[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: Henri Wilson
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:43:11 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
On 21 Mar 2006 04:29:23 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:16:53 -0000, "George Dishman" 
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >If so, the factor k above obviously needs to
>> >be 1. The beam that starts at c+v finishes
>> >at (c+v)-(c+2v) = -v while the other ends at
>> >(c-v)-(c-2v) = +v.
>> >"Paul B. Andersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]
>> >> To explain the Sagnac, the light would have to slow
>> >> down to a fraction of it original speed in an I-FOG.
>> >> It doesn't.
>> >>
>> >> Face it, Henri.
>> >> The Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory.
>> >> No way out.
>> 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.

>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. Why do you think
light would have to stop? 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 forces.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>