MICHELSON-MORLEY AND SAGNAC EXPERIMENTS

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:49:21 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: : On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:57:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
: : wrote:
: :
: : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: : Their sagnac argument has now been put to rest for all time
Pentcho.
: :
: : see: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
: : "The flaw in that argument is very simple yet far from obvious,
: : which is why it has taken so long for the truth to be
discovered."
: :
: : Another world shattering discovery by doctor Henri Wilson! :-)
: :
: : (See my other posting.)
: :
: : Andersen has made an absolute fool of himself for years over
sagnac.
: : This _is_ fun, isn't it? :-)
: :
: : Keep it up, Henri.
: : Please don't admit that your blunder is a blunder.
: : That would be no fun.
: :
: : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
: :
: : Thanks for not admitting that your blunder is a blunder.
: : It will be interesting to see how long you will keep defending it.
: :
: : Keep it up, Henri!
: : I am sure you can make an even bigger fool of yourself.
: : The sky is the limit.
: :
: : Also see Jerry's primative animation. It clearly shows that fringe
: MOVEMENT
: : does NOT occur during constant rotation and that fringe
DISPLACEMENT is
: : dependent on rotation speed.
: :
: : Was that ever disputed?
: :
: : In a ring laser gyro, the fringes move with a speed proportional to
w.
: : But in a Sagnac ring (and an IFOG), the fringes don't move when w is
: constant,
: : it is the fringe displasement that is proportional to w.
: : Isn't this basic knowledge?
: :
: : Paul, expecting to be amused for a long time
:
: How to implement Java:
:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...sticSagnac.htm
: Androcles, expecting to be amused for a long time.
:
: My server has been down for two days...very annoying...
:
: No comments to the animation, Henri?
: It's a correct one.

Not too bad, but no Doppler shift shown.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif

: How many wavelengths are there around the ring, Henri?
In my animation, 24 each way, Doppler-shifted. You get no
Doppler shift with MMX, of course, but Sagnac is slightly
different.

: Are the numbers different for the red and blue wave?
No, both are 24.

: Does the number depend on w?
No, it depends on the tick fairy.

On 19 Sep, 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,
I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
to:
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory.
It's very simple, indeed.

According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
SR confirmed.

According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer
is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
Emission theory confirmed.

You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission

theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.
Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.

No more time for zombie education.

Doesn't the zombie want to be educated?
Is that why he snipped the following?

MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
aspects of the theories.

Essentially they are not different Andersen Andersen. Both confirm c'=c
+v predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. The only difference
is that the Michelson-Morley experiment is relatively simple whereas
the Sagnac experiment is more complicated, difficult to discuss via
email and so zombies like you can claim anything - nobody would be
able to decipher the respective zombie "arguments". Your masters are
cleverer and more careful so, when they are forced to deal with
Sagnac, they do so in the following way:

http://www.amazon.ca/Relativity-Rota.../dp/1402018053
Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating
Reference Frames (Hardcover) by G. Rizzi (Editor), M.L. Ruggiero
(Editor)
"For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
relativistic theory."

As you can see Andersen Andersen, your masters avoid any final
judgment so zombies like you should be just silent about Sagnac. But
zombies are allowed to comment on Michelson-Morley:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

So why Andersen Andersen, although the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms the emission theory and contradicts the light postulate,
"later writers almost universally use it as support for the light
postulate of special relativity"?!? Is it due to stupidity,
dishonesty, or both?

Pentcho Valev

On 19 Sep, 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,
I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
to:
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory.
It's very simple, indeed.

According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
SR confirmed.

According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer
is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
Emission theory confirmed.

You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission

theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.
Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.

No more time for zombie education.

Doesn't the zombie want to be educated?
Is that why he snipped the following?

MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
aspects of the theories.

Essentially they are not different Andersen Andersen. Both confirm c'=c
+v predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. The only difference
is that the Michelson-Morley experiment is relatively simple whereas
the Sagnac experiment is more complicated, difficult to discuss via
email and so zombies like you can claim anything - nobody would be
able to decipher the respective zombie "arguments". Your masters are
cleverer and more careful so, when they are forced to deal with
Sagnac, they do so in the following way:

http://www.amazon.ca/Relativity-Rota.../dp/1402018053
Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating
Reference Frames (Hardcover) by G. Rizzi (Editor), M.L. Ruggiero
(Editor)
"For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
relativistic theory."

As you can see Andersen Andersen, your masters avoid any final
judgment so zombies like you should be just silent about Sagnac. But
zombies are allowed to comment on Michelson-Morley:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

So why Andersen Andersen, although the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms the emission theory and contradicts the light postulate,
"later writers almost universally use it as support for the light
postulate of special relativity"?!? Is it due to stupidity,
dishonesty, or both?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On 19 Sep, 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
:
: On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
:
: On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
: On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
: The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
: and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
: Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
: and falsifies emission theory.
: Only SR passes both tests.
: Paul
: Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley
experiment
: is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
: Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
: experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light
given
: by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the
constancy
: of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
: particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
: gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous
experiment,
: carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
: that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty
six
: thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
: Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the
Michelson-Morley
: experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's
corpuscular
: theory of light,
: I have moved further from:
: The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
: and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
: via:
: Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
: and falsifies emission theory.
: to:
: Only SR passes both tests.
: Paul
: Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
: further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
: should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
: theory.
: It's very simple, indeed.
:
: According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
: Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
: rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
: SR confirmed.
:
: According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
: in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
: Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the
interferometer
: is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with
experiment.
: Emission theory confirmed.
:
: You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission
:
: theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
: length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops
confirming
: the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.
: Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
: There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
: There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.
:
: No more time for zombie education.
:
: Doesn't the zombie want to be educated?
: Is that why he snipped the following?
:
: MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
: aspects of the theories.
:
: Essentially they are not different Andersen Andersen. Both confirm c'=c
: +v predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. The only difference
: is that the Michelson-Morley experiment is relatively simple whereas
: the Sagnac experiment is more complicated, difficult to discuss via
: email and so zombies like you can claim anything - nobody would be
: able to decipher the respective zombie "arguments". Your masters are
: cleverer and more careful so, when they are forced to deal with
: Sagnac, they do so in the following way:
:
:
http://www.amazon.ca/Relativity-Rota.../dp/1402018053
: Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating
: Reference Frames (Hardcover) by G. Rizzi (Editor), M.L. Ruggiero
: (Editor)
: "For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
: is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
: according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
: relativistic theory."
:
: As you can see Andersen Andersen, your masters avoid any final
: judgment so zombies like you should be just silent about Sagnac. But
: zombies are allowed to comment on Michelson-Morley:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
: John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
: evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
: universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
: relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
: WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
: POSTULATE."
:
: So why Andersen Andersen, although the Michelson-Morley experiment
: confirms the emission theory and contradicts the light postulate,
: "later writers almost universally use it as support for the light
: postulate of special relativity"?!? Is it due to stupidity,
: dishonesty, or both?
:
: Pentcho Valev
:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:10:22 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:49:21 GMT, "Androcles"

: How to implement Java:
:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...sticSagnac.htm
: Androcles, expecting to be amused for a long time.
:
: My server has been down for two days...very annoying...
:
: No comments to the animation, Henri?
: It's a correct one.

Not too bad, but no Doppler shift shown.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif

: How many wavelengths are there around the ring, Henri?
In my animation, 24 each way, Doppler-shifted.

There is no doppler shift in BaTh. You should study some of Ritz.
Wavelength is absolute and invariant (except during a light speed change).

: Are the numbers different for the red and blue wave?
No.

: Does the number depend on w?
No, it depends on the tick fairy.







Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:07:10 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 19 Sep, 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,
I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
to:
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory.
It's very simple, indeed.

According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
SR confirmed.

According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer
is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
Emission theory confirmed.

You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission

theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.
Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.

No more time for zombie education.

Doesn't the zombie want to be educated?
Is that why he snipped the following?

MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
aspects of the theories.

Essentially they are not different Andersen Andersen. Both confirm c'=c
+v predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. The only difference
is that the Michelson-Morley experiment is relatively simple whereas
the Sagnac experiment is more complicated, difficult to discuss via
email and so zombies like you can claim anything - nobody would be
able to decipher the respective zombie "arguments". Your masters are
cleverer and more careful so, when they are forced to deal with
Sagnac, they do so in the following way:

http://www.amazon.ca/Relativity-Rota.../dp/1402018053
Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating
Reference Frames (Hardcover) by G. Rizzi (Editor), M.L. Ruggiero
(Editor)
"For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
relativistic theory."

As you can see Andersen Andersen, your masters avoid any final
judgment so zombies like you should be just silent about Sagnac. But
zombies are allowed to comment on Michelson-Morley:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

So why Andersen Andersen, although the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms the emission theory and contradicts the light postulate,
"later writers almost universally use it as support for the light
postulate of special relativity"?!? Is it due to stupidity,
dishonesty, or both?

Paul believes that using the rotating frame to analyse Sagnac refutes the BaTh.
Unfortunately his 'proof' overlooks the fact that the emission point MOVES, in
the rotating frame. He has made a big fool of himself for many years over
this...

hahahahahaha!


Pentcho Valev



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:10:22 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: : On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:49:21 GMT, "Androcles"
:
: : How to implement Java:
: :
: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...sticSagnac.htm
: : Androcles, expecting to be amused for a long time.
: :
: : My server has been down for two days...very annoying...
: :
: : No comments to the animation, Henri?
: : It's a correct one.
:
: Not too bad, but no Doppler shift shown.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif
:
: : How many wavelengths are there around the ring, Henri?
: In my animation, 24 each way, Doppler-shifted.
:
: There is no doppler shift in BaTh.

That doesn't surprise me, I always knew you and your BaTh
were crazy.


: You should study some of Ritz.
: Wavelength is absolute and invariant (except during a light speed change).

You should study some Doppler.
Frequency is absolute and invariant (except during an observer speed).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif


What Jeery is bitching about is the kid riding ON the carousel:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Sagnac/RLG.gif
That's the coriolis effect, different to Grandpa not riding
who sees Doppler-shift, w1 = c/(v+c) and w2 = c/(v-c), f constant.
Frequency is absolute and invariant (except during an observer speed).
Same number of pulses emitted every second, no tick fairies allowed.

: : Are the numbers different for the red and blue wave?
: No.
:
: : Does the number depend on w?
: No, it depends on the tick fairy.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news : On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:07:10 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:
:
: On 19 Sep, 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
:
: On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
:
: On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
: On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
: The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
: and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
: Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
: and falsifies emission theory.
: Only SR passes both tests.
: Paul
: Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley
experiment
: is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
: Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
: experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light
given
: by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the
constancy
: of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
: particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
: gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous
experiment,
: carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887,
showed
: that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty
six
: thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
: Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the
Michelson-Morley
: experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's
corpuscular
: theory of light,
: I have moved further from:
: The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
: and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
: via:
: Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
: and falsifies emission theory.
: to:
: Only SR passes both tests.
: Paul
: Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
: further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
: should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
: theory.
: It's very simple, indeed.
:
: According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
: Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
: rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
: SR confirmed.
:
: According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
: in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
: Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the
interferometer
: is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with
experiment.
: Emission theory confirmed.
:
: You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission
:
: theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation
and
: length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops
confirming
: the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.
: Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
: There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
: There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.
:
: No more time for zombie education.
:
: Doesn't the zombie want to be educated?
: Is that why he snipped the following?
:
: MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
: aspects of the theories.
:
: Essentially they are not different Andersen Andersen. Both confirm c'=c
: +v predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. The only difference
: is that the Michelson-Morley experiment is relatively simple whereas
: the Sagnac experiment is more complicated, difficult to discuss via
: email and so zombies like you can claim anything - nobody would be
: able to decipher the respective zombie "arguments". Your masters are
: cleverer and more careful so, when they are forced to deal with
: Sagnac, they do so in the following way:
:
:
http://www.amazon.ca/Relativity-Rota.../dp/1402018053
: Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating
: Reference Frames (Hardcover) by G. Rizzi (Editor), M.L. Ruggiero
: (Editor)
: "For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
: is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
: according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
: relativistic theory."
:
: As you can see Andersen Andersen, your masters avoid any final
: judgment so zombies like you should be just silent about Sagnac. But
: zombies are allowed to comment on Michelson-Morley:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
: John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
: evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
: universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
: relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
: WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
: POSTULATE."
:
: So why Andersen Andersen, although the Michelson-Morley experiment
: confirms the emission theory and contradicts the light postulate,
: "later writers almost universally use it as support for the light
: postulate of special relativity"?!? Is it due to stupidity,
: dishonesty, or both?
:
: Paul believes that using the rotating frame to analyse Sagnac refutes the
BaTh.

Andersen measures the distance in the rotating frame (2piR) by the speed
in the stationary frame (c+v) and (c-v) and comes up with two different
times. He then hallucinates the blue ray meets the red ray before the red
ray
meets the blue ray.

: Unfortunately his 'proof' overlooks the fact that the emission point
MOVES, in
: the rotating frame. He has made a big fool of himself for many years over
: this...
:
: hahahahahaha!

Nothing was as funny as the Andersen Transforms.
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
Go faster, it will take longer to arrive and you'll have
further to go.

"Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:10:22 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Clueless Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:49:21 GMT, "Androcles"

: How to implement Java:
:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...sticSagnac.htm
: Androcles, expecting to be amused for a long time.
:
: My server has been down for two days...very annoying...
:
: No comments to the animation, Henri?
: It's a correct one.

Not too bad, but no Doppler shift shown.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif

: How many wavelengths are there around the ring, Henri?
In my animation, 24 each way, Doppler-shifted.

There is no doppler shift in BaTh. You should study some of Ritz.
....

There is if you are clueless and have the detector
off the turntable with the beams exiting from the
periphery :-)

George

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:08:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:49:21 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:57:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
:
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: Their sagnac argument has now been put to rest for all time Pentcho.
:
: see: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
: "The flaw in that argument is very simple yet far from obvious,
: which is why it has taken so long for the truth to be discovered."
:
: Another world shattering discovery by doctor Henri Wilson! :-)
:
: (See my other posting.)
:
: Andersen has made an absolute fool of himself for years over sagnac.
: This _is_ fun, isn't it? :-)
:
: Keep it up, Henri.
: Please don't admit that your blunder is a blunder.
: That would be no fun.
:
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
:
: Thanks for not admitting that your blunder is a blunder.
: It will be interesting to see how long you will keep defending it.
:
: Keep it up, Henri!
: I am sure you can make an even bigger fool of yourself.
: The sky is the limit.
:
: Also see Jerry's primative animation. It clearly shows that fringe
MOVEMENT
: does NOT occur during constant rotation and that fringe DISPLACEMENT is
: dependent on rotation speed.
:
: Was that ever disputed?
:
: In a ring laser gyro, the fringes move with a speed proportional to w.
: But in a Sagnac ring (and an IFOG), the fringes don't move when w is
constant,
: it is the fringe displasement that is proportional to w.
: Isn't this basic knowledge?
:
: Paul, expecting to be amused for a long time

How to implement Java:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...sticSagnac.htm
Androcles, expecting to be amused for a long time.

My server has been down for two days...very annoying...

No comments to the animation, Henri?
It's a correct one.
How many wavelengths are there around the ring, Henri?
Are the numbers different for the red and blue wave?
Does the number depend on w?

Yes Paul.The numbers are clearly different. Count them yourself if you don't
believe me.

Remember to count from the yellow line wont you....

Hahahahaha!

Paul



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm