sci.physics.relativity

"Jerry" wrote in message
news: @ ...
: On Oct 7, 6:14 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
: > "Jerry" wrote in message
: > news: @ ...
: >
: > > On Oct 7, 2:18 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:34:05 -0700, Jerry
: > >>
: > >> wrote:
:
: > >> >Read the source code. The applet is a SIMULATION, not
: > >> >an animation. Learn to tell the difference.
: >
: > >> >I wrote it because you have proven yourself incapable of
: > >> >understanding two lines of trivial algebra... actually,
: > >> >for the Sagnac experiment, ONE LINE of trivial algebra,
: > >> >since the implicit presumption in these threads seems to
: > >> >be that extinction is irrelevant to Sagnac.
: >
: > Jerry, you know that "extinction" doesn't mean what
: > Henry uses it for. Please keep correct astronomical
: > terminology in :-)
:
: Correction accepted. I oughta be ashamed of myself! :-(
:
: > >> >My code directly implements -all- the known mathematics
: > >> >of Ballistic Theory that is relevant to the Sagnac
: > >> >experiment.
: >
: > >> Except you omitted the main feature.
: >
: > >> It should be obvious that the source and detector for
: > >> a particular photon are not in the same position.
: >
: > >> You really should be ashamed....
: >
: > > No, it is YOU who should be ashamed. You are harping
: > > on a trivial matter of programming convenience.
: >
: > > It so happens that by positioning source and detector
: > > at the same point, that the counter-rotating beams are
: > > guaranteed to meet with zero phase difference.
: >
: > In reality your simulation is correct, it
: > is the plane of the beam splitter that lies
: > on your line so it is a common plane and your
: > code is correct:
: >
: > /wiki/Image:
:
: You're right! I didn't think of the line as being the beam
: splitter. Thanks!

So your source is the beam splitter... I see.
I'd put the beam splitter somewhere else if I were you,
two objects occupying the same space is unphysical.
The easy solution is to put it on the diameter...