Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: OG on 16 Sep 2007 14:14 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1189962243.795770.7740(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 16, 1:24 am, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm > > > > Umm, no. Here is a correct explanation: > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > > PS: there are many more on the web, try learning how to use google > before you post stupidities. :-) Androcles is well aware of that page; as a simple comparison with his own page makes plain. It's strange he didn't acknowledge the original, he's usually such a stickler for correctness.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 16 Sep 2007 14:40 "JanPB" <filmart(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189965219.845014.89940(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 16, 6:27 am, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message >> >> news:gL5Hi.105433$xp6.2039(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... >> >> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm >> >> Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright. >> >> You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac. > > I think what he is doing is simply asking in his inimitable fashion > how one derives the correct formula. Of course this is Androcles, so > instead of just asking: "How does one derive it?", he: > > 1. first posts some random nonsense, > 2. points out it's nonsense (easy to do as it was designed by him to > be so), > 3. finally asks the question in a disguised "Q&A" form: > "why do the [idiots/physicists/whoever] think this nonsense is > correct? Because they are stupid." > > 9 time out of 10 this routine provokes someone to provide the correct > derivation (it has happened already) and then the following happens: > > either: > - Androcles silently adopts the new derivation as if it was what he > had always been saying, > > or: > - if the above would situate him too close to accepting SR, he'd just > change the subject (e.g., in the middle of a discussion about the > Schwarzschild radius he'd point out how "stupid" it is to assume that > "time from A to B is equal to time from B to A", etc.) > > -- > Jan Bielawski Excellent characterisation :-) Dirk Vdm
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2007 15:46 "JanPB" <filmart(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189965219.845014.89940(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... : On Sep 16, 6:27 am, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: : > "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message : > : > news:gL5Hi.105433$xp6.2039(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... : > : > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm : > : > Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright. : > : > You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac. : : I think Don't be silly, when have you ever thought? : what he is doing is simply asking in his inimitable fashion : how one derives the correct formula. Of course this is Androcles, so : instead of just asking: "How does one derive it Oh, is that all? Well, it's pretty easy, really. t = 2piR/c in the rotating frame because c = 2piR/t t = (2pi +alpha)R/(c+v) in the stationary frame because c+v = (2pi+alpha)R/t = 2piR/t + alpha/t t = (2pi -alpha)R/(c-v) in the stationary frame because c+v = (2pi-alpha)R/t = 2piR/t - alpha/t Deriving a speed isn't so hard unless you are an idiot who tries to divide the distance in one frame by the speed in the other as that lunatic Einstein did, then you'll get three different values for t. : > Androcles silently adopts the new derivation as if it was what he : > had always been saying, New derivation? No, no, I'll stick with velocity = displacement/time as it always was, even for light, and no frame jumping. Happy now, troll? -- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif "Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid. The Uncle Stooopid doctrine: http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
From: George Dishman on 16 Sep 2007 19:03 "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:W3eHi.108551$6t7.5398598(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:jL2dne36r5nz_XDbRVnyjQA(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:1189959957.966451.172440(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... >>> On Sep 16, 8:27 am, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message >>>> news:gL5Hi.105433$xp6.2039(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... >>>> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm >>>> >>>> Yeup .. your Q and A at the end is idiocy alright. >>>> >>>> You obviously don't understand SR or Sagnac. >>>> >>>> And note that the animation you show is incomplete (you stop >>>> it before the beams return to the source .. I wonder why), >>> >>> Androcles obviously misunderstands the Sagnac experimental >>> setup, and believes that interference fringes are formed on a >>> screen mounted in the stationary inertial frame. The c+v >>> and c-v beams would arrive at the stationary screen out of >>> phase with respect to each other, whereas beams emitted at c >>> would alway arrive in phase at the stationary screen. >> >> He did at first but some time ago, this was discussed >> in some detail. He posted an analogy of kids on a >> roundabout being watched by grandad on the ground. If >> you search for the phrase "grandad is on the roundabout" >> you should find the thread. >> >> If you see some of his other illustrations, he also fails >> to grasp the mirror orientation. He shows the light >> reflecting continuously round a loop which is the ring >> gyro configuration, he has a 90 degree error in the beam >> splitter orientation. > > I have you seen his MMX-mirror orientation on > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html Yep, and so simple too. See how many errors you can find here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm The obvious one is his rotating box and 'spirograph' picture compared to the correct configuration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sagnac_interferometer.png George
From: Jeckyl on 16 Sep 2007 18:58
"Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1189962243.795770.7740(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 16, 1:24 am, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm > > > > Umm, no. Here is a correct explanation: > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm We know .. Adrocles left the reference to the pae from which he snipped part of the explanation in his page He just doesn't understand Sagnac nor SR nor the maths involved .. more to the point, he doesn't WANT to know, because then it would prove him wrong. He'd rather stay in blissful ignorance and feel justified in calling the rest of the world fool. What a sad little person he must be. |