Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2007 04:24 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
From: Jeckyl on 16 Sep 2007 09:27 "Androcles" <Engineer(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), and shows the ballistic theory prediction that the pulses will meet the source at the same place at the same time and so with no phase difference, which does not give the observed results (Sagnac refutes ballistic theories and support SR ad ether theories). Q. Why does the idiot Androcles get this wrong? It the stationary inertial frame, we have that the distance the beam (moving in the same direction as the moving source) needs to travel to return to the moving source is: 2.pi.r + vt Where v is the speed that the source moves, and t the time taken for the beam to return to the source So, as the beam travels at c in the stationary inertial frame, the time taken to return to the source is: t = (2.pi.r + vt)/c t = 2.pi.r/c + vt/c t - vt/c = 2.pi.r/c t(1 - v/c) = 2.pi.r/c t(c - v)/c = 2.pi.r/c t = 2.pi.r(c - v) Its just simple math .. So why do you get it wrong? A. Because you are stupid. PS. Thanks for pointing out to us all just what an idiot you are (for those who hadn't seen your posts before)
From: Dono on 16 Sep 2007 13:04 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. :-)
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 16 Sep 2007 13:52 "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 ? Dirk Vdm
From: JanPB on 16 Sep 2007 13:53
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 |