HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Your ramblings are becoming more and more bizarre with every message.

Here is the final equation published by S. Hejra:

dt = 4ωA/c^2
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
It is solely derived using the CORIOLIS FORCE as a guide.

It was derived using the Coriolis force and I believe that is exactly what I said!

It is the very same equation derived by Dr. Silberstein:

dt = 4ωA/c^2
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

Sure and your Conspiracy of Light site also calls it the Sagnac effect.
Look at this The Michelson-Gale Experiment by Doug Marett (2010)

Read this again!
Look at this from what appears to be the source of your diagram:

Conspiracy of Light, The Michelson-Gale Experiment
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:

Fig.1:

where:  Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
              A = the area of the circular path
              R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
              c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
              f = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
              l = wavelength of the light

And those 2's should be 4's because even Michelson didn't initially get it quite right and it was corrected by Silberstein:

   The experiment remained in abeyance for several years, until Silberstein published a paper in 1921 on the theory of light propagation in rotating systems [2]. In this article, Silberstein discusses Michelson's proposed experiment and through calculations of his own demonstrated that the time difference expected in such an experiment would be double what Michelson suggested.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After taking all these factors into account, the expected fringe shift becomes:

which is the most common expression for the fringe shift due to a Sagnac interferometer in use today. In returning to the latitude effect, this is best described with the aid of a diagram  (figure 2 below):

Fig.2:

The proposed experiment of Michelson should then be treated as a Sagnac interferometer with its axis of spin  (herein referred to as the z axis)  oriented vertically with respect to the earth's surface. If the interferometer is at the North pole, it experiences the full earth's rotation of 15 degrees per hour. However, if it is at the equator, the z-axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the earth, and thus the device does not experience a rotation at all along its sensitive axis. If the device is at 45 deg. latitude, then it experiences an intermediate rotation rate of  ω.sin(45).

Here is the final equation published by S. Hejra:

dt = 4ωA/c^2
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

And it would seem that you and he are the only ones calling it Coriolis but even he quotes the Coriolis force as in here:

Note that SANKAR HAJRA is simply using the Coriolis force to calculate the deviation in the light paths. This is obvious from his Eqn (1) below where explicitly gives the expression for the Coriolis force.

That is the Coriolis force!

QUESTION FOR THE MODERATORS:

Why are rabinoz' miserable tactics allowed in the upper forums?

No one else, no other forum would allow such ramblings and obvious trolling to go on.

Really? Look at some of your claims! The sun 600 m in diameter and 15 km above the earth etc, etc.

But it does work.

Perfectly.

Your pal tried everything in his power to prove otherwise, he failed to do so:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.0

As of late you have made several statements, which clearly show that you are trolling the upper forums.

It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk any argument you might think of.

Ok so higher level physics is not my bag, I'm more applied maths.

When discussing curvature of the earth you produced a formula based on pythagoras to calculate, a bulge you seem to think would exist on a sphere.

You even supplied a diagram, the formula calculates point C as the bulge, except you have placed point C on the horizon rather than where you predicted the bulge.

So when you run any numbers through your formula it creates a bulge on the horizon which nobody observes or hypothesises.

I have asked you a number of times to run the numbers through your equation and you have refused.

I decided to check myself and googled your formula and lo and behold only you come up in the searches.

Bobby Shafto pointed out the exact same issue in October 2018 on the other site.

You have posted this a number of times.

So with the sagnac and Coriolis formula I did the same, googled your formula and only you come up.

However, the only places your threads are not closed are on FE sites. The wider physics community question the elements you have lifted from Dr Yeh. You respond with wall of text, quoting and sometimes misquoting peer reviewed texts, but slipping in the odd FES link at the end, much like you do here, quoting yourself is not proof positive. When you refuse to answer your thread is closed.

As ever all I ask is that you run the numbers or submit your find for peer review.

That's not a troll

Prove your formula and I will be the first to congratulate you.

I'm more applied maths.

Then, you must know trigonometry.

My formulas stand correct, here they are:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200750#msg2200750

My readers know that when I post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct.

That is why they trust me each and every time.

a bulge you seem to think would exist on a sphere.

You have reached the point where you want a round earth with no curvature.

Take a look at yourself: you are COMPLAINING that a spherical Earth has a bulge!

Then, you are a flat earth believer, you just don't know it yet.

The wider physics community question the elements you have lifted from Dr Yeh.

No lifting.

My formula was derived DIRECTLY in terms of the Michelson-Gale interferometer.

It coincides perfectly with Dr. Yeh's formula, published in the most respected journal in nonlinear optics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444

My formula, the most important equation in physics today:



Why? Because it answers the deepest questions asked by all scientists at once and directly.

Sungenis and Bennett wrote a 1000+ treatise on geocentrism, without being able to actually prove it:

http://galileowaswrong.com/

All the RE have to do is claim that the formula published by Michelson is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which proves rotation. If any geocentrist does not agree, the RE will kindly state: "Show us the correct formula then".

That is why both the GE and the FE are helpless when confronted with this argument.

Until now.

I'm more applied maths.

Then, you must know trigonometry.

My formulas stand correct, here they are:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200750#msg2200750

My readers know that when I post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct.

That is why they trust me each and every time.

Which readers "know that when you post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct." Name one!

Why does your expression for the Sagnac differ from that of Sagnac, Michelson, Silverstone, Mathpages and the "General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Maraner and Zendri".
The latter does give a solution for a Sagnac device with the centre-of-rotation far from the loop see: Do you claim to be smarter than all these physicists?  The first order term agrees with the other solutions.

You are acting like a chatbot.

You are repeating the same nonsense all over again.

A sure sign of mental distress or of a mechanical response coming from a machine.

Here is the Maraner-Zendri formula:



What Maraner and Zendri did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation, and NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT.

They used the SAME derivation as did Michelson based on a comparison of two sides, AND NOT THE TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

They are analyzing the CORIOLIS EFFECT with relativistic corrections, NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT which requires two loops.

The first term of the fringe shift is the CORIOLIS EFFECT term derived by Hajra, Silberstein and Post.

No big deal.

What we want is the TRUE GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.

This one:

As i said earlier[/b] :
Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :

There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas [color=purple]Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied[/color].

THE QUESTION No 1 :

Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years. 
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally?

Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is
due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,
the universe keeps  turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down.
(Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation).

As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe
or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2158366#msg2158366

In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

THE QUESTION No 2 :

If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, what consequence should we expect (from the same cause - geyser activity) to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself??? Extreme consequences???

Wiki quote :

Enceladus is tidally locked with Saturn, keeping the same face toward the planet. It completes one orbit every 32.9 hours within the densest part of Saturn's E Ring.

THE QUESTION No 3 :

If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, and if it is more than reasonably to assume that geyser activity would have extreme consequences to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself, isn't it more than reasonably to assume that Enceladus in these circumstances couldn't remain tidally locked with Saturn due to it's changed rate of rotation?

[/quote]

Now, the RE are going to have to explain why Enceladus' rate of rotation is not modified (as it should), given the fact that it can modify Saturn's rate of rotation.



https://phys.org/news/2018-07-electromagnetic-energy-saturn-enceladus.html

The signals are GOING BOTH WAYS.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339175_Enceladus_A_significant_plasma_source_for_Saturn's_magnetosphere

Enceladus is clearly implicated as a significant, if not dominant, source of Saturn's magnetospheric plasma.

Material blasted into space by Enceladus feeds Saturn’s giant E ring and is a major source of material (plasma) fueling Saturn’s magnetosphere.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/magnetosphere/

Here we go again

I'm more applied maths.

Then, you must know trigonometry.

My formulas stand correct, here they are:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200750#msg2200750

My readers know that when I post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct.

That is why they trust me each and every time.

 

So if not for me, FOR YOUR READERS???, how is your formula verified? Where is the peer review, linking to yourself is not proof positive.

Run the numbers or submit for peer review, that would put me right in my place.

a bulge you seem to think would exist on a sphere.

You have reached the point where you want a round earth with no curvature.

Take a look at yourself: you are COMPLAINING that a spherical Earth has a bulge!

Then, you are a flat earth believer, you just don't know it yet.

No you claim that on a sphere you would not be able to see the horizon because of a bulge.
It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that this bulge does not exist, because the flat plane you are measuring the bulge from does not exist on a sphere.
You cant seem to grasp basic geometry.
You invented a formula to measure the bulge, except you messed it up and have consistently refused to run numbers through it. Why, because just looking at your diagram you can see it is gibberish.
But we can come back to that.

The wider physics community question the elements you have lifted from Dr Yeh.

No lifting.

My formula was derived DIRECTLY in terms of the Michelson-Gale interferometer.

It coincides perfectly with Dr. Yeh's formula, published in the most respected journal in nonlinear optics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444

 

When you go through the derivations to meet Dr Yeh’s formula, you don’t account for the variables linked to the interferometer, like the area derivations of Yeh’s formula.

Those loops have an area, its included in Yeh’s formula


But not in yours? The links you post note that Sagnac depends on an area.

It coincides perfectly with Dr. Yeh's formula, published in the most respected journal in nonlinear optics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444

A personal fave link of yours, if you are going to reference peoples work, at least get the paper and institution names correct 😉

My formula, the most important equation in physics today:



Why? Because it answers the deepest questions asked by all scientists at once and directly.

Whoop this is fantastic news.

You must be thrilled, which journal did you publish it in?

Got many citations yet?

Oh wait, its not tested, you havent published, you just seem to cut and paste it year after year and it starts to fall apart under the gentlest of scrutiny.

Run the numbers, get it peer reviewed and put me in my place.
Wall of text, deflection and topic hopping wont cut it, when you are claiming to have discovered the most important equation in physics today.

If there was curvature, what would you expect it to look like?

Exactly what the following precise formulas imply:

CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance



VISUAL OBSTACLE




BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer


No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

38:28 to 38:35




From the same spot, a splendid photograph:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#

So here was the math you postulated to calculate the midpoint bulge.

Have at it add some numbers and show me where the bulge is?

You are acting like a chatbot.

You are repeating the same nonsense all over again.

A sure sign of mental distress or of a mechanical response coming from a machine.

Here is the Maraner-Zendri formula: Maraner-Zendri formula

What Maraner and Zendri did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation, and NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Sorry,  Maraner and Zendri derived the Sagnac effect! Read what they say:

General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri

Abstract The Sagnac effect is a time or phase shift observed between two beams of light traveling in opposite directions in a rotating interferometer. We show that the standard description of this effect within the framework of general relativity misses the effect of deflection of light due to rotational inertial forces. We derive the necessary modification and demonstrate it through a
detailed analysis of the square Sagnac interferometer rotating about its symmetry axis in Minkowski space-time.

The role of the time shift in a Sagnac interferometer in the synchronization procedure of remote clocks as well as its analogy with the Aharanov-Bohm effect are revised.
Keywords Sagnac effect · Relativistic corrections · Clocks synchronization · Aharanov-Bohm effect

They used the SAME derivation as did Michelson based on a comparison of two sides, AND NOT THE TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

No, it is not just for the "comparison of two sides" it is the analysis of the whole loop with the light travelling in both directions as did Michelson,  Sagnac, Silberstein and the Conspiracy of Light site.

"TWO LOOPS" are not "required by the definition of the Sagnac effect"! That is just something you dreamed up that nobody else agrees with.
I know Pooch Yeh does show, among others, a phase conjugate gyroscope with two loops but that is a different situation.

Are you daring to suggest that you know the definition of the Sagnac effect  better than Michelson,  Sagnac, Silberstein and Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri.

They are analyzing the CORIOLIS EFFECT with relativistic corrections, NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT which requires two loops.

The first term of the fringe shift is the CORIOLIS EFFECT term derived by Hajra, Silberstein and Post.

So you and only you say!  But none of Michelson,  Sagnac, Silberstein and Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri and any number of others agree.

Please explain to everybody why you have the audacity to claim that you know better than all these physicists.

No big deal.

What we want is the TRUE GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.

This one:

Why do you need two "formulae" and where is the transition between them?
And why do you need two when Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri expression covers all cases an reduces to your first case when the higher order terms are neglected?

It looks as though the Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri expression is far superior to yours!

PS Here is the Coriolis Force explained, maybe you should read it:

You still don't get it.

Please show to everyone here that any of the two formulas are wrong.

It is plain trigonometry.

Are you telling your readers that you cannot derive very simple formulas?

They have been around for many years here, you think that if the RE thought they were false they wouldn't have said something about it?

But they know that the formulas are correct.

It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that this bulge does not exist,

Then, the Earth is flat and you are a flat earth believer.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part? You seem to complain that a spherical earth has curvature.


You are located now on the beach, Grimsby. Distance to Toronto, 55 km.

Here is what you are going to see on spherical earth: an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, and a visual obstacle measuring even more (use my formula with AE = 5 meters).

The formulas are very precise and require basic trigonometry.

Are you telling your readers that you cannot follow such simple derivations?

Sorry,  Maraner and Zendri derived the Sagnac effect! Read what they say:

What they say is one thing, the formula they provide is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Please read.

Here is the formula provided by Maraner and Zendri:



The main term of the phase shift is this:

4AΩ/c^2

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, they add higher relativistic terms to it.

You can't have A SINGLE FORMULA FOR TWO DIFFERENT EFFECTS, CAN YOU?

If they say it is the SAGNAC EFFECT and the formula they provide is the CORIOLIS EFFECT, something is very wrong isn't it?


4AΩ/c^2.

THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

Here is the precise proof, peer-reviewed in an IOP article.

THIS IS AN IOP ARTICLE, one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published.





Here is reference #27:




http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, peer reviewed in the IOP article, and described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces" is this:

dt = 4ωA/c^2


Now, here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

A beautiful direct derivation using undergraduate level mathematics, very simple.

THE FINAL FORMULA DERIVED BY S. HAJRA IS THIS:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

He derived this formula using ONLY the Coriolis force as a guide.


Same formula as that derived by Sagnac and by Silberstein.


"TWO LOOPS" are not "required by the definition of the Sagnac effect"! That is just something you dreamed up that nobody else agrees with.

But they are required.

This plainly shows your cognitive dissonance: you are willing to MODIFY the currently accepted definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT to satisfy your whimsical heliocentrical world.

Please read.

Here are the DEFINITIONS USED BY MODERN SCIENCE TO DESCRIBE THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

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

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel the same inertial distance at the same speed, so they will arrive at the end point simultaneously.

http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/sagnac.php

Essential in the Sagnac effect is that a loop is closed.

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/sagnac-effect.html

The Sagnac effect is observed when coherent light travels around a closed loop in opposite directions and the phases of the two signals are compared at a detector.


This shows you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

Michelson and Gale COMPARED TWO SIDES ONLY, not any loops at all:


http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf



The final formula used by Michelson features an AREA: it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.



Using a phase-conjugate mirror, for the first time in 1986, Professor Yeh was able to derive the TRUE SAGNAC FORMULA which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.




page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.



Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:



Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c² = 2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c² = 2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²




The Coriolis effect is a physical effect upon the light beams: it is proportional to the area of the interferometer. It is a comparison of two sides.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: it is proportional to the radius of rotation. It is a comparison of two loops.

Two different phenomena require two very different formulas.


My SAGNAC EFFECT formula proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science.



Let us now compare the two derivations, using two loops (Sagnac effect) and two sides (Coriolis effect):



Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

l₁ is the upper arm.
l₂ is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l₁/(c - v₁)

-l₂/(c + v₂)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l₂/(c - v₂)

-l₁/(c + v₁)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l₁/(c - v₁) - l₂/(c + v₂)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l₂/(c - v₂) - l₁/(c + v₁)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l₁/(c - v₁) - l₂/(c + v₂)} - (-){l₂/(c - v₂) - l₁/(c + v₁)} = {l₁/(c - v₁) - l₂/(c + v₂)} + {l₂/(c - v₂) - l₁/(c + v₁)}

Rearranging terms:

l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) + {l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂)} =

2(v₁l₁ + v₂l₂)/c²

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c² = 2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


This is how the correct Sagnac formula is derived: we have single continuous clockwise path, and a single continuous counterclockwise path.

If we desire the Coriolis effect, we simply substract as follows:

dt = l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) - (l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂))

Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:

2v₁l₁/(c² - v²₁) - 2v₂l₂/(c² - v²₂)

l = l₁ = l₂

2l[(v₁ - v₂)]/c²

2lΩ[(R₁ - R₂)]/c²

R₁ - R₂ = h

2lhΩ/c²

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


However, for the SAGNAC EFFECT, we have a single CONTINUOUS CLOCKWISE PATH, and a single CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE PATH, as the definition of the Sagnac effect entails.

You still don't get it.

Please show to everyone here that any of the two formulas are wrong.

It is plain trigonometry.

Are you telling your readers that you cannot derive very simple formulas?

They have been around for many years here, you think that if the RE thought they were false they wouldn't have said something about it?

But they know that the formulas are correct.

It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that this bulge does not exist,

Then, the Earth is flat and you are a flat earth believer.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part? You seem to complain that a spherical earth has curvature.


You are located now on the beach, Grimsby. Distance to Toronto, 55 km.

Here is what you are going to see on spherical earth: an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, and a visual obstacle measuring even more (use my formula with AE = 5 meters).

The formulas are very precise and require basic trigonometry.

Are you telling your readers that you cannot follow such simple derivations?

Firstly my readers lol Im just some guy on the internet mate I havent got any readers.

I just keep asking you questions you dont answer.

You came up with the formula to calculate the bulge you think should be present on a sphere.

You consistently dont work through your formula because it is gish there is no line between A and B

Basic geometry.

Then scurry off to photo's as evidence 

I think you were reaching for



But you deflect so much its hard to tell.

Next post wall of text re repeating something you have already repeated is not adding anything to the debate.

Although I see you still cant correctly identify Dr Yehs paper or institution.

You post, people question, you deflect, you post, people question, you deflect. That is not testing your equation its running away from it.

Your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.

Question for the moderators: why is mak3m allowed to troll the upper forums?

Your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.

Question for the moderators: why is mak3m allowed to troll the upper forums?

You not understanding is not trolling.

Lets try again

You postulated a formula to measure the height of a bulge, that does not exist in the real world.

here is your diagram



There is no line between A and B

C is the horizon not the midpoint.

Not sure how I could be clearer.

But hey ho here I am explaining your post to you, its certainly easier than you doing it yourself. isn't it.

Again, your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.

that does not exist in the real world.

Exactly.

Only on A FLAT EARTH, you'd have no bulge at all.

You are whining that a spherical earth actually has curvature.

You are trolling the upper forums.

Now, the RE are going to have to explain why Enceladus' rate of rotation is not modified (as it should), given the fact that it can modify Saturn's rate of rotation.

No we don't.
You are yet to show that there should be a significant effect.

Meanwhile, the FEers need to explain so much it isn't funny.
For this thread, the key part is the claim that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

Again, if you want to discuss your lies regarding the Sagnac effect, go revive one of the threads you have already been refuted in.

Here is the thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.0

Please indicate to your readers, and to yourself as well, where ANY refutation on your part ever occurred.

There was no refutation ever of anything on your part.

You were totally defeated make no mistake about it.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 29, 2019, 03:54:46 AM

P.S. Rabinoz, Jack, you are such a great comedians, but you are no match to this guy :

Still nothing of value, I see. 

Well, since you are keeping your head in the send, then obviously you can't see shit.

1. Have you ever seen this before :

Quote from: cikljamas on November 23, 2018, 05:31:13 PM

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.

Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.

But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.

1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :

If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity. 

2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :

This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.

3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :

This is utter nonsense, and here is why :

A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could   
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.

PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)

B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.

PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.

C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).

PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.

ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).

ACCOMPANYING POST : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2126528#msg2126528

2. Have you ever seen this :

The original experiment of Michelson and Morley was performed in 1887 in order to confirm the theory that says earth exists in an unseen sea of pre-matter called the aether, and that the daily rotation of the earth around itself and the constant travel of the earth around Sol, our sun, would expose any instrument on the earth's surface to what was called an "aether wind". The concept is that the aether, conceived as the medium that allows light waves to travel from one point in the cosmos to another, would influence the measurement of the length of a path of light, depending on whether the path is in line with the expected "wind" or is oriented perpendicular to it.

The experiment did not find the expected result but rather than looking for a reason the aether wind might not be measurable in this way, the idea of there being an aether in the first place was questioned. Einstein then declared that an aether was "not necessary", and since Einstein's theories gained widespread acceptance, any further investigation into the subject of the aether was relegated to the fringes of science.

Many attempts have been made to explain why the physical configuration of the measuring apparatus of Michelson and Morley was improper for showing the aether wind, but no one has repeated the experiment in a different setting.

Now recently Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in a video that was uploaded on YouTube:



In Einstein's own words ..

“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

“I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

“You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

3. Have you ever seen this :

---First of all, it is inconsistent with the aberration of fixed stars (as we know, during a year the stars describe a small ellipse on the background of the sky. This effect cannot occur if the aether is fully dragged by the Earth).

---Secondly, the experiment of Sagnac was repeated by Michelson and Gale in 1925, but this time taking the Earth as a rotating disk (as already suggested by Sagnac himself). These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation[/color]).

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.

---It appears rather amazing that the "correct relativistic interpretation" of the Sagnac effect took eight years. A seemingly obvious reason is that Sagnac's experiment was not very much discussed in the scientific literature, even in France after the discovery of 1913. Conscious of this situation, in 1919, Sagnac published five papers on his work in the Comptes rendus. The paradox is that his ideas were nevertheless borne by a French group of strong antirelativists. In 1919, Sagnac was even rewarded with the Pierson–Perrin Prize for his achievements on this topic (first for the experiment, seen as a rebuttal of the relativity principle, the constancy of light, and also for having proven the reality of absolute space and time).

Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. (two years after Sagnac had conducted his famous, decisive experiment). Isn't that interesting???

Again, your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.

that does not exist in the real world.

Exactly.

Only on A FLAT EARTH, you'd have no bulge at all.

You are whining that a spherical earth actually has curvature.

You are trolling the upper forums.

No Im questioning your formula and again you cant answer it and when I post my own you ignore.

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”

But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift.

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.
So, according to Einstein : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley :

"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

Miller’s work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having “proved the ether did not exist”.

While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no “outsider”. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether-measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)

Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science. When alive, Miller responded concisely to his critics, and demonstrated the ether-drift phenomenon with increasing precision over the years. Michelson and a few others of the period took Miller's work seriously, but Einstein and his followers appeared to view Miller only as a threat, something to be "explained away" as expeditiously as possible. Einstein in fact was catapulted into the public eye following the end of World War II. Nuclear physics was then viewed as heroic, and Einstein fast became a cultural icon whose work could not be criticized. Into this situation came the Shankland team, with the apparent mission to nail the lid down on Miller's coffin. In this effort, they nearly succeeded.

Sorry,  Maraner and Zendri derived the Sagnac effect! Read what they say:

What they say is one thing, the formula they provide is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Please read.

Here is the formula provided by Maraner and Zendri:



The main term of the phase shift is this:

4AΩ/c^2

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, they add higher relativistic terms to it.

You can't have A SINGLE FORMULA FOR TWO DIFFERENT EFFECTS, CAN YOU?

We  don't! That formula is for the Sagnac effect, it was the Sagnac effect long before you were born and YOU cannot change it!

If they say it is the SAGNAC EFFECT and the formula they provide is the CORIOLIS EFFECT, something is very wrong isn't it?

Someone is very wrong aren't they it? And that someone is you!
Michelson,  Sagnac, Silberstein and Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri and any number of others agree that 4AΩ/c² is the Sagnac effect!

4AΩ/c^2.

THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

So you say but you are wrong!
That is not the Coriolis effect! This is the Coriolis effect or force:

And it does not matter how many times you say it us the Coriolis effect it is still the Sagnac effect according to everybody but you!

To read before bed (a gift from above) :

As one can see, the shell game of modem science continued and Lorentz became its premier magician, all in an effort to avoid having to admit to
the audience the possibility that the Earth was standing still in space.

The issue was further obfuscated when physicists began creating different responses to explain the “contraction” solution. At one point Lorentz held:

“Yes, it is as real as anything we can observe,” to which Sir Arthur Eddington retorted, “We say it contracts; but length is not a property of the rod; it is a relation between the rod and the observer .”
 
At another time Eddington said:

“The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true .”

In one of his more sober moments, however, he added:

“...it was like the adventures of Gulliver in Lilliputland and Alice’s adventures in Wonderland.”

Albert Michelson didn’t buy it either. To him the Lorentz solution was artificial, mainly because the so-called contraction was independent of the elastic property inherent in the interferometer itself, as in, for example, the resilience of a tennis ball returning to its original shape after it is struck.

He writes of Lorentz’s proposal:

“Such a conclusion seems so improbable that one is inclined to return to
the hypothesis of Fresnel and try to reconcile in some other way
the ‘negative result’ [of the Michelson-Morley experiment].”
Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, New York, MacMillian
Company and Cambridge University Press, 1929, pp. 33-34, emphasis his.

At other points Lorentz admitted he was uncertain. In 1904 he stated:

It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward with all due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account
for all well-established facts, it leads to some consequences that cannot as yet be put to the test of experiment. One of these
is that the result of Michelson’ s experiment must remain negative...

The experiments of which I have spoken are not the only
reason for which a new examination of the problems connected
with the motion of the Earth is desirable... in order to explain
Michelson’ s negative result, the introduction of a new
hypothesis has been required... Surely this course of inventing
special hypotheses for each new experimental result is
somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory if it were
possible to show by means of certain fundamental
assumptions ...

Notice that Lorentz is concerned with “problems connected with
the motion of the Earth,” which tells us that the fear of being forced to
accept the “unthinkable” immobile Earth was the basis upon which his
ad hoc solution was determined. Reading between the lines we know that
Lorentz was concerned with the fact that, if he could not come up with a
convincing explanation to Michelson-Morley, he and the rest of the
world would be in for a great embarrassment. Undaunted, Lorentz put
the contraction theory of Fitzgerald into a mathematical formula and the
equation eventually became world famous. Known as the “Lorentz
Transformation,” it is still employed by many scientists today for almost
any problem having to do with dismissing the possibility that Earth is
motionless in space .

As Arthur Miller explains it, hoping to give it some respectability: “Lorentz (1886) used Huygens’ principle and Fresnel’s hypothesis to deduce the velocity of light that traversed a medium of refractive index N that was at rest where the source could have been either on the Earth or in the ether [which] explained Arago’s experiment and an equivalent one by George Biddell Airy. Lorentz continued (1886), by noting that from
the viewpoint of the geocentric system we could say that ‘the waves are entrained by the ether’ according to the amount -v/N 2 . For consistency with the nomenclature of the time Lorentz defined v r as the velocity of the ‘relative ray’ and c/N as the velocity of the ‘absolute ray.’ For example, in order to view the light from a fixed star, a telescope, or a system of aligned slits, at rest on the Earth had to be oriented in the direction of the relative ray because the relative ray was the direction in which energy was transported. . ..On the other hand, an observer at rest in the ether measured the velocity of the light that was propagating through the medium at rest on the moving Earth to be c' = M r + v. ..Lorentz noted that the ether-fixed observer could interpret [c' = u T + v] as the ‘entrainment of the light waves by the ponderable matter” {Albert Einstein 's Special Theory of Relativity, pp. 19-20).

Of course, even Einstein could see through this hodgepodge of ad hoc explanations, politely calling them “asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena,” in his 1905 Annalen der Physik article. In the end, Lorentz was forced to admit: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays were the absolute rays” {ibid., p. 20). Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 120.


Other confusing statements include Wolfgang Pauli’s:

“It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods
moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable” (Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12- 13);

and Herman Minkowski’s:

“This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, - as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity : A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory > of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81).

1. Have you ever seen this before :

Have you seen this before:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the tank to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied without the corresponding reactionary force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

It is the question you have been avoiding for this entire thread.

Care to try answering it?

Quote from: cikljamas on September 06, 2019, 04:05:25 AM

1. Have you ever seen this before :

Have you seen this before:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the tank to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied without the corresponding reactionary force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

It is the question you have been avoiding for this entire thread.

Care to try answering it?

1. Jack, have you ever seen this :

You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Don't you have any scruples?
You dare to ask this idiotic question again, even though you have read what i posted on this very page (reply #696) Here we go : reply #696 once again, just for you : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197581#msg2197581

Just in case you still want to continue to play dumb, we shall point out this portion of my reply #696 :

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity a.k.a. Jack is playing dumber than he really is :

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 07:08:20 AM

What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?

Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

Does this answer you question???

If you had no scruples at all, you'd just kill, steal, cheat, and do God knows what else.


2. Jack, have you ever seen this :

Quote from: cikljamas on August 24, 2019, 03:21:22 PM

In bullshit you trust

No, we don't trust in you.

Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
So, the next time when you put forward for umpteenth time in a row, your famous idiotic question i will simply direct you to this very post. O.K.?
And the post goes like this :



To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.

Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?

Seriously? lol

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!

What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?

Free expansion!

What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?

Density of air/vacuum!

Why?

Resistance!

What it means?

It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!

Was this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

You still haven't watched this video :

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2

No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
THRUST FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.

THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.

THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.

THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 11km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 11km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.

Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).

3. Jack, have you ever seen this :

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

BULLSHIT :

An airplane propeller DOES push against the air and in so doing it DOES impart a reactive force to the plane because the prop is a solid object CONNECTED to the plane.

Rocket exhaust isn’t connected to the rocket so it can’t function as a pushing medium to the rocket as a propeller does.

Rockets move by creating an imbalance of forces within the rocket motor causing more internal pressure in the forward direction and very little internal pressure rearward due to the opening of the rocket nozzle. There is also a secondary forward thrust caused by Newton’s 3rd law as regards the rearward ejection of mass.

That is how rocket thrust works. The continued expansion of gasses caused by burning high energy fuel builds up pressure but the pressure is always lower at the rear of the rocket motor due to the open nozzle. The higher pressure in the forward part of the motor maintains an imbalance of forces so the rocket continues to move as long as fuel is burned.

In addition to the above force there is also some thrust caused by rearward ejection of mass (the exhaust) in accordance with Newton’s 3rd Law.

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

COMMON SENSE :

I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.

To save time, I will tell you how I interpret Newtons 3 Laws of Motion. If you disagree then there is no longer a reason to continue this thread as we differ on basic laws of physics which won’t be resolved here. If you agree with me, then there is much to discuss.

Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.

Fist Law: For an object to remain as it is, either moving or not, the sum of the forces on it are zero.
Sigma F = 0

Second Law: For a body to accelerate, there must be a force on it.
F = ma

Third Law: For every force in one direction, there is an equal force in the opposite direction.
F1 = – F2 or F1 + F2 = 0

Notice how all of Newtons Laws of Motion contain the term ‘force’. Newton used the term ‘force’ to explain how objects are pushed and pulled in our universe.

This is how I see Newtons 3rd Law applied to rockets flying through our atmosphere:

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

The way you are explaining it, is that molecules hitting inside a chamber are moving the rocket forward, AND the rocket is moving forward. You did mention the perhaps the exhaust might move it forward also somewhat, but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.

You can’t have two positive forces. F1 + F2 would then be greater than zero, and that defies Newtons 3rd Law. My point is the exhaust out the back is not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.

4. Jack, have you ever seen this :

So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when P_e=P_a" and find out what it means.
[/quote]



5. Jack, have you ever seen this :

So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?

As Milan Tarot would say : "Javio se još jedan iz linije za pametne!"
Translation (for those who don't speak croatian) : One another "clever" guy spoke up so to join this stupidity contest.
Macarios, you landed your jump near the far end of the stupidity scale, so that you reminded me to Bob Bemon whose world record stood for almost 23 years until it was broken in 1991 by Mike Powell.

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem.

No, Einstein developed Special Relativity to explain the invariance of Maxwell's Equations in various inertial reference frames.
Look at its title "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"!

However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.

Where did you drag "deliberately ignored by universities" up from? Your fertile imagination!
Because they are not ignored nor do they necessarily support Geocentricity!

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

A bit of honesty please!
Ludwik Silberstein urged Albert Michelson to perform an experiment like this as verification of the, then new, General Relativity.
Albert Michelson was reluctant both because of the expense and his realisation that the experiment could not distinguish between General Relativity and aether with zero dragging factor.

In the end Albert Michelson and Henry Gale, an astrophysicist, did perform the experiment and the results supported either theory.
But the Michelson-Gale experiment does not support Geocentricity!

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

Not necessarily so! Airey's fits far better with relativity than with any aether theory!

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

No, it did NOT "prove that there IS an aether" nor did it "completely destroy Einstein’s theory of Relativity".
The Sagnac effect might present difficulties for Special Relativity but that's to be expected because a rotating table is not an inertial frame of reference!
But the Sagnac readily fits into General Relativity.

I fail to see why you would think that Sagnac's experiment would not be taught when fibre optic Sagnac Gyroscopes and Ring Laser Gyroscopes feature so prominently these days!

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

That is total rubbish and just proves you own ignorance.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”

But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift.

No, they can be regarded as NULL because the reading was less than the measuring capability of the apparatus used.
As equipment was improved, that limit was also reduced and is still being reduced because scientists are trying to find any anisotropy!

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

Look all this was covered in this old post and others but YOU seem to have the memory span of a gold-fish and bring the same old thing up again and again ad nauseum.

So I'll do a Sandokhan or a Cikljamas just copy part of that post here:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You claim that, "They reasoned that". I suspect that is really "cikljamas reasoned that"!
Read about Michelson's thoughts on the matter (again and again and AGAIN!): 

Quote

As mentioned above, as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Focault’s pendulum). Nevertheless, he (along with Gale) agreed to perform the experiment in 1925 (at considerable cost) at the urging of "relativists", who wished him to verify the shift of 236/1000 of a fringe predicted by special relativity. This was intended mainly to refute the theory of an ether fully dragged around with the spinning earth, as well as the only physically plausible ballistic theory of light propagation, both of which predict zero phase shift (for a circular device). Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said,
         "We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that
          the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
As Harvey lime wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".
From Math Pages, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect

Note that Michelson himself claims that the MGX is

"an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".

Not a moving ether! But, of course,

Mr High and Mighty cikljamas, thinks he knows more than Michelson and all the others!

Quote from: cikljamas

They measured a difference. Existence  of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them.

Rubbish! The MGX and the numerous modern Sagnac Loop Gyroscopes of the present time measure the rotation of the earth as once per sidereal day!

Quote from: cikljamas

<< Totally irrelevant! Sagnac and Relativity are quite consistent. >>

So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments

And from Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments

No, Michelson and Morely have not been forgotten and the Sagnac Effect is extremely important in modern navigation instruments.

Just remember that small-minded ignorant people ridicule what they cannot understand,

While Oscar Wilde wrote, "I am not young enough to know everything."
And Einstein wrote,  "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments

Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:

    The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe (Cleveland 1887.) – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
    —?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

So,
0,02 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,4) = 6,71 km/s (This is what Michelson measured in Cleveland in 1887.!!!)
0,01 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,4) = 4,74 km/s (This is what Michelson measured in Cleveland in 1887.!!!)
0,015 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 1,13) = 3,35 km/s (This is what Morley and Miller measured in Cleveland in 1902-1904.!!!)
0,002 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,75) = 1,5 km/s (This is what Joos measured in Jena in 1930.!!!)

So,

6,71 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)
4,47 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)
3,35 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)
1,5 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)

Since  Einstein  chose  as  his  foundation  that  the  Earth  was  translating around the sun at 30 kms and thus postulated the ether  did  not  exist,  the  results  of  MMX  were  considered  “null”  and  all subsequent theorizing, including Special and General Relativity, was built on the assumption that the Earth was moving. Thus, Einstein  could  safely  develop  his  Special  Relativity  theory  with the accepted premise that space was a vacuum that did not possess any ponderable substance (i.e., ether). That Relativity theory was  the  direct  result  of  MMX  was  admitted  by  Einstein  in  a  speech  honoring  Michelson: 

“I  have  come  among  men  who  for many years have been true comrades with me in my labors. You, my  honored  Dr.  Michelson,  began  with  this  work  when  I  was  only a little youngster, hardly three feet high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory of  Relativity.  You  uncovered  an  insidious  defect  in  the  ether  theory  of  light,  as  it  then  existed,  and  stimulated  the  ideas  of  H.  A.  Lorentz  and  Fitzgerald,  out  of  which  the  Special  Theory  of  Relativity  developed.  Without  your  work  this  theory  would  today be scarcely more than an interesting speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real basis.”

The realities of the scientific results, however, are quite different  than  what  was  assumed  by  Einstein  and  his  colleagues.  The  fact is, the MMX did measure an ether drift. It just didn’t measure a  drift  that  would  be  expected  if  the  Earth  were  moving  around  the  sun  at  30kms;  rather,  it  measured  a  drift  that  was  less  than  one-twentieth  of  30kms.

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years. “Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX), but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo andbehold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation butnot a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Michelson didn't say they saw no evidence of shift. He said it was "probably" less than 16% of what would be expected from Earth's alleged orbital motion. That's not the same as saying there's no evidence of shift, or that the measured shift was within the margin of instrumental error. In fact, he did see a shift...

Even though this did not disprove the existence of the ether, this was an extremely important discovery. The commonly-accepted theories about how light propagates would not be valid if the Earth were moving through the ether at 5 km/s, so science was facing a kind of crisis because of this news.

The theories of the time proposed that light traveled through the ether, which the Earth moved through at 30 km/s. This theory came about after Maxwell summarized the equations of electromagnetism in 1860. Up to this point, the established laws of physics were invariant under Galilean transformations: the simple picture where, if you're in a car at 60mph and someone's driving toward you at 60mph, you can say from your frame of reference that he is coming toward you at 120mph. That is, in a nutshell, classical relativity. Newton's laws of motion work equally well in any non-accelerating reference frame, and so are invariant under a Galilean transformation. That is, you can add a certain velocity to all object in a kinematics problem or move it fifteen miles to the left, and the math will work out the same for you.

It was found that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation. It also predicted electromagnetic waves that travelled at speed c, and since this number was close to the speed at which light had been measured, this was seen as likely confirmation that light was an electromagnetic wave. It was at this point that the “ether theory” made a comeback. According to this theory, the ether would be the “rest frame” from which the speed of light is measured at c. Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of this ether by calculating the difference in the speed of light in different directions, and they failed.

 If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

Your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.

Question for the moderators: why is mak3m allowed to troll the upper forums?

Ok try this



I, of height h, stand on a sphere of radius R and look out to the horizon. The furthest point I can see is defined by the tangent that grazes the Earth and passes through my eye.

a tangent is normal to the radius and so we can create a right-angle triangle with a hypotenuse of length (R+h). For the two sides of the right-angle, one will be of length R, and the other will be the distance the I can see (which is d on the diagram).

So thanks to Pythagroras, we can create an equation showing the relationship between all three sides of the triangle. Derivation allows us to compute an equation giving the distance to the horizon based on the radius of the the planet and my height as I view the horizon.


So assuming my eys are 1.8m off the ground and that the mean radius of the earth is 6,371km, we can plug in the values



so the furthest I can see ( not taking into account refraction) is 4.79 km

Now I am not taking refraction into account as we are talking about the principles of trigonometry here, if we were talking abosoloute figures we could refine with refraction etc.

So in an earlier post which you ignored, I showed how back in the day I would use a theodolite to carry out topographical surveys, and how that took into account the curvature of the earth.

Now the beautiful aspect of trig is that I can apply the principle here.



So the theodolite is placed perpendicular to the ground, as is the target, the instruments and target have fixed markings and levels to ensure that this can be achieved to a very high degree of accuracy.
Using measurements from both locations I can produce 4 sets of accurate coords, giving an arc from instrument to target, represented as the True Horizontal Distance, and between the bases of the instruments, on the diagram represented by the the earth surface.

So lets say l = the distance at the base, t as the height of the instrument and x to represent the difference between the base arc and the top arc.

Similar to above, I can calculate a ratio using the subtended angle. There are two similar segments, one with arc length l and a radius of R, and one with an arc length of l+x and a radius of R+t. Both of these segments share the same subtended angle on the globe.

So again using trig we can show the ratio of the lengths of the arcs to their respective circumferences and derivate this down to a simple formula for the difference between the two arcs



So using basic trig I can provide a formula where you can go out into the real world, take measurements, plug in the numbers and calculate the curvature.

Its all rough and ready, in my original post I show how it would be done in a survey situation. But like I said it shows the principle, and how you can apply trig

So so run me through yours

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2019, 05:07:36 AM

So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments

Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:

    The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe (Cleveland 1887.) – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
    —?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

So,
0,02 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,4) = 6,71 km/s (This is what Michelson measured in Cleveland in 1887.!!!)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!

0,01 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,4) = 4,74 km/s (This is what Michelson measured in Cleveland in 1887.!!!)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!

0,015 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 1,13) = 3,35 km/s (This is what Morley and Miller measured in Cleveland in 1902-1904.!!!)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!

0,002 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,75) = 1,5 km/s (This is what Joos measured in Jena in 1930.!!!)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!

So,

6,71 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!

4,47 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!

3,35 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!

1,5 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)

No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!

No look at the more modern ones! For 1973, upper bounds = 2.5 cm/sec.

So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments

And from Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments

I can't help but to wonder how MMX might work on VIRGO's 3km or LIGO's 4km interferometers.

I can't help but to wonder how MMX might work on VIRGO's 3km or LIGO's 4km interferometers.

It's funny the way cikljamas ignores everything after 1930! A bit of confirmation bias maybe?

Like sandokhan and most flat earthers: If it doesn't fit the "narrative" ignore it or declare it fabricated or "CGI".
Though sandokhan goes further and claims that Georges Sagnac didn't understand the Sagnac effect and really observed the Coriolis effect !
Poor old Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis would be turning in his grave!