Please choose one, your best example, and we'll discuss it.

I referenced a text book in my first post that fully supports what I have said. Here's another well-known reference where you will find this quote on page 499: "When clocks are synchronized according to the Einstein procedure the equality of the velocity of light in two opposite directions is trivial and cannot be the subject of an experiment." -- R. Mansouri & R.U. Sexl, A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 8, No. 7 (1977).

take Gagnon:

http://imaginary_nematode.home.comca...et_al_1988.pdf

You are quoting continously from TEST THEORIES. Do you understand what a TEST theory is? Can you go back to the Zhang book and make sure you understand what Robertson, mansouri and Sexl had in mind? Do you even understand what the above quote from Mansouri and Sexl means?

Either way, this belongs to a different thread, you are making things very muddled for this particular thread. Please open another thread for test theories and we'll discuss.

I THINK that I understand what a test theory is; I THINK that I understand what Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl had in mind; and I THINK that I understand what the above quote from Mansouri and Sexl means.

OK, I'll open another thread for test theories.

add: The new thread is located here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....343#post693343

Thank you, do so. Let me know when you have read the Gagnon paper and when you are ready to discuss.

As an observer, you cannot make any measurement in the interval between A and B that can tell the inertial and sagnac observers apart. As the observers travel along an almost identical path (A to B) their clocks must tick at the same rate. And yet one of the observers must measure the speed of light as c (according to relativity) and the other must measure it as c+v or c-v (sagnac effect).

Now relativity argues that if you reference the motion of the sagnac observer to a point in space 1 billion light years away (centre of circle) then everything’s OK, and there’s lots of maths to explain this.
But why should one observer experience changes that make the speed of light vary by v (which can be a very large value), and the other doesn’t. The paths and motions of the observers are indistinguishable by measurement in the interval A to B.

The explanation given by relativity is nonsense.

Stating this repeatedly without any proof would not make it true.
Besides, your statement is patently wrong as it has been shown by the calculations that you have received. Multiple times, though you persist im making the statements without being able to back them up.
Read again the explanations and the detailed computations refuting your statements:

A case against Relativity

wisp, in terms of what you have written here, it seems that you have not considered the several posts rebutting the misunderstanding of relativity which this post seems to reflect.

A particularly cogent rebuttal is in post #23 in this thread (as clj4 has noted).

If you feel this rebuttal contains flaws - either in logic, or application of relativity - then by all means please show us those flaws.

If you feel there is a different flaw in relativity, which you have not so far presented, either in this thread, or others on similar topics here in BAUT, then please make that (those) case(s).

However, if your case is merely one of repeating something that has been 'long-debunked'¹, then you are violating the BAUT guidelines (and this is a warning - do not continue with such behaviour).

¹From the ATM part of the BAUT guidelines (my bold): "If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned."

Dr Alf Kelly - Chartered Engineer - seems to support my case against relativity. See
http://www.engology.com/articlerelativity.htm

No, he is not distinguishing between a curved path and a rotating system. The Sagnac delay (or advance) in timing for a light beam around the earth is not because it is travelling a circular path, it is because the earth is rotating on its axis. Dr. Kelly is mis-applying relativity, so it should be no surprise that he comes to an invalid conclusion.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

You are using another personal web page to try to prove your point.
You have been given the standard calculations (multiple times)
You have been asked to prove your point through your own calculations.(also multiple times). Please do so.

Observational data shows us that the speed of light is constant. the doppler effect (aka redshift) has shown us this

__________________
echo the sound of silence