring the time
difference, it effectively cancels out the "transverse" effects
characteristic of truly relativistic phenomenon.»»

Translation.
The article can't explain ****. In no place it concerns relativity
but he shows nice equations for the "moron reader" that didn't
even notice that all the written crap is about classical mechanics.

Pure waste of time.

BTW, what are those "transverse" effects that define the
truly relativistic phenomenon.

"Dirk Van de moortel"
escreveu na mensagem ...

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


The only reason why the mirror is oriented at 180 degrees
from that is because that's the only way to put the detector
outside the experiment.

Like here, for the very same reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...rferometer.png

A 180 degrees rotation doesn't add nothing new, or
different.

For any layman the Androcles's picture is far better
because avoids any confusion for the reader.

It looks like that you are very short in arguments,
like Dono, and so on.

On Sep 16, 4:52 pm, "JM Albuquerque" wrote:
"Jeckyl" escreveu na ...



"Dono" wrote in message
ps.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

We know .. Adrocles left the reference to the pae from which he snipped
part of the explanation in his page

He just doesn't understand Sagnac nor SR nor the maths involved .. more to
the point, he doesn't WANT to know, because then it would prove him wrong.
He'd rather stay in blissful ignorance and feel justified in calling the
rest of the world fool. What a sad little person he must be.

What I love the most about this article:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
is the following:
««Typically wT is extremely small, i.e., the polygon doesn't rotate
through a very large angle in the time it takes light to go from one
mirror to the next, so we can expand these equations in wT (up to
second order) and collect powers of T to give the quadratic...»»

WHAT THE **** IS THIS ?


It means that you are still a stupid fat pig. Too difficult for you
to understand the use of finite differences. Too bad :-)


Rotation is defined by:
x = R sin (wt)
y = R cos (wt)

and the moron of that article says that "wt" is extremely small ?


No, this is not what he says. This is what you "understood"


So ROTATION is gone out of the problem ?


Nope. Try again.


And the final is also lovely:
««It's worth emphasizing that the Sagnac effect is purely a
classical, not a relativistic phenomenon, because it's a
"differential device", i.e., by running the light rays around
the loop in opposite directions and measuring the time
difference, it effectively cancels out the "transverse" effects
characteristic of truly relativistic phenomenon.»»

Translation.
The article can't explain ****. In no place it concerns relativity
but he shows nice equations for the "moron reader"


By "moron reader", he means ....you.




BTW, what are those "transverse" effects that define the
truly relativistic phenomenon.

I would rxplain that to you but you don't understand the most
elementary stuff. He's talking about TDE.