Geocentric Earth model and Aether

Here is your "expert" being debunked by his fellow colleagues:

Let us now take a closer look at Neil Ashby's misleading use of the notion of "relativity of simultaneity" in order to deceive his readers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120205022334/tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf (page 11)

"But it's the absence of any explicit acknowledgment of special relativistic effects due to the speed of light being the same whenever measured by an observer, leading to the relativity of simultaneity and the associated Lorentz transformation physics - there's nothing of that at all modeled in the current system."

Exactly what "Special relativistic effects" would you expect? Time dilation with velocity is about the only one but that's relatively minor compared to the effect of the Earth's gravitational potential.

GPS SATELLITES DO NOT USE ANY KIND OF RELATIVISTIC CALCULATIONS!

Rubbish! And I'm not going to wade through pages of repeated material!

The GPS clocks are set low before launch to allow for the General Relativistic effects on clock rates. The first GPS satellites had frequency synthesisers to adjust the clock rates on the fly but that is no longer necessary.

But there is a grain of truth in "GPS satellites do not use any kind of relativistic calculations" because the relativistic calculations are done in the receivers and that is necessary because many depend on the motion of the receiver.

But GPS is short for Global Positioning System and the overall system most certainly does use relativistic calculation.

Relativity and the Global Positioning System

We need general relativity to understand extreme astrophysical realms. But the theory also turns out to be essential for the many mundane activities that nowadays rely on the precision of the GPS.

Neil Ashby is a professor of physics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Since 1974, he has been a consultant to NIST, Boulder, on relativistic effects on clocks.
Physics Today 55, 5, 41 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1485583

Relativity and the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby

And a number of other papers.

Whether you accept it or not Neil Ashby is an acknowledged authority on "Relativity and the Global Positioning System".

But Niel was debunked. See begining of 4. Page and my message just before you posted.


By the way sandokhan found them

But GPS is short for Global Positioning System and the overall system most certainly does use relativistic calculation.

No, it does not.

GPS uses GALILEAN TIME TRANSFORMATIONS.

Here is the proof.

The very paper you referenced: Relativity and the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby.

http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Ashby_2003.pdf (Sec. 2, equation (3))

GPS software uses the Newtonian or Galilean time transformation t' = t rather than t = γ(t−xv/c²) for the calculation of the Coriolis effect (called by modern science the Sagnac effect, even though the formula features the area and the angular velocity).

What would happen is the GPS software would incorporate the STR/Lorentz transformation effects? Then, no Coriolis effect correction would be recorded at all and the errors would amount to hundreds of nanoseconds (a timing error of one nanosecond can lead to a navigational error of 30 cm).

Ashby uses the GALILEAN time transformation t' = t and NOT Lorentz' transformation which would immediately invalidate the entire calculation.

But GPS is short for Global Positioning System and the overall system most certainly does use relativistic calculation.

No, it does not.

GPS uses GALILEAN TIME TRANSFORMATIONS.

Here is the proof.

The very paper you referenced: Relativity and the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby.

http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Ashby_2003.pdf (Sec. 2, equation (3))

GPS software uses the Newtonian or Galilean time transformation t' = t rather than t = γ(t−xv/c²)

Do you mean this equation? t = t', r = r', φ = φ' + ω_Et', z = z'.              (3)
Stop joking, that's not transforming any time!
It quite clearly reads: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ω_E".

for the calculation of the Coriolis effect (called by modern science[ the Sagnac effect, even though the formula features the area and the angular velocity).

No! It might be for the calculation of the Sagnac effect but certainly not the "Coriolis effect".

Scientists right from Georges Sagnac, himself, Ludwik Silberstein, Albert Michelson through to modern scientists knew full well that it was the Sagnac effect.

You seem to be the only one confusing the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect but you're no scientist!

His references estabish link between Saganac and coriolis

t' = t is the GALILEAN TIME TRANSFORMATION.

It is used by GPS and by Ashby.

He refuses to use the LORENTZ RELATIVISTIC TIME TRANSFORMATION, t' = γ(t−xv/c²), since then no CORIOLIS EFFECT would be measured at all.

Ashby acknowledges that the delay is caused by the CORIOLIS EFFECT:




Scientists right from Georges Sagnac, himself, Ludwik Silberstein, Albert Michelson through to modern scientists knew full well that it was the Sagnac effect.

Let's put your word to the test.

Tartaglia agrees with me:




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THE EXPRESSION.



Dr. Silberstein agreed with me:

As for the Coriolis effect formula here it is:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

PROOF

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




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

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

4. Sagnac effect? No, it is Coriolis effect

The author derives the formula which features the area USING ONLY THE CORIOLIS ACCELERATION.

Here is your "expert" being debunked by his fellow colleagues:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120205022334/tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf (page 11)

This reference supports Ashbey, it doesn't debunk him.
Try again.

It also refutes your lie that GPS doesn't use relativistic calculations.

GPS uses GALILEAN TIME TRANSFORMATIONS.

Focusing on a single point in the paper where such transformations are used does not mean no relativistic calculations are used.

Now again, do you have the calculations, ensuring you include every relativistic effect?

Back to discussion on begining of 4. page, Ashby was debuked here:
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-401/aflb401m820.pdf

You mean there was an objection to it, which was also objected to.

t' = t is the GALILEAN TIME TRANSFORMATION.

It is used by GPS and by Ashby.

He refuses to use the LORENTZ RELATIVISTIC TIME TRANSFORMATION, t' = γ(t−xv/c²), since then no CORIOLIS EFFECT would be measured at all.

Of course he refuses to use "the LORENTZ RELATIVISTIC TIME TRANSFORMATION, t' = γ(t−xv/c²)" because he is not transforming time at all !
Can't you even read what he writes?

Do you mean this equation? t = t', r = r', φ = φ' + ω_Et', z = z'.              (3)
Stop joking, that's not transforming any time!
It quite clearly reads: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ω_E".

Ashby acknowledges that the delay is caused by the CORIOLIS EFFECT:
https://image.ibb.co/geRwSo/kel11.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/fkfHYT/kel10.jpg

No Ashby does not "acknowledge that the delay is caused by the Coriolis effect"!

He says on page 397: "appears to rise from the Coriolis-like term in the scalar invariant"
and on page 398: "appropriate Sagnac-like corrections, of the form , are applied.

Can't you recognise that this is nothing like the ?
That is pure and simple the form of the Coriolis effect!

And it's nothing like what Ashby calls "Sagnac-like corrections" - this: .

Sorry, no time for any more!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2261604#msg2261604

I see nothing of value in there. Just some videos of inadequate gyros and a big quote from one who knows nothing about physics!

If you expect a rational debate after that, forget it! All your post proves your inability to understand the real meaning behind what you quote.

You might (not) like to read:
        Geocentrism Debunked: Some Background on the New Geocentrists

        Geocentrism Debunked: Geocentrism as Bad Theology

        Geocentrism Debunked: Geocentrism and Science

        Geocentrism Debunked: Galileo and the Church

        Geocentrism Debunked: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion

        Geocentrism Debunked: Robert Sungenis: Incompetent in Physics

        Geocentrism Debunked: As the Universe Turns

Quote from: cikljamas on June 21, 2020, 06:33:12 AM

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2261604#msg2261604

I see nothing of value in there. Just some videos of inadequate gyros and a big quote from one who knows nothing about physics!

Isn't it utterly ironic that i always have to emphasize quoted (or not quoted) words with colors and changed sizes of letters so to attract attention of such arrogant incompetent ignorant people like you? (And when i do that, then incompetent, arrogant ignorant people pretend that they don't understand english) :

Robert Sungenis :
It has been shown over and over again by qualified physicists that every single motion
you attribute to the Earth in a fixed Universe can be demonstrated by a Universe
rotating around a fixed Earth. - For example, in 1918, Hans Thirring was the first
to show how this would work. He showed, by pure mathematics, how a rotating universe
would affect pendulums on Earth, satellites above the Earth, winds on Earth, and even
how its own nutation and precession would affect what we see on Earth. As Max Born notes:

...Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless Earth.’ This would
mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are
performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth’s
axis…one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced
according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done
by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and
proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other
inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view,
Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of
expediency.
---- Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, 1962, 1965, pp. 344-345. Thirring’s model has been duplicated by
Barbour & Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1, 1977) and Joseph Rosen (“Extended Mach’s Principle,” American
Journal of Physics, Vol 49, No. 3, March 1981) using Hamiltonians; and by William G. V. Rosser (An Introduction
to the Theory of Relativity, 1964) who expanded on Thirring’s paper and noted that the universe’s rotation can
exceed c by many magnitudes; Christian Møller (The Theory of Relativity, 1952) who also extended Thirring’s paper
using a ring universe rather than a shell; G. Burniston Brown (“A Theory of Action at a Distance,” Proceedings of
the Physical Society, 1955) who discovered geocentrism based on Newtonian physics; Parry Moon and Domina
Spencer (“Mach’s Principle,” Philosophy of Science, 1959) who arrive at geocentrism using Mach’s principle; J.
David Nightingale (“Specific physical consequences of Mach’s principle,” 1976) who transposed the Einstein
equation of Mach’s principle into Newtonian physics for a geocentric universe; and several others do the same.

Thirring discovered that the gravitational field inside the rotating universe was above zero.
He discovered that these “above zero” forces are caused by the centrifugal and Coriolis forces,
the very ones that are deemed “fictitious” in the Newtonian system and thus would measure zero.
But since they were above zero in Thirring’s geocentric model, this meant they were real forces
and not fictitious. It is these very forces that are understood as gravitational forces in the
geocentric system. In fact, since the geocentric model includes the entire universe and
doesn’t need to add in “fictitious” forces, it shows itself to be the more complete system,
as opposed to the Newtonian which must confine itself to our solar system and consider
the universe “absolute” (non-moving) and dynamically inert.

Thirring’s 1918 paper was followed by Christian Møller in 1952 who analyzed how the
Milky Way and the solar system rotating around a fixed Earth would affect things on
Earth. This was followed by Birkoff, who showed that the inertial forces are the same as
gravity. Next, Brown used Newtonian gravity and arrived at a geocentric universe. This
was followed by Nightengale and Rosser who showed how the universe can rotate much
faster than light and not become unstable. And best of all was Barbour and Bertotti, all
of which are listed in my book, GWW. They all found the same thing, that is, everything
we see on Earth can be explained by a rotating universe around a fixed Earth, including
all the precessions and nutations. Obviously, no scientist worth his salt is going to
disagree with this finding since if they did he would have to admit that the laws of
physics are different depending on where one is in the universe. If you complained to
one of these scientists, or even Einstein, that such a reversal of what we have been
taught (e.g. the Earth rotating and revolving) is merely a Rube Goldberg, they would
point the finger right back at you. Not only is a rotating universe simpler and more
stable than a rotating and revolving Earth, it answers a lot more questions that have
plagued your model (e.g., can light go beyond c?; can gravity go beyond c? what is
inertia and where does it come from? How do we get out from under having to use
‘fictitious’ forces to send up satellites?, etc.).

The Newtonian system not only has a problem with ‘fictitious’ forces and making the
universe inert, it also has a problem with how to integrate these fictitious forces with its
gravity equation. For example, the gravity equation, F = GMm/r2 is said to equal the
centrifugal/centripetal equation F = mv2/r, so that the forces balance and the planet can
orbit the sun. But if we reduce the F = GMm/r2 = mv2/r to its least common multiple,
the small “m” cancels on both sides and we are left with GM/r2 = v2/r, which means that
the mass of the planet has been excluded and only the sun’s mass is left to determine the
orbit. But the original equation (F = GMm/r2) requires that both bodies, the sun and the
planet, be used to calculate the orbit. Apparently, there is a defect in Newtonian
mechanics, but we have no such defect in the geocentric system.

A LITTLE REMINDER :

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:09:28 AM

William Magie, president of the American Physical Society, pointed out one of the obvious ones in 1911. To his scientific constituents he complained :

The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?

Why is luminiferous aether needed to observe an interference pattern?

If you expect respectful answered make respectful requests.

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question. Not only that, the existence of ether is a proven fact (Sagnac effect). You should really carefully read these posts again :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254236#msg2254236
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254388#msg2254388
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254393#msg2254393
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254727#msg2254727
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254804#msg2254804
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254840#msg2254840
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254967#msg2254967
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255299#msg2255299
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255301#msg2255301
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255963#msg2255963
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2256632#msg2256632
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2256769#msg2256769
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257182#msg2257182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257753#msg2257753
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257908#msg2257908
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258086#msg2258086
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258145#msg2258145

EVERYONE ACCEPTS THE EXISTENCE OF THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER/RECORD THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is a fact of science.

Then, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

There is no missing orbital sagnac effect.

There is nothing for GPS satellites to "register/record".

This is not a fact of science.

Thus, the earth is orbiting the Sun.

Explain how robots on Mars can watch the Earth orbit the Sun if that isn't the case.

Or give a mathematical model that can predict the movements of the Sun and all the other planets with the Earth being at the center.

If you can't do both, then the Earth must orbit the sun.

You certainly need tutoring in physics.

Ashby is using the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS with t' = t, instead of t' = y(t - xv/c²).


There is no missing orbital sagnac effect.

Let's put your word to a mighty test.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.

You have to deal with the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which you are not.


LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING.

You certainly need tutoring in physics.

Ashby is using the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS with t' = t, instead of t' = y(t - xv/c²).

There is no missing orbital sagnac effect.

Let's put your word to a mighty test.

You need tutoring in quoting and attributing correctly. Your posts are an intelligible mess with no attributions to indicate if your speaking, quoting board members or pulling quotes off of random pages from the internet. It's just all crammed together.

Let me repeat my questions that you completely ignored.

Explain how robots on Mars can watch the Earth orbit the Sun if that isn't the case.

Or give a mathematical model that can predict the movements of the Sun and all the other planets with the Earth being at the center.

If you can't do both, then the Earth must orbit the sun.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 21, 2020, 01:05:00 AM

Back to discussion on begining of 4. page, Ashby was debuked here:
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-401/aflb401m820.pdf

You mean there was an objection to it, which was also objected to.

And his objection to objection was objected by same man he objected

And what about "Saganac: correct and incorect explanations" which estabilshes link between saganac and coriolis effects?


(  https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86200.msg2261579#msg2261579 )

Also,





No area. Is he talking about F.O. conveyor or FOG?

And what about "Saganac: correct and incorect explanations" which estabilshes link between saganac and coriolis effects?


(  https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86200.msg2261579#msg2261579 )

Also,





No area. Is he talking about F.O. conveyor or FOG?

Stop being a hype-man.

There is no missing Sagnac Effect.

I'm far from having a firm grasp on the math and physics behind a lot of what is discussed, but I do understand why there would be no Sagnac Effect in relation to the earth orbiting the Sun.  It's all about the frame of reference.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130218082359/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf

The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame.

As for the missing orbital Sagnac effect, it is a fact of science:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86200.msg2261628#msg2261628

You certainly need tutoring in physics.

Ashby is using the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS with t' = t, instead of t' = y(t - xv/c²).

Where did he use the "LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS with t' = t, instead of t' = y(t - xv/c²)"?
In the "transformation" you referred to Ashby was not transforming any time at all.
Read what Ashby wrote: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ω_E" - in that there is no time transformation at all.

There is no missing orbital Sagnac effect.

Firstly the topic is NOT about any so-called "missing orbital Sagnac effect" but is "Geocentric Earth model and Aether"!

Read what Ching-Chuan Su says in the paper YOU referred to again:

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s rotation.
Thus the present high-precision GPS would be entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital motion is really necessary.

But the present high-precision GPS does operate as specified and Ching-Chuan Su obviously assumes that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun!

If there were significant "missing orbital Sagnac effect" the GNSS satellites would not operate as specified - end of story.

Ching-Chuan Su puts it down to his local-ether model but I would claim GTR but whatever the case there is no significant missing Sagnav effect - get used to it!.

Let's put your word to a mighty test.
<< Ignored because the LISA satellites are not orbiting the Earth. >>

And I'll continue ignoring copy-pasta that has been deemed irrelevant so many times.

Isn't it utterly ironic that i always have to emphasize quoted (or not quoted) words with colors and changed sizes of letters so to attract attention of such arrogant incompetent ignorant people like you? (And when i do that, then incompetent, arrogant ignorant people pretend that they don't understand english) :

You mean to try to ignore the real meaning?
Or alternatively, just because you posted in loads of spam.
Maybe if you try to just get to the point rather than spamming so much it would be easier to see what you want to highlight?

The simple fact is the geocentric universe requires so much extra nonsense to make it all work and can't really explain anything, especially why Earth remains magically fixed in place.

You certainly need tutoring in physics.

No, that would still be you.
You also could do with some tutoring in logic.

Again, using one type of transformation in one specific section doesn't magically mean relativity isn't used.
There is no logical connection at all.

There is no missing orbital sagnac effect.
Let's put your word to a mighty test.

Such claims have been tested repeatedly, and they have passed every time.
But there is already another thread for that, so lets leave it out.

And his objection to objection was objected by same man he objected

And that doesn't negate the point. It clearly isn't a simple refutation like Sandy wants to pretend.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the not to distant future that is also objected to.

Also note that the standard for peer review for such a letter to the editor is not high. The publisher even made that clear with a note.

Again, using one type of transformation in one specific section doesn't magically mean relativity isn't used.
There is no logical connection at all.

But there is, SINCE EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS, EACH AND EVERY CALCULATION IS BASED ON THE GALILEAN TIME TRANSFORMATION T' = T.

Ashby does not use the Lorentz transformations since he knows that if he did, there would be no Sagnac delay being recorded.

Where did he use the "LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS

Ashby uses the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS, minus the term t'= y(t - xv/c^2).

If you do not know that those ARE the Lorentz transformations you have a huge problem.

But the present high-precision GPS does operate as specified and Ching-Chuan Su obviously assumes that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun!

He can assume that ONLY BECAUSE HE NOW USES THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL which actually destroys heliocentricity.

If there were significant "missing orbital Sagnac effect" the GNSS satellites would not operate as specified - end of story.

Your ignorance again is in full display for all of the readers to behold.

Of course they are not being registered since the Earth is stationary.

but whatever the case there is no significant missing Sagnav effect

Let's put your word to the test.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.

You have to deal with the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which you are not.


LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING.

You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING.

For the 1000th time, you keep referring to LISA. LISA's frame of reference is the Sun, that's where you get the "orbital" bit. LISA has nothing to do with GPS.

But it has.

GPS satellites also orbit the Sun as well.

That is why the relativists are embracing the local-ether model since they cannot explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect for the GPS satellites.

You want me to post the proofs again, until you actually understand this basic fact of science?

But it has.

GPS satellites also orbit the Sun as well.

That is why the relativists are embracing the local-ether model since they cannot explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect for the GPS satellites.

You want me to post the proofs again, until you actually understand this basic fact of science?

GPS satellites orbit the Earth. The Earth is their frame of reference. Orbital Sagnac around the Sun is irrelevant when all GPS cares about is its orbit around the Earth. That's the whole point of GPS - To know where it is in relation to earth. GPS doesn't care where it is in the Solar System.

LISA orbits the Sun. The Sun is its frame of reference. LISA cares about its orbit around the Sun because it orbits the Sun, not Earth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130218082359/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf

The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame.

Orbital Sagnac around the Sun is irrelevant when all GPS cares about is its orbit around the Earth.

Let's put your word to the test.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

The author of the paper never wrote that bit I bolded in red. You inserted that yourself.

He never even claims orbital sagnac is "missing". He says:

"Thus the present high-precision GPS would be entirely impossible if the ignored correction due to orbital motion is really necessary. Thereby, it is concluded that the wave propagation in GPS is actually in accord with the classical propagation in an ECI frame."

If the ignored...Not missing, ignored. Like I've been saying all along. It's unnecessary (ignored) because GPS' frame of references is the Earth, not the Sun.

All he is doing is trying to pull the concept of Ether back into the mix. In no way does he support your "missing Orbital Sagnac" stuff. He concludes:

"By examining the Sagnac effect in GPS and a transpacific microwave link, it is found that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations. However, the Earth’s rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect."

He's a big proponent of ether but also of a rotating earth.

I suppose you can't mis-copy and paste this reference anymore as it directly refutes your stance.

You are trolling the thread.

The entire point of Dr. Su's articles, which have been published in mainstream journals, is to ACCEPT THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL, in order to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect for GPS satellites.

All he is doing is trying to pull the concept of Ether back into the mix. In no way does he support your "missing Orbital Sagnac" stuff.

You dummy.

Of course that supports the missing orbital Sagnac effect, since otherwise there'd be no need to bring the local-ether model into the mix.

"By examining the Sagnac effect in GPS and a transpacific microwave link, it is found that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations. However, the Earth’s rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect."

Of course!

There is no orbital motion registered by GPS satellites: it is MISSING.

Now you have two choices: either the Earth does not orbit the Sun, or you must accept the local-ether model.

He's a big proponent of ether but also of a rotating earth.

You can't have a rotating Earth with ether.

I suppose you can't mis-copy and paste this reference anymore as it directly refutes your stance.

Your nonsense has been debunked in 30 seconds.


Dr. Su:

By comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.

Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.

In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

You are trolling the thread.

The entire point of Dr. Su's articles, which have been published in mainstream journals, is to ACCEPT THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL, in order to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect for GPS satellites.

No, this is what the point of the article is, "... it is concluded that due to the Earth’s rotation, the shift in interference fringe in
this famous experiment (MMX) is not exactly zero." The author goes on to write that the fringe shift is so slight it can't quite be measured yet.

And he goes on to talk about a rotating earth and how we go about measuring orbital sagnac from an interplanetary perspective, etc. Everything in the paper is about a rotating globe earth that orbits the sun and his preference is one with a stationary ether. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. It does not in anyway support a flat, stationary earth, quite the opposite.

Everything in the paper is about a rotating globe earth that orbits the sun and his preference is one with a stationary ether.

It is not a preference.

It is the ONLY option left to science: to accept MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).