"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On 22 Mar 2006 03:08:07 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2006 04:29:23 -0800, "George Dishman"
>>> >> Why don't you ask Paul to set up our light fibre 'coil experiment' as
>>> >> a PhD
>>> >> exercise.
>>> >a) Because you are bone idle, do it yourself.
>>> That's really funny George.
>>It seems to be a statement of fact, you have no
>>excuse and expecting someone else to do it for
>>you is just ludircous arrogance, get off your butt
>>and do some work for a change.
> Right now I don't have the time or facilities George.
Then it obviously can't be of any importance
to you and the rest of us can see that the idea
>>> >b) Because, if the light doesn't slow to a stop
>>> > before it reaches the end of the fibre, it doesn't
>>> > produce enough effect to match the experiment
>>> > as I told you a few posts back:
>>> You obviously still don't understand this simple experiment.
>>Of course I understand it, I invented it because
>>you were incapable of coming up with anything
> In YOUR version, the coil had to be moved from one end to the other. In
> nothing moves and both beams travel though exactly the same length of
> fibre in
> opposite directions....much better that yours.
Last time we talked, I thought you were also
moving the coil but using a scope to measure
the time difference. You'll find it almost
impossible to control systematic changes
unless you use that sort of technique.
>>> Why do you think
>>> light would have to stop?
>>Well maybe I'm doing a 'Clancy' on you as Androcles
>>claimed ;-) The point is that until you calculate it for
>>yourself, you'll never know. Stop being bone idle and
>>do some work for a change, stop expecting everyone
>>to do it for you.
> I'm quite content to know the effect exists without a quantitative
I am quite content that the maths says it is
impossible for you to get enough effect to
match the Sagnac effect so the result stands,
ballistic theory is falsified whether your
effect exists or not.
> Why don't YOU do soimething constructive for a change and try to explain
> theory of Sagnac. If light moves symmetrically in the non-rotating frame,
> you claim, then WHY? The second postulate doesn't cause it. It merely
> Why don't you come up with some kind of physical reason for your claims.
Minkowski already did that.
>>> That's almost as funny as 'a'.
>>> >George Dishman wrote:
>>> >> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> >> > Is not the ratio ~c+4v?...quite enough to cause the observed fringe
>>> >> > shift.
>>> >> My back-of-envelope calculation suggests it
>>> >> would not be enough. I am still waiting for
>>> >> your equations though.
>>> >Paul's analysis reaches the same conclusion.
>>> >If you want the experiment done, do it yourself,
>>> >I told you how you can do it with no special
>>> >equipment at all.
>>> Paul doesn't even know the difference between centrufugal and coriolis
>>Paul proved your idea is idiotic, something you could
>>have found out for yourself if you had followed my
>>advice and calculated the number of turns in your
>>p.s. OK, I'll come clean, there is a deliberate flaw in
>>my "back-of-envelope" estimate but I think you are
>>incapable of finding it without doing the work, and
>>if you ever do the sums, the result will still show
>>your idea is idiotic and can't work. Anyway the only
>>way you can prove us wrong is to post your alernative
> It wasn't a deliberate mistake.
What mistake ;-)