sci.physics.relativity

On 2 Oct, 22:06, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:09:53 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
> >On 1 Oct, 23:54, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> >> 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!
>
> /rr/s2-07/
> It applies to optic fibre gyros... just multiply by the number of turns.

Yes, not ring laser gyros as I assumed from
your title.

> >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.
>
> LIKE ALL LENGTHS, IT IS ABSOLUTE AND INDEPENDENT OF MEASUREMENT FRAME OR SOURCE
> MOVEMENT.

The wavelength is invariant in ballistic theory
(not in reality) but your error is simpler, you
shouldn't be dividing by the wavelength, you
should be using the displacement ALONG THE PATH.

> You are so indoctrinated you can't even contemplate the alternatives.

I know how to use maths correctly, I have
contemplated your alternative and explained
where it is wrong.

> >> 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.
>
> He's either offering financial incentives to his students to come up with a way
> of proving me wrong or writing it up himself for publication.

ROFL, nobody gives a toss about your fantasies.

> >> >> 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.
>
> >> :)
>
> ....so wrong it gives the right answer for perfectly obvious reasons.....

Nope, the correct answer is that ballistic theory
predicts zero phase shift, as you know from the
time difference analysis

The length you should be using is

(1 +/- (v/sqrt(2))/c) * lambda

but you picked a length that gave the answer you
wanted instead of doing any physics. The number
you selected was lambda which is the result of
the above equation only if v=0, which is the case
when the speed of the light is c. You got the right
number only because you made a hidden assumption
that SR is correct!

> :)

Indeed :-)

> >And your "ringgyro" diagram makes the same mistake.
>
> Get used to it George. The Sagnac effect is not related to Einstein's
> is a purely ballistic effect.

You have proved otherwise :-)

George