EINSTEIN, AETHER, EMISSION THEORY

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:32:15 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

Trolling again are you?

Have another lok at the standard Sagnac explanation, idiot.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v wrt the source.

Measure in what iFoR?

This is far too hard for morons though.

And how does it refute SR?

Surely someone other than you would have noticed that if it did.

Of course they have. If you knew anything about anything you would already
know
that.

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

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:13:59 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:32:15 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...

Trolling again are you?

Have another lok at the standard Sagnac explanation, idiot.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v wrt the source.

Measure in what iFoR?

This is far too hard for morons though.

And how does it refute SR?

Surely someone other than you would have noticed that if it did.

Of course they have. If you knew anything about anything you would already
know
that.

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

Yes. It presumes an absolute nonrotating frame and shows that the light moves
at c+v wrt the source when viewed in that frame.

The rest is nonsense.

The Sagnac effect is due to the fact that the photon 'axes' are tilted in
opposite directions in the two beams. This affects the reflection angles from
the mirrors and causes a path length difference.





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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:13:59 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:32:15 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...

Trolling again are you?

Have another lok at the standard Sagnac explanation, idiot.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v wrt the source.

Measure in what iFoR?

This is far too hard for morons though.

And how does it refute SR?

Surely someone other than you would have noticed that if it did.

Of course they have. If you knew anything about anything you would
already
know
that.

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

Yes. It presumes an absolute nonrotating frame

There is no problem with non-rotating frames .. that's (part of) what an
inertial frame is.

[snip rest is nonsense]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:51:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:13:59 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:32:15 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
om...

Trolling again are you?

Have another lok at the standard Sagnac explanation, idiot.
It plainly requires that the light moves at c+v wrt the source.

Measure in what iFoR?

This is far too hard for morons though.

And how does it refute SR?

Surely someone other than you would have noticed that if it did.

Of course they have. If you knew anything about anything you would
already
know
that.

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

Yes. It presumes an absolute nonrotating frame

There is no problem with non-rotating frames .. that's (part of) what an
inertial frame is.

[snip rest is nonsense]

In the non-rotating frame, each ray of Sagnac clearly moves at c+v wrt the
source.

SR is well and truly stuffed by Sagnac..


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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:28 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
...
Einstein's second postulate claims that the speed of all starlight in
the
universe is miraculously adjusted (by the fairies) to be precisely 'c'
wrt
little planet earth.

Clueless garbage, it states that the speed is not affected
by the speed of the source, exactly as confirmed by Sagnac.

In Sagnac, the light moves at c wrt an absolute frame ..

Nope, it moves at c wrt _any_ inertial frame. Just
pick one and try it.

and c+v wrt the source,

Nope, it moves in a cycloid-like path at variable
speed wrt the source.

according to your standard explanation. So Sagnac definitely refutes SR.

As I said, clueless. Sagnac gves precisely the result
predicted by SR as you proved yourself when you drew
this diagram

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

A _consequence_ is that it is the same in _all_ inertial
frames but since that is for _all_ frames, nothing in the
theory says Earth is unique, obviously, as Henry knows
perfectly well. He is just trolling of course.

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted by the fairies.
Didn't you
know that?

You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

George

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:28 +0100, "George Dishman"


Clueless garbage, it states that the speed is not affected
by the speed of the source, exactly as confirmed by Sagnac.

In Sagnac, the light moves at c wrt an absolute frame ..

Nope, it moves at c wrt _any_ inertial frame. Just
pick one and try it.

and c+v wrt the source,

Nope, it moves in a cycloid-like path at variable
speed wrt the source.

Its initial speed is c+v wrt the source.
Don't try to deny it George.

according to your standard explanation. So Sagnac definitely refutes SR.

As I said, clueless. Sagnac gves precisely the result
predicted by SR as you proved yourself when you drew
this diagram

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

The sagnac effect is caused by different 'twisting' of the photon axes in the
two beams. It's very subtle really.

A _consequence_ is that it is the same in _all_ inertial
frames but since that is for _all_ frames, nothing in the
theory says Earth is unique, obviously, as Henry knows
perfectly well. He is just trolling of course.

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted by the fairies.
Didn't you
know that?

You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at precisely 'c'?

George




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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:28 +0100, "George Dishman"


Clueless garbage, it states that the speed is not affected
by the speed of the source, exactly as confirmed by Sagnac.

In Sagnac, the light moves at c wrt an absolute frame ..

Nope, it moves at c wrt _any_ inertial frame. Just
pick one and try it.

and c+v wrt the source,

Nope, it moves in a cycloid-like path at variable
speed wrt the source.

Its initial speed is c+v wrt the source.
Don't try to deny it George.

Nope, in the frame of the source, it is emitted at c.
You are trying to calculate the source-relative speed
of light emitted according to SR but you are using
ballistic theory. You can't mix the theories Henry.

according to your standard explanation. So Sagnac definitely refutes SR.

As I said, clueless. Sagnac gves precisely the result
predicted by SR as you proved yourself when you drew
this diagram

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

The sagnac effect is caused by different 'twisting' of the photon axes in
the
two beams.

Garbage as usual. Polarisation controlling fibre
ensures there is no 'twisting' of the light.

It's very subtle really.

Indeed the calculations are when the modulation is
taken into account, but the physics is trivially
simple.

A _consequence_ is that it is the same in _all_ inertial
frames but since that is for _all_ frames, nothing in the
theory says Earth is unique, obviously, as Henry knows
perfectly well. He is just trolling of course.

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted by the fairies.
Didn't you
know that?

You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at precisely
'c'?

It doesn't Henry, look up "dispersion measure" as I
suggested some time ago.

George

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:52:51 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:

Nope, it moves at c wrt _any_ inertial frame. Just
pick one and try it.

and c+v wrt the source,

Nope, it moves in a cycloid-like path at variable
speed wrt the source.

Its initial speed is c+v wrt the source.
Don't try to deny it George.

Nope, in the frame of the source, it is emitted at c.
You are trying to calculate the source-relative speed
of light emitted according to SR but you are using
ballistic theory. You can't mix the theories Henry.

George, the source frame is not inertial therefore SR does not apply. You and
you colleagues have used this ploy many times to get out of awkward situations.

In the INERTIAL nonrotating frame, the light clearly moves initially at c+v wrt
the source.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!

according to your standard explanation. So Sagnac definitely refutes SR.

As I said, clueless. Sagnac gves precisely the result
predicted by SR as you proved yourself when you drew
this diagram

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

The sagnac effect is caused by different 'twisting' of the photon axes in
the
two beams.

Garbage as usual. Polarisation controlling fibre
ensures there is no 'twisting' of the light.

There are no fibres in a four mirror sagnac.

It's very subtle really.

Indeed the calculations are when the modulation is
taken into account, but the physics is trivially
simple.

The physics is also simple as to why the photon axes twist when fired at moving
targets.


You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at precisely
'c'?

It doesn't Henry, look up "dispersion measure" as I
suggested some time ago.

You have been telling me is does for years. Why have you suddenly changed your
mind.

George




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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:52:51 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Nope, it moves at c wrt _any_ inertial frame. Just
pick one and try it.

and c+v wrt the source,

Nope, it moves in a cycloid-like path at variable
speed wrt the source.

Its initial speed is c+v wrt the source.
Don't try to deny it George.

Nope, in the frame of the source, it is emitted at c.
You are trying to calculate the source-relative speed
of light emitted according to SR but you are using
ballistic theory. You can't mix the theories Henry.

George, the source frame is not inertial therefore SR does not apply.

Henry, SR can be used in non-inertial frames _but_ you
need to take account of lots of psuedo-effects. It is
difficult but valid.

You and
you colleagues have used this ploy many times to get out of awkward
situations.

Those of us who have actually studied SR instead of
just making up strawmen from guesswork know how to
use it in all sorts of situations. Like any proper
theory, it makes unambiguous predictions in every
case. There are no "awkward situations", it is either
right or wrong, and so far neither you nor anyone
else has found a situation where it is wrong within
its area of applicability.

In the INERTIAL nonrotating frame, the light clearly moves initially at
c+v wrt
the source.

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission,
the light also moves with a coordinate speed of c.

Sagnac proves Einstein wrong!!!!!!!

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame in which the
axle of the turntable is at rest, the light moves
with a measured _coordinate_ speed of c so it
proves SR _right_. You proved that yourself with
the diagram you drew and the algebra for it that
I had to explain to you.

In that frame, the opening speed relative to the
source is c-v which again proves SR _right_ and
ballistic theory _wrong_ because the latter says
the opening speed relative to the source should
be c.

according to your standard explanation. So Sagnac definitely refutes
SR.

As I said, clueless. Sagnac gves precisely the result
predicted by SR as you proved yourself when you drew
this diagram

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

The sagnac effect is caused by different 'twisting' of the photon axes
in
the
two beams.

Garbage as usual. Polarisation controlling fibre
ensures there is no 'twisting' of the light.

There are no fibres in a four mirror sagnac.

If you read the experimental details, I think Sagnac
also considered the polarisation (I'm trying to
translate the original paper as I haven't found an
English version yet) but it is irrelevant anyway
since the modulation on the light is carried at the
same speed.

It's very subtle really.

Indeed the calculations are when the modulation is
taken into account, but the physics is trivially
simple.

The physics is also simple as to why the photon axes twist when fired at
moving
targets.

It is still garbage, photon spin is quantised and
always aligned with the direction of propagation.

You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at
precisely
'c'?

It doesn't Henry, look up "dispersion measure" as I
suggested some time ago.

You have been telling me is does for years. Why have you suddenly changed
your
mind.

I have said nothing of the kind, in this discussion
I have always been careful to tell you that light
moves at c/n relative to the ISM, something you
should be able to agree at least beyond the speed
equalisation distance. That's why I wrote

dv/ds = v-c/n

and not

dv/ds = v-c

Go back and check if you doubt me. Getting from
that to a speed relative to Earth requires Fizeau's
result which again proves SR correct and ballistic
theory wrong hence my qualification of "relative to
the ISM" in most posts so that the issue didn't turn
into another of your sidetracks.

I know much of this is too subtle for you to appreciate
Henry, but I try to be careful about what I write so
you need to check your facts before making these
baseless accusations.

George

On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted
by the fairies. Didn't you know that?

In BaTh, all starlight is adjusted by the magical extinction
fairies so that by the time it reaches Earth, it is traveling
at c relative to little ol' Earth.

In BaTh, no conceivable Earth-based experiment can measure
c+v effects because the magical Wilsonian Control Frame
fairies force light to travel at c in the frame of the
apparatus.

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm
Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/history.htm
Henri Wilson's Use of Snipping as a Debating Technique
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...enri/snips.htm