alt.energy.renewable

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:42:00 +0000, Androcles wrote:

>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
> message news:cqoea5-m1k.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics, Dan Bloomquist
> |
> | wrote
> | on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:34:25 GMT
> | :
> | > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> | >> In sci.physics, Dan Bloomquist
> | >>
> | >> wrote
> | >> on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:26:55 GMT
> | >> :
> | >>> Androcles wrote:
> | >>>> "Dan Bloomquist" wrote in message
> | >>>> news:18hAj.5718$7d1.2157@news01.roc.ny...
> | >>>>
> | >>>> | And the underlying mechanism is understood to be receding
> | >>>> | galaxies.
> | >>>>
> | >>>> Naive nonsense.
> | >>> Once a crank, always a crank. How you doing cranky?
> | >>>
> | >>> You have quite the track record...
> | >>>
> | >>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> | >>
> | >> Yes he does, and I think Dirk gave up out of sheer frustration on
> | >> cataloging all of them. ;-)
> | >>
> | >>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
> | >>> Retard. Does it hurt?
> | >>
> | >> The only thing that appears to pain him is the fact that SR has been
> | >> widely accepted in the world of physics...
> | >
> | >> Regrettably, actual data validating SR is a little hard to come by,
> | >> and some experiments are easily misinterpreted -- he routinely touts
> | >> Sagnac as disproving SR, for example. (Short answer: it doesn't,
> | >> really.)
> | >
> | > I know. I tried to explain the Sagnac effect to him about four years
> | > ago. At least, that if c' = c + v there would be no beat frequency. He
> | > is adamant about his beliefs.
> |
> | And has been since about 1999.
> |
> Sagnac disproves SR because there is a beat. At least if c was the same is
> all frames of reference there would be no beat. Bloomquist has his head up
> his arse and is adamant in his belief in Einstein's shit. What he tries to
> explain he fails at miserably.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
>
> the counter-rotating pulse arrives at the "end" point slightly earlier
> than the co-rotating pulse at exactly the same time.
>
> Fucking idiot.

At least he knows the difference between a rotating and inertial frame of
reference.