sci.physics.relativity

On 1 Oct, 23:54, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 23:05:29 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:trn2g3hahfad279lk49bl377u9j85ek62u@ ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:36:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
> >> wrote:
> >>>"Clueless Henri Wilson" wrote in message
> >>>news:gbltf3dk58alqkn0te0r9511kassk5prbq@ ...
>
> >>>> have a peek at these george:
> >>>> /hewn/
>
> >>>> hahahahahaha!
>
> >>>Yes, that was my reaction, you got it wrong again.
>
> >> Then have a peek at: /hewn/
>
> >Tomorrow, it's too late.
>
> That's probably a good idea. I'm sure you wont be able to sleep well after you
> read it.

I have now looked and it doesn't even show a ring
gyro! It is just another tidier version of the
Sagnac diagram with the same error, you use lambda
when it should be (1 +/- (v/sqrt(2))/c) * lambda.

> I see Andersen has disappeaed through embarassment....

I think he realised you don't have the ability
to even understand the explanations at his level,
he can't simplify it down any farther.

> >> After all, I'm the person who proved Einsteinand all his followers wrong
> >> with a simple .jpg image.
>
> >Which is wrong at schoolboy level as usual.
>
> :)

And your "ringgyro" diagram makes the same mistake.

George