Re: YES, mechanical perpetual motion generator based on the Coriolis effect is going to work (JP)

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Headmaster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
 wrote
on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:42:00 GMT
<In7Bj.14269$nw4.5452@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message 
> news:cqoea5-m1k.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | In sci.physics, Dan Bloomquist
> | <public21@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> | wrote
> | on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:34:25 GMT
> | <lm%Aj.5821$7d1.4330@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> | > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> | >> In sci.physics, Dan Bloomquist
> | >> <public21@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> | >>  wrote
> | >> on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:26:55 GMT
> | >> <PkqAj.5745$7d1.92@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> | >>> Androcles wrote:
> | >>>> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> | >>>> news:18hAj.5718$7d1.2157@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | >>>>
> | >>>> | 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 ****. 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.
>
> ****ing idiot.
>

OK; once you and Wilson work out your discrepancies both of you can
disprove SR using Sagnac.

-- 
#191, ewill3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 not found

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com