CORRECT ANALYSIS OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT

[Pentcho Valev]

In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
make the following mistake:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."

The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
so the correct text would be:

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."
The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Of course, the implicit assumption above is that photons' subsequent
bumping into rotating mirrors does not change their speed
additionnally (e.g. the speed of photons in the counter-rotating
direction gets even lower than c-v), which is by no means obvious.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by Pentcho Valev
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."
The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Of course, the implicit assumption above is that photons' subsequent
bumping into rotating mirrors does not change their speed
additionnally (e.g. the speed of photons in the counter-rotating
direction gets even lower than c-v), which is by no means obvious.

If one sticks to the ballistic theory and assumes that, according to
the observer at rest, the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-
rotating and c+v in the co-rotating direction all along, the following
observation is relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon
inscribed in the rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the
sides of the polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides
of the photons covered by c+v photons. This seems to be an advantage
allowing c-v photons to arrive at the end point earlier than c+v
photons. The problem is purely mathematical but its rigorous solution
seems difficult for the moment.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Androcles]

"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:157c5383-980a-47cc-9413-***@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
: On Dec 20, 12:07, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > > In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: > > make the following mistake:
: >
: > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: > > "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > > then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > > the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > > point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: > > rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: > > classical and the relativistic contexts."
: >
: > > The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: > > relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: > > the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: > > observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: > > in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: > > so the correct text would be:
: >
: > > "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > > then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > > the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > > point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: > > direction."
: >
: > Of course, the implicit assumption above is that photons' subsequent
: > bumping into rotating mirrors does not change their speed
: > additionnally (e.g. the speed of photons in the counter-rotating
: > direction gets even lower than c-v), which is by no means obvious.
:
: If one sticks to the ballistic theory and assumes that, according to
: the observer at rest, the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-
: rotating and c+v in the co-rotating direction all along, the following
: observation is relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon
: inscribed in the rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the
: sides of the polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides
: of the photons covered by c+v photons. This seems to be an advantage
: allowing c-v photons to arrive at the end point earlier than c+v
: photons. The problem is purely mathematical but its rigorous solution
: seems difficult for the moment.
:
: Pentcho Valev
: ***@yahoo.com


Rotation rate w
Tangential speed wR
Speed of light in rotating frame c
Velocity of light in non-rotating frame wR+c, wR-c
Distance travelled by light in rotating frame wRt, -wRt
Distance travelled by light in non-rotating frame ct+wRt, ct-wRt

t(c+wR) = t(c-wR)
OR equivalently,
t(c+v) = t(c-v)
The times are the same, the distances are different.


Einstein set up
x' = x-vt, the transformation from the moving frame to the
stationary frame but
Einstein OMITTED
-x' = -x+vt for the return journey.

Sagnac is isomorphic to Einstein's thought experiment, but Einstein
BLUNDERED the simple algebra at schoolboy level, right here:

Loading Image...

He claimed the return distance is x-vt with time t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
when it is in fact t = (vt-x)/(c+v).

From this BLUNDER he calculated the cuckoo malformations that
he blamed on Lorentz and called "transformations".

The rigorous solution is NOT difficult.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

[snip irrelvancies]

Post by Androcles
Einstein set up
x' = x-vt, the transformation from the moving frame to the
stationary frame but
Einstein OMITTED
-x' = -x+vt for the return journey.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Even Pispo Valev will laugh at this :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[snip irrelvancies]

Post by Androcles
Einstein set up
x' = x-vt, the transformation from the moving frame to the
stationary frame but
Einstein OMITTED
-x' = -x+vt for the return journey.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Even Pispo Valev will laugh at this :-)

Oops... almost forgot:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EinsteinOmitted.html

Dirk Vdm

[Jeckyl]

"Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:L0xaj.80653$***@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Lets look at what you claim wrt ballistic theory

Post by Androcles
Rotation rate w
Tangential speed wR
Speed of light in rotating frame c
Velocity of light in non-rotating frame wR+c, wR-c
Distance travelled by light in rotating frame wRt, -wRt
Distance travelled by light in non-rotating frame ct+wRt, ct-wRt

so distance is t(c+wR)t and t(c-wR) in the non rotating frame

Post by Androcles
t(c+wR) = t(c-wR)
OR equivalently,
t(c+v) = t(c-v)

How can you equate these .. they are different values ? I think you were a
bit confused in the lines above

Post by Androcles
The times are the same, the distances are different.

Yes .. the times are the same in both frames in ballistic theory

In the rotating frame the distance and speeds are the same. The light
leaves the source travelling at speed c in opposite directions, it traverse
the same distance and arrives back at the detector at the same time and the
same speed travelling the same distance for a null Sagnac effect

So where is the detected Sagnac effect?

See http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html for a ballistic vs
relativistic animation comparison .. no sagnac effect for ballistic theory.

[Timo A. Nieminen]

Post by Jeckyl
In the rotating frame the distance and speeds are the same. The light
leaves the source travelling at speed c in opposite directions, it traverse
the same distance and arrives back at the detector at the same time and the
same speed travelling the same distance for a null Sagnac effect
So where is the detected Sagnac effect?
See http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html for a ballistic vs
relativistic animation comparison .. no sagnac effect for ballistic theory.

It wasn't for nothing that Sagnac wrote his paper as an experimental
detection of the aether, in direct contradiction to ballistic theory.
Michelson-Morely, OTOH, contradicts (stationary) aether and supports
ballistic theory. Special relativity provides a synthesis of these two
antithetical views - it agrees with everyone, so why do so many complain
on the ngs?

[Androcles]

"Timo A. Nieminen" <***@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:***@serene.st...
: On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Jeckyl wrote:
:
: > In the rotating frame the distance and speeds are the same. The light
: > leaves the source travelling at speed c in opposite directions, it
traverse
: > the same distance and arrives back at the detector at the same time and
the
: > same speed travelling the same distance for a null Sagnac effect
: >
: > So where is the detected Sagnac effect?
: >
: > See http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html for a ballistic vs
: > relativistic animation comparison .. no sagnac effect for ballistic
theory.
:
: It wasn't for nothing that Sagnac wrote his paper as an experimental
: detection of the aether, in direct contradiction to ballistic theory.
: Michelson-Morely, OTOH, contradicts (stationary) aether and supports
: ballistic theory. Special relativity provides a synthesis of these two
: antithetical views - it agrees with everyone, so why do so many complain
: on the ngs?
:

Baloney, Nieminen.
You can't even spell "Morley", let alone simulate Sagnac or provide
any mathematics. You are a bullshitter, Sagnac is entirely consistent
with emission fact and isomorphic to the crank Einstein's thought
experiment (without his blunder).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

That you are too stupid to understand simple algebra is your problem.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Loading Image...


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


Loading Image...

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

[Jeckyl]

Post by Androcles
: > In the rotating frame the distance and speeds are the same. The light
: > leaves the source travelling at speed c in opposite directions, it
traverse
: > the same distance and arrives back at the detector at the same time and
the
: > same speed travelling the same distance for a null Sagnac effect
: >
: > So where is the detected Sagnac effect?
: >
: > See http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html for a ballistic vs
: > relativistic animation comparison .. no sagnac effect for ballistic
theory.
: It wasn't for nothing that Sagnac wrote his paper as an experimental
: detection of the aether, in direct contradiction to ballistic theory.
: Michelson-Morely, OTOH, contradicts (stationary) aether and supports
: ballistic theory. Special relativity provides a synthesis of these two
: antithetical views - it agrees with everyone, so why do so many complain
: on the ngs?
Baloney, Nieminen.
You can't even spell "Morley", let alone simulate Sagnac or provide
any mathematics.

You should know about bullshit

[snip copy-paste crap]

[Jeckyl]

Post by Timo A. Nieminen

Post by Jeckyl
In the rotating frame the distance and speeds are the same. The light
leaves the source travelling at speed c in opposite directions, it traverse
the same distance and arrives back at the detector at the same time and the
same speed travelling the same distance for a null Sagnac effect
So where is the detected Sagnac effect?
See http://www.users.on.net/~roger_onslow/Sagnac.html for a ballistic vs
relativistic animation comparison .. no sagnac effect for ballistic theory.

It wasn't for nothing that Sagnac wrote his paper as an experimental
detection of the aether, in direct contradiction to ballistic theory.
Michelson-Morely, OTOH, contradicts (stationary) aether and supports
ballistic theory. Special relativity provides a synthesis of these two
antithetical views - it agrees with everyone, so why do so many complain
on the ngs?

Because they can. It is the only thing that gives them a sense of
self-worth.

[Sue...]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Post by Pentcho Valev
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."
The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."
Pentcho Valev

<< In the ring laser, four highly reflective deflecting
mirrors form a closed beam path, which in turn encloses
a square surface. When a gas mixture of helium and neon
contained in a stainless-steel tube is excited by
radio waves, the resonator turns into a laser for
two counter-rotating beams. As long as the ring laser
does not move, the beams traveling clockwise and
counterclockwise display identical frequency.
When the ring laser rotates, the frequencies differ
by an amount dependent on the speed of rotation of
the system. >>
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/83800/12/ARCHI/none/News/Largest-ring-laser-gyroscope-lands-in-Bavaria

"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
Wettzell Fundamental Research Station
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf

<< Professor Ulrich Schreiber of the
Munich Technical University in Germany reported that
his Earth-based, ultra-precise "G" ring laser gyroscope
was able to detect perturbations in the Earth's axis
as a result of the Indonesian earthquake.
This gyroscope--the largest of its kind in the world--contains
a giant glass ceramic disc, 4.25 meters in diameter,
25 centimeters thick and weighing 10 tons. It is located
in a sealed and pressurized chamber, eight meters below
the surface of the Earth, at the Wettzell Fundamental
Research Station in New Zealand. This instrument was
specifically designed to be able to detect changes in
the Earth's rotation within a day. For more information
on the "G" ring laser gyroscope, see a 1996 article on
the Web site of the International Society for Optical
Engineering (SPIE) or download a PDF copy of a 2003 paper
from the Wettzell Fundamental Research Station. >>
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl_010705.html

<<The first system was constructed by University of
Canterbury over 1988-1991. The was dubbed C-I (for
Canterbury One). It showed that a square metre ring
laser could operate in single mode and so as a
gyroscope, and that it could be unlocked by Earth
rotation.

The FGS (Forschungsgruppe Satelliengeodäsie)
collaboration in Germany then joined with us in
a fully international collaboration. The German
partners built a far more precise and stable ring,
C-II. This was installed at Cashmere in 1997, and
developed and upgraded several times since then. >>
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_2000.shtml

Sue...

[Androcles]

"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e4d6d3a0-d2f1-487a-acbb-***@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: make the following mistake:
:
: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: classical and the relativistic contexts."
:
: The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: so the correct text would be:
:
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: direction."

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
Loading Image...

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

[Don Stockbauer]

Post by Androcles
: In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: classical and the relativistic contexts."
: The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: direction."
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
'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. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

I love infinite discussion loops.

[Androcles]

"Don Stockbauer" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7494a77f-df92-454a-9c2f-***@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: On Dec 20, 10:14 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:e4d6d3a0-d2f1-487a-acbb-***@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > : In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: > : make the following mistake:
: > :
: > :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: > : "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > : then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > : the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > : point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: > : rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: > : classical and the relativistic contexts."
: > :
: > : The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: > : relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: > : the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: > : observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: > : in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: > : so the correct text would be:
: > :
: > : "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > : then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > : the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > : point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: > : direction."
: >
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
: >
: > What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper,
Lawrence,
: > Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise
is
: > the existence of isomorphism
: >
: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
: >
: > between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination
experiment,
: > shown here:
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
: >
: > Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
: > moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
: >
: > Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
: > If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
: > you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
: >
: > c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
: > part where Einstein screws up is:
: > '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. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
: >
: > What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
: > reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
: > in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
:
: I love infinite discussion loops.

Nobody gives a fuck what you love, one-liner moron.

[Sue...]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."
The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."
Pentcho Valev

Abstract--The famous Fizeau's interferometry experiment
with fowing water is commonly cited as a demonstration
of the velocity transformation in the special relativity.
In this investigation, by taking into account the
modification of the propagation velocity due to the
motion of dielectric medium and the modification of
the propagation length due to the Sagnac effect, an
entirely different interpretation of this experiment
is presented. Physically, the influence of the medium
velocity on the phase velocity is associated with an
effect of the polarization current. Both the medium
velocity and the Sagnac effect depend on earth's rotation,
while its influence on the phase difference
in Fizeau's experiment cancels out substantially.
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f3c.pdf


"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf


Sue...

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."
The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
Sagnac device..."

If this is experimentally confirmed, then the Sagnac effect clearly
confirms the ballistic theory and refutes relativity. The Doppler
shift, just like the gravitational redshift, obeys the formula

F = S/L

where F is the frequency measured by the receiver, S is the sum of the
speeds of the light and the receiver at the moment of reception and L
is the wavelength. According to the ballistic theory (see above), S=c
in both directions and therefore the prediction is: "no Doppler
shift". Relativity gives S=c-v in the co-rotating direction, S=c+v in
the counter-rotating direction and therefore the prediction is: "two
different Doppler shifts".

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Androcles]

"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:77495121-f5dc-4968-a75a-***@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: > make the following mistake:
: >
: > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: > "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: > rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: > classical and the relativistic contexts."
: >
: > The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: > relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: > the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: > observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: > in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: > so the correct text would be:
: >
: > "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: > direction."
:
: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
: Sagnac device..."

Obviously bullshit.

[Jeckyl]

Post by Androcles
: > In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: >
: > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: > "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: > rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: > classical and the relativistic contexts."
: >
: > The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: > relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: > the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: > observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: > in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: >
: > "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: > then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: > the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: > point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: > direction."
: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
: Sagnac device..."
Obviously bullshit.

You'd know all about bullshit .. you spout enough of it.

As the source and detector are comoving, there would be no Doppler shift ..
you only get Doppler shift when the source and detector are relatively
moving (ie the distance that the light has to travel increases with time).