On 15 Mar 2006 05:12:24 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2006 02:53:58 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>> When the star lies well beyond the critical distance, brightness curves are
>> hard to interpret.
>Your program should still produce curves, not crash.
It doesn't crash on my computer.
>> >> No it doesn't. Your original claim was that in the rotating frame, both
>> >> beams
>> >> would move identically according to the BaTh.
>> >No, my claim is and always has been that Ritz's
>> >ballistic theory predicts a null result for Sagnac
>> >and that remains true. You haven't developed an
>> One of your main arguments has always been that in the rotating frame, both
>> beams always move identically.
>I have stated a simple fact - Ritz's theory postulates
>they move at c relative to the source.
and you claim they move identically around the circle in exactly the same but
I have pointed out your mistake.
Walking around a carousel in opposite directions will soon tell you that I'm
>> I have shown that to be wrong.
>You have shown nothing whatsoever. Post the results
>of your experiment. If you do manage to prove it wrong
>then you have shown ballistic theory to be wrong.
The light beams DO NOT experience the same 'centrifugal' forces in both
directions. Right or wrong, George?
Is not the ratio ~c+4v?...quite enough to cause the observed fringe shift.
>> >> I have shown this to be wrong.
>> >> Sagnac does not refute hte BaTh.
>> >You have shown nothing at all, you haven't even
>> >made an attempt to show anything. When you
>> >post your derivation of the standard equation,
>> >then we can discuss it but as it stands at the
>> >moment Sagnac falsifies Ritz, as does Ives and
>> As you should know, my main explanation of sagnac is related to the fact that
>> light 'has its own built in gyro and doesn't like being rotated'.
>No, your main argument is that friction slows photons
>in a fibre but you have never explained Sagnac because
>you haven't applied the equation for that slowing and you
>haven't proved anything because you haven't done the
>experiment. You have never even used the gyro idea in
>trying to solve your Sagnac problem.
You don't even HAVE an argument. You merely reproduce the maths for a 'sound
based sagnac' ie., you rely on aether theory.
>No equations, no explanation.
where is your expanation that light somehow recognizes the non-rotating frame
and moves symmetricaly wrt that rather than its source?
I agree that this is possibly what happens....but it doesn't happen because of
a silly postulate that really relies on an aether..
Where is the physics behind your claims?