Solar power source

You are an embarrassment to the RE.

They will never forgive you for this.

You should have stayed in AR, here you are more than useless.

That is possibly because any changes due to the solar gravitational potential effect are too small to register.

You must be dreaming.


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf

It is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the
receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one
another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the
chosen frame of reference—in this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial
frame.

N. Ashby tried to make a similar claim.

Ashby’s claim is equivalent to the claim
found elsewhere [22] that the local frame rotates with the
orbit and that the sun’s differential gravitational potential
is canceled by “centripetal acceleration,” i.e. by the
differential velocity with respect to the sun. In other
words, it is claimed that the inertial frame indeed rotates
once per year. However, the GPS clocks clearly show
this argument is not valid. The orientation of the GPS
orbital planes does not rotate to maintain the same angle
with respect to the sun, so there is no differential velocity
orthogonal to the orbital plane. And there can be no
differential velocity within the orbital plane or else
Kepler’s laws would be violated. Thus, GPS clocks do not
suffer centripetal acceleration. Furthermore, if this
argument were correct, the differential gravitational
potential would be canceled in the sun’s frame as well.
The JPL reference document [7] and the Hill pulsar
document [19] clearly show that such a cancellation does
not occur.

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf


YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ANOMALY INHERENT IN GPS TECHNOLOGY:

Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed. This is the
well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.
In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS
works better than expected from the TR.


Obviously the gravitational
slowing of the atomic clocks on Earth cannot be due to
relative velocity because these clocks rest with respect to
the laboratory observer. What is immediately disturbing
here is that two completely distinct physical causes produce
identical effects, which by it alone is highly suspicious.
GR gives only a geometrical interpretation to the
gravitational time dilation. However, if motions cause
time dilation, why then does the orbital motion of Earth
suppress the time dilation caused by the solar gravitational
potential on the earthbased and GPS clocks? Absurdly
in one case motion causes time dilation and in the
other case it suppresses it. This contradiction lets evident
that what causes the gravitational time dilation is not the
gravitational potential and that moreover this time dilation
cannot be caused by a scalar quantity. If the time dilation
shown by the atomic clocks within the earthbased
laboratories is not due to the gravitational potential and
cannot be due to relative velocity too then it is necessarily
due to some other cause. This impasse once more
puts in check the central idea of the TR, according to
which the relative velocity with respect to the observer is
the physical parameter that rules the effects of motions.
The above facts show that the parameter that rules the
effects of motions is not relative velocity but a velocity
of a more fundamental nature.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780


but who accepts the local ether model?

Every scientist who is faced with the fact that the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Sagnac effect must accept eventually the Lorentz ether model.

C.C. Su certainly accepts the reality of the Earth rotating and orbiting the Sun, so completely ignore I'll your attempt to use his work to disprove those things!

Dr. Su just presented ABSOLUTE PROOFS that the GPS satellites do not record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

His papers are published in the most respected journals.

However, if the GPS satellites do not record the ORBITAL SAGNAC, then obviously the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Very simple to understand.

That is why HE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THE LOCAL-AETHER MODEL.

But this contradicts each and every statement ever made by Newton or by Einstein.


EVERYONE ACCEPTS THE EXISTENCE OF THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

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.


The MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS A FACT OF SCIENCE, ACCEPTED BY BOTH NASA AND ESA AND CALTECH.


Now, we are back to your catastrophic derivation and comparison.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 14, 2019, 04:49:53 AM

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².

Thus, the Clayton model is fully vindicated, as is all of the information I have provided in this thread.


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.



As for the scienceforums link, I WAS THE ONE WHO MENTIONED IT, remember?

Let's go to page 1 of that link.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/#comments

A total disaster for the "physicists" at scienceforums.

They are unable to mount any kind of a defense.

Their star, swansontea, cannot explain anything at all.

Page 2

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/page/2/#comments

A huge disaster for scienceforums: they resort to trolling to escape the unavoidable conclusions.

Page 3

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/page/3/#comments

A total disaster for scienceforums: they cannot explain the fact that the SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature any area at all.

So, they are forced to close the thread.

As for the comments of the mods, they do this with every thread they close, in order to convey a positive image for themselves, but the thread speaks for itself: they were unable to explain the formulas I presented.


rabinoz linked the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT WITH THE 274 M/S2 FIGURE.

Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

Therefore a(sun) = ZERO.

You need to do your homework.

Relativity in the Global Positioning System
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1

"The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work. This paper discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation using GPS. Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization. Experimental tests of relativity obtained with a GPS receiver aboard the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite will be discussed. Recently frequency jumps arising from satellite orbit adjustments have been identified as relativistic effects. These will be explained and some interesting applications of GPS will be discussed.

The purpose of this article is to explain how relativistic effects are accounted for in the GPS. Although clock velocities are small and gravitational fields are weak near the earth, they give rise to significant relativistic effects. These effects include first- and second-order Doppler frequency shifts of clocks due to their relative motion, gravitational frequency shifts, and the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation. If such effects are not accounted for properly, unacceptably large errors in GPS navigation and time transfer will result. In the GPS one can find many examples of the application of fundamental relativity principles. These are worth careful study. Also, experimental tests of relativity can be performed with GPS, although generally speaking these are not at a level of precision any better than previously existing tests.

2 Reference Frames and the Sagnac Effect
Almost all users of GPS are at fixed locations on the rotating earth, or else are moving very slowly over earth’s surface. This led to an early design decision to broadcast the satellite ephemerides in a model earth-centered, earth-fixed, reference frame (ECEF frame), in which the model earth rotates about a fixed axis with a defined rotation rate, ωE = 7.2921151467 × 10−5 rad s−1. This reference frame is designated by the symbol WGS-84 (G873) [19, 3]. For discussions of relativity, the particular choice of ECEF frame is immaterial. Also, the fact the the earth truly rotates about a slightly different axis with a variable rotation rate has little consequence for relativity and I shall not go into this here. I shall simply regard the ECEF frame of GPS as closely related to, or determined by, the International Terrestrial Reference Frame established by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.

It should be emphasized that the transmitted navigation messages provide the user only with a function from which the satellite position can be calculated in the ECEF as a function of the transmission time. Usually, the satellite transmission times tj are unequal, so the coordinate system in which the satellite positions are specified changes orientation from one measurement to the next. Therefore, to implement Eqs. (1), the receiver must generally perform a different rotation for each measurement made, into some common inertial frame, so that Eqs. (1) apply. After solving the propagation delay equations, a final rotation must usually be performed into the ECEF to determine the receiver’s position. This can become exceedingly complicated and confusing. A technical note [10] discusses these issues in considerable detail.

In the ECEF frame used in the GPS, the unit of time is the SI second as realized by the clock ensemble of the U.S. Naval Observatory, and the unit of length is the SI meter. This is important in the GPS because it means that local observations using GPS are insensitive to effects on the scales of length and time measurements due to other solar system bodies, that are time-dependent.

Let us therefore consider the simplest instance of a transformation from an inertial frame, in which the space-time is Minkowskian, to a rotating frame of reference. Thus, ignoring gravitational potentials for the moment, the metric in an inertial frame in cylindrical coordinates is
−𝑑𝑠2=−(𝑐𝑑𝑡)2+𝑑𝑟2+𝑟2𝑑𝜙2+𝑑𝑧2,
(2)
and the transformation to a coordinate system {t′, r′, φ′, z′} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE is
𝑡=𝑡′,𝑟=𝑟′,𝜙=𝜙′+𝜔𝐸𝑡′,𝑧=𝑧′.
(3)
This results in the following well-known metric (Langevin metric) in the rotating frame:
−𝑑𝑠2=−(1−𝜔2𝐸𝑟′2𝑐2)(𝑐𝑑𝑡′)2+2𝜔𝐸𝑟′2𝑑𝜙′𝑑𝑡′+(𝑑𝜎′)2,
(4)
where the abbreviated expression (dσ′)2 = (dr′)2 + (r′dφ′)2 +(dz′)2 for the square of the coordinate distance has been used.
The time transformation t = t′ in Eqs. (3) is deceivingly simple. It means that in the rotating frame the time variable t′ is really determined in the underlying inertial frame. It is an example of coordinate time. A similar concept is used in the GPS.

Now consider a process in which observers in the rotating frame attempt to use Einstein synchronization (that is, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light) to establish a network of synchronized clocks. Light travels along a null worldline, so we may set ds2 = 0 in Eq. (4). Also, it is sufficient for this discussion to keep only terms of first order in the small parameter ωEr′/c. Then
(𝑐𝑑𝑡′)2−2𝜔𝐸𝑟′2𝑑𝜙′(𝑐𝑑𝑡′)𝑐−(𝑑𝜎′)2=0,
(5)
and solving for (cdt′) yields
𝑐𝑑𝑡′=𝑑𝜎′+𝜔𝐸𝑟′2𝑑𝜙′𝑐.
(6)
The quantity r′2dφ′/2 is just the infinitesimal area dA′z in the rotating coordinate system swept out by a vector from the rotation axis to the light pulse, and projected onto a plane parallel to the equatorial plane. Thus, the total time required for light to traverse some path is
∫𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑑𝑡′=∫𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑑𝜎′𝑐+2𝜔𝐸𝑐2∫𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑑𝐴′𝑧.[𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡]
(7)
Observers fixed on the earth, who were unaware of earth rotation, would use just ƒ dσ′/c for synchronizing their clock network. Observers at rest in the underlying inertial frame would say that this leads to significant path-dependent inconsistencies, which are proportional to the projected area encompassed by the path. Consider, for example, a synchronization process that follows earth’s equator in the eastwards direction. For earth, 2ωE/c2 = 1.6227 × 10−21 s m−2 and the equatorial radius is a1 = 6,378,137 m, so the area is πa 1 2 = 1.27802 × 1014 m2. Thus, the last term in Eq. (7) is
2𝜔𝐸𝑐2∫𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑑𝐴′𝑧=207.4𝑛𝑠.

GPS can be used to compare times on two earth-fixed clocks when a single satellite is in view from both locations. This is the “common-view” method of comparison of Primary standards, whose locations on earth’s surface are usually known very accurately in advance from ground-based surveys. Signals from a single GPS satellite in common view of receivers at the two locations provide enough information to determine the time difference between the two local clocks. The Sagnac effect is very important in making such comparisons, as it can amount to hundreds of nanoseconds, depending on the geometry. In 1984 GPS satellites 3, 4, 6, and 8 were used in simultaneous common view between three pairs of earth timing centers, to accomplish closure in performing an around-the-world Sagnac experiment. The centers were the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in Boulder, CO, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Braunschweig, West Germany, and Tokyo Astronomical Observatory (TAO). The size of the Sagnac correction varied from 240 to 350 ns. Enough data were collected to perform 90 independent circumnavigations. The actual mean value of the residual obtained after adding the three pairs of time differences was 5 ns, which was less than 2 percent of the magnitude of the calculated total Sagnac effect [4]."

Do you understand what we are discussing here?

It seems that you do not, since you just quoted from N. Ashby's paper on the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Do you understand the difference between the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC and the ORBITAL SAGNAC?

Make sure you understand the huge difference:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1989098#msg1989098



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.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


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.


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.

rabinoz linked the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT WITH THE 274 M/S2 FIGURE.

Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

Therefore a(sun) = ZERO.

You are an embarrassment to the RE.
They will never forgive you for this.
You should have stayed in AR, here you are more than useless.

You're really getting worked up now aren't you?
But I'm wondering why you refuse tho address your 600 m diameter sun only 15 km above the Earth - are you top embarrassed?

That is possibly because any changes due to the solar gravitational potential effect are too small to register.

You must be dreaming.

Nope! As Neil Ashby correctly shows "any changes due to the solar gravitational potential effect are too small to register".

RELATIVITY AND GPS, Ronald R. Hatch (Section I: Special Relativity)

You mean the Ronald R. Hatch of the Electric Universe?
Sorry, but on relativity, I'd accept what Neil Ashby says above what Ronald R. Hatch and especially what you say.

<< Hence ignored >>

but who accepts the local ether model?

Every scientist who is faced with the fact that the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Sagnac effect must accept eventually the Lorentz ether model.

SO you name ONE!

C.C. Su certainly accepts the reality of the Earth rotating and orbiting the Sun, so completely ignore I'll your attempt to use his work to disprove those things!

Dr. Su just presented ABSOLUTE PROOFS that the GPS satellites do not record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

He did? But who's arguing?

His papers are published in the most respected journals.

However, if the GPS satellites do not record the ORBITAL SAGNAC, then obviously the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Where did C.C. Su ever even hint at that? Chapter and verse please!

Very simple to understand.

That is why HE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THE LOCAL-AETHER MODEL.

But this contradicts each and every statement ever made by Newton or by Einstein.

EVERYONE ACCEPTS THE EXISTENCE OF THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

LISA Space Antenna


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The LISA geometry is totally different but I'll look into it later.

Now, we are back to your catastrophic derivation and comparison.

Catastrophic?
When, without referencing G, the mass of the Earth or the mass of the Sun, I calculated a value of g_sun withinn a fraction of a percent of the correct value!

Quote from: rabinoz on November 14, 2019, 04:49:53 AM

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

That method might but I could use values from you and your own first reference and do it like this:

Quote from: sandokhan on November 13, 2019, 01:23:27 AM

If G is a constant, as you say, then simply substituting its well-known expression, G = gr²/M, will modify nothing at all, unless you have something to hide.

I've nothing to hide but the "well-known expression" is not "G = g.r²/M" but is g = G M/r².

Now we know that:
the mass of the sun = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg, r = 700,000,000 m (you said so ^[1]) and G = 6.67 x 10^-11 m³⋅kg⁻¹⋅s⁻² (Rick Bradford used that value in evaluating the parameters).

So we get g = 6.67 x 10^-11 x 1.989 x 10³⁰/700,000,000² = 270.7 m/s² but had you used r = 695,510 km, the results would have been g = 274.3 m/s², funny that!

[1]	Quote from: sandokhan on November 11, 2019, 02:02:32 PM M = 1.989 x 1030 kg Using P(700,000,000)

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².

No, we are NOT, see above.

Thus, the Clayton model is fully vindicated, as is all of the information I have provided in this thread.

Sure, "the Clayton model" is "fully vindicated" as an approximation but it is "certainly grossly wrong at the surface of the star".
:

From page 11:
We have seen above that the Clayton model is expected to be seriously in error for values of x greater than unity, and certainly grossly wrong at the surface of the star. Nevertheless, it is of interest to see what numerical values are predicted at the surface. For this we use R/a = 5.4, which gives the density, pressure and temperature at the surface to be 1.3 x 10^-6 kg/m³, 4.1 x 10³ Pa (=0.041 atm) and 233,000 K respectively.
The density and pressure are at least small - though whether they are small enough is not obvious without comparison with the correct result. The density is equivalent to about 7 x 10²⁰ protons per m³, and a pressure of 0.041 atm is a very poor vacuum. . . . . .  Hence, for reasonable predictions near the surface of the star we need to solve the full structure equation, (10), for which a polytopic equation of state is required.

Why do you continue to ignore the clear statement made in your own reference?

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.

What a magnificient leap of logic that is! Congratulations, but does:

• C.C. Su accept your claim that "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all"?
• Ronald R Hatch accept your claim that "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all"?

As for the scienceforums link, I WAS THE ONE WHO MENTIONED IT, remember?

I see a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome coming up!
YOU are going to claim that, even with your proven erroneous "Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula", know more about physics than all those real physicists.

Let's go to page 1 of that link.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/#comments

A total disaster for the "physicists" at scienceforums.

They are unable to mount any kind of a defense.

Projecting again, I see! Don't you mean that you were "unable to mount any kind of" retional "defense"?

Their star, swansontea, cannot explain anything at all.
A huge disaster for scienceforums: they resort to trolling to escape the unavoidable conclusions.

Let's igmore the rest of that debacle!

rabinoz linked the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT WITH THE 274 M/S2 FIGURE.

How do you work that out? Exact quote please.

Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.
Therefore a(sun) = ZERO.

Wow, what a leap!

But, Mr Sandokhan, I'll guarantee that none of your sources agrees with your claims that:

• The Earth is flat and stationary.
• The Sun is 600 m in diameter and 15 km above the Earth.
• That "a(sun) = ZERO" ( I assume that you mean that "g_sun)= ZERO but what would I know.
• That the Clayton model can be used to accurately predict the pressure in the Sun's chromosphere.

Do you understand what we are discussing here?

Please desist from this continued spamming with exactly the same material over and over again.
None of your references ever seem to agree with your conclusions so you are simply wasting your time.
You simply cherry-pick bits and pieces from here and there.

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.

Why are you citing a NASA project, LISA?

As Neil Ashby correctly shows "any changes due to the solar gravitational potential effect are too small to register".

The solar gravitational potential effect IS MUCH LARGER than the rotational solar gravitational effect. It has to be, since we are dealing with the orbital radius.

N. Ashby's argument was debunked very easily.

It is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the
receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one
another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the
chosen frame of reference—in this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial
frame.

N. Ashby tried to make a similar claim.

Ashby’s claim is equivalent to the claim
found elsewhere [22] that the local frame rotates with the
orbit and that the sun’s differential gravitational potential
is canceled by “centripetal acceleration,” i.e. by the
differential velocity with respect to the sun. In other
words, it is claimed that the inertial frame indeed rotates
once per year. However, the GPS clocks clearly show
this argument is not valid. The orientation of the GPS
orbital planes does not rotate to maintain the same angle
with respect to the sun, so there is no differential velocity
orthogonal to the orbital plane. And there can be no
differential velocity within the orbital plane or else
Kepler’s laws would be violated. Thus, GPS clocks do not
suffer centripetal acceleration. Furthermore, if this
argument were correct, the differential gravitational
potential would be canceled in the sun’s frame as well.
The JPL reference document [7] and the Hill pulsar
document [19] clearly show that such a cancellation does
not occur.

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf


YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ANOMALY INHERENT IN GPS TECHNOLOGY:

Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed. This is the
well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.
In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS
works better than expected from the TR.


Obviously the gravitational
slowing of the atomic clocks on Earth cannot be due to
relative velocity because these clocks rest with respect to
the laboratory observer. What is immediately disturbing
here is that two completely distinct physical causes produce
identical effects, which by it alone is highly suspicious.
GR gives only a geometrical interpretation to the
gravitational time dilation. However, if motions cause
time dilation, why then does the orbital motion of Earth
suppress the time dilation caused by the solar gravitational
potential on the earthbased and GPS clocks? Absurdly
in one case motion causes time dilation and in the
other case it suppresses it. This contradiction lets evident
that what causes the gravitational time dilation is not the
gravitational potential and that moreover this time dilation
cannot be caused by a scalar quantity. If the time dilation
shown by the atomic clocks within the earthbased
laboratories is not due to the gravitational potential and
cannot be due to relative velocity too then it is necessarily
due to some other cause. This impasse once more
puts in check the central idea of the TR, according to
which the relative velocity with respect to the observer is
the physical parameter that rules the effects of motions.
The above facts show that the parameter that rules the
effects of motions is not relative velocity but a velocity
of a more fundamental nature.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780

You mean Ronald R. Hatch?

Ron Hatch is an internationally renowned expert on GPS satellite technology.

Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc.
Institute of Navigation (ION), including Chair of the Satellite Division, President and Fellow.
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

Ronald R. Hatch is a recipient of the Johannes Kepler Award from
the Institute of Navigation because he was the most significant
contributor to the advancement of satellite navigation. He has
over 30 years experience in designing navigation systems and has
been consulted by government agencies and companies.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT completely proves the statement made by Ron Hatch.

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361

In 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721


Where did C.C. Su ever even hint at that? Chapter and verse please!

I already did, which means you are trolling this forum.

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.

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://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.


Scientists who accept the local-ether model:

Professor Ruyong Wang
Professor C.C. Su
Professor S.G Gift
Dr. C. Lo (MIT)

Their papers have been published in the best scientific journals.

Their conclusions are ACCEPTED FACTS OF SCIENCE.


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

You are trolling this forum, again and again.

Sure, "the Clayton model" is "fully vindicated" as an approximation but it is "certainly grossly wrong at the surface of the star".

Not at all.

Obviously, Rick Bradford did not fully investigate/research the Clayton model, as did Dr. A.C. Phillips (University of Manchester).

Remember that "The Physics of the Stars" is published by Wiley, one of the top publishers of scientific textbooks, and at such it is heavily peer-reviewed at every step.

The statements/graphs used by Dr. A.C. Phillips, pertaining to the Clayton model, passed this review process with flying colors.


https://books.google.ro/books?id=ue2D__e06XkC&pg=PT146&lpg=PT146&dq=clayton+model+accuracy+stellar+pressure&source=bl&ots=nw7jNgMv4i&sig=ACfU3U1JJ5IALZvJlJw3avQmR0XQXHjnnQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicyeGX0uflAhURPFAKHWMuBi0Q6AEwBnoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=clayton%20model%20accuracy%20stellar%20pressure&f=false

"We shall see that the Clayton model can yield reasonably correct results when applied to the sun."

The author continues:

"To find the variation in the pressure inside the sun we adopt the appropriate value for the length parameter."

"This figure shows impressive agreement betwen the results obtained from Clayton's simple model and obtained by Stomgren's results numerical solution of the equations of stellar structure."


Now, for the most important part:

"However, the necessary small pressure gradient near the surface of the star will be reproduced if the value of the length parameter a is small with respect to the radius R of the star."

The value for a is: 1.29 x 10^8.

The value I derived is 1.06 x 10^8, which is even better.

So, I am using the correct equation, with the correct parameter a.

Moreover, my calculations are totally corroborated by this very direct proof, which you are unable to address at all.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


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.


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.

rabinoz linked the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT WITH THE 274 M/S2 FIGURE.

Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

Therefore a(sun) = ZERO.

Now, here is an in-depth analysis of N. Ashby's failed claims regarding the solar gravitational potential.

Here are the precise calculations.

"The 24 GPS satellites move round earth in six equally spaced 12 hours period orbits, with an orbital radius of 25,560 km and their orbital plane making 55 degrees with the earth’s equator. In the case of GPS satellites, having orbital plane nearly parallel to the earth-sun axis, the total slowing of the atomic clocks, during the 6 hours closer then earth from the sun, would achieve 24 ns, which would be recovered during the 6 hours farther from the sun. The GPS clocks normally are all collectively synchronized with the master clocks on ground to within 0.1 ns (time for light to travel 3 cm) and their stability during the 12 hours period of their orbits is better than 0.5 ns. Hence, the corresponding 12 hours sinusoidal variation in the time display of the GPS clocks, predicted by GR, due to the solar field, would be two decimal orders of magnitude larger than the stability and precision of these clocks during the period of the 12 hours and thus would immediately and easily be observed.

As the gravitational potential U is a scalar, a stationary or a moving clock should display exactly the same gravitational slowing and the rate of clocks at different distances from the sun should run at considerable different rates, according to equation (2). However, the GPS clocks, moving with earth round the sun and, in their orbital motion, displacing their radial position from the sun by about 5.1 x 10^4, show no sign of the 12 hours periodic sinusoidal variation in the gravitational slowing."

Here is the formula itself:



In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.

Second, as Charles Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.


Ronald Hatch explains the glaring error committed by Ashby in using the equivalence principle to deal with the solar gravitational potential:

It has been claimed by Ashby [20] that the reason the
effect of the sun’s differential gravitational potential on
clocks near the earth can be ignored is due to the
equivalence principle, i.e. that test bodies move along
straight lines in a local Lorentz frame. However,
according to Friedman [21] the local Lorentz frame is of
only infinitesimal extent and hardly applies to the earth
and its vicinity. Ashby’s claim is equivalent to the claim
found elsewhere [22] that the local frame rotates with the
orbit and that the sun’s differential gravitational potential
is canceled by “centripetal acceleration,” i.e. by the
differential velocity with respect to the sun. In other
words, it is claimed that the inertial frame indeed rotates
once per year. However, the GPS clocks clearly show
this argument is not valid. The orientation of the GPS
orbital planes does not rotate to maintain the same angle
with respect to the sun, so there is no differential velocity
orthogonal to the orbital plane. And there can be no
differential velocity within the orbital plane or else
Kepler’s laws would be violated. Thus, GPS clocks do not
suffer centripetal acceleration. Furthermore, if this
argument were correct, the differential gravitational
potential would be canceled in the sun’s frame as well.
The JPL reference document [7] and the Hill pulsar
document [19] clearly show that such a cancellation does
not occur.


The claim made by Ashby is false.

2. Neil Ashby (Nov. 1993) "Relativity and GPS," GPS World, pp 42-48

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf (pg 3-5)

Ashby [2] calls upon the equivalence principle and uses an accelerating elevator to show that one would expect the wavelengths and frequency of photons to increase as they fall in a gravitational field. But this also violates the conservation of cycles and cannot be a valid explanation for the observed change in frequency.

Do electromagnetic waves pick up energy as they fall in a gravitational field? If it does, why isn't the observed increase in frequency doubled and the conservation of cycles violated?

Now we can see that photons falling in a gravitational field do not increase in energy.
Even though they do decrease in wavelength the frequency does not change. The
apparent change in frequency is caused by the change in frequency of the local unit of
comparison. Thus, claiming as Ashby did that the frequency of the GPS signals increase
as they fall is incorrect. It would violate the conservation of cycles. The apparent
gravitational increase in energy is not real. It appears to increase only because the
standard of comparison (the energy radiated by a similar atom at a decreased
gravitational potential) is decreased. The higher frequency of the GPS clock at its greater
gravitational potential is in fact the source of the increased frequency and decreased
wavelength of the received signal.


The most lethal experimental observation to GR is the absence
of the gravitational slowing of the GPS clocks, that is
predicted by GR, but not observed. According to GR, the
gravitational time dilation, due to a gravitational potential U
is given by T = T0(1 − 2U/c2) −1/2
, where T0 is the time
under U = 0. To first order, the predicted slowing of the
clocks is proportional to U/c2
. Hence, the effect of the solar
gravitational potential on the GPS clocks, having orbital
plane closely parallel to the earth-sun axis, during the 6 hours
closer from the sun, should cause a total delay of more than
24ns, which would be recovered during the 6 hours farther
from the sun. The corresponding 12 hours periodic sinusoidal
variation in the time display of the GPS clocks would
be more than two orders of magnitude larger than the stability
and precision of these clocks within this period. However,
observations show no sign of such variation.[10, 11] GR cannot
explain this absence because the gravitational potential is
a scalar.

http://www.hrpub.org/download/20150510/UJPA2-18403649.pdf


Moreover, Ashby is using calculations based on the false TGR, that is why he reaches the wrong conclusions.

This paper discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation using GPS.

If TGR is false, his calculations are useless.

Ashby's use the of the equivalence principle leads to the wrong conclusions.

His free fall explanation also fails the test of scientific scrutiny.

Some people claim that the absence of the gravitational
time dilation on the GPS clocks is due to cancellation by special
relativistic time dilation. However, a simple calculation
shows that special relativistic effects, due to the variation of
velocity of the GPS satellites within the solar non-rotating
reference, would be three orders of magnitude larger than
those, due to the solar gravitational potential would and too
are not observed. Others [19] claim that the absence is because
the GPS satellites together with earth are free falling in
the solar gravitational field. However, within this view, these
same GPS satellites are also free falling in the earth’s gravitational
field and notwithstanding show clearly the slowing
by the earth's gravitational field of ´ (8/c)^2.


The midnight problem is UNSOLVED, so Ashby cannot claim that the effects are negligible.


rabinoz is trolling this website, since he is incapable of addressing this devastating proof:

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


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.


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.

rabinoz linked the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT WITH THE 274 M/S2 FIGURE.

Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

Therefore a(sun) = ZERO.

Now, here is an in-depth analysis of N. Ashby's failed claims regarding the solar gravitational potential.

The topic is "Solar power source" and I've had a gutful or your continual off-topic spamming of quite irrelevant material.
Make you own threads if you want duscuss GNSS etc.

rabinoz linked the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT WITH THE 274 M/S2 FIGURE.

Stop shouting it makes it look as though you're losing your cool.

Where did I link "the missing orbital Sagnac effect with the 274 m/s² figure"?

Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

Therefore a(sun) = ZERO.

Only some devoid of any logical thought could make such a claim.
Do any of your references agree that "Since the GPS satellites do not register the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC, the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all"?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


Again, the claim:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s


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.

ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS who have been made aware of the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT accept immediately the local-aether model.

This is the main reason why Dr. Su's papers have been published by IOP: these facts can no longer be denied.

EVERYONE at Nasa/Esa/Caltech is AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM.


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.


Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

I do sometimes wonder how much bandwidth is taken up by SandySpam in the DB supporting these forums

You are posting low content in the upper forums.

Take a look at some facts.

Your pal has some 22,500 messages: that's one every 20 minutes, packed with photographs and videos.

Other RE in this thread have over 10,000 messages.

I won Heiwa's challenge thread has some 370 pages (over 10,000 messages).

Why do you support thread has some 560 pages (over 16,000 messages).

My AFET, by contrast, has some 650 messages (some 20 pages in total).

Not to mention the fact that you haven't paid your dues around here to even think about such things.


Here is what you should be worried about: 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.

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

Really? This link appears to disagree with what you say.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_the_Sagnac_effect_being_used_in_the_GPS_system

Your tag team partners have already posted that article earlier today, right here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.msg2216352#msg2216352

Which means you have a hard time paying attention.

My answer:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.msg2216356#msg2216356

You must learn the difference between the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC and the ORBITAL SAGNAC.

Make sure you understand the huge difference:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1989098#msg1989098



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.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 14, 2019, 04:49:53 AM

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

Of course "the value of 274 m/s²" does not rest entirely on that statement!

There are other ways to calculate g^sun!
For example I could use that value of G given by Rick Bradford or better the "official one" of 6.67430 x 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2 and
the Sun's physical parameters from your authority on such matters, Phillips A.C. in his "The physics of stars" (Wiley,1994), Table 1.2:


He also kindly shows the equation to use (though we knew thatm didn't we?):

So g_sun = (6.67430 x 10^-11 x 1.99 x 10³⁰)/(6.96 x 10⁸)² = 274.2 m/s² - funny that!

Bye bye Mr Spammer!

Of course "the value of 274 m/s2" does not rest entirely on that statement!

You have linked the correctness of the 274 m/s2 value to the Earth's orbital angular velocity figure.

Your doing.

And now you are going to have to answer for it.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


Again, the claim:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s


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.

ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS who have been made aware of the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT accept immediately the local-aether model.

This is the main reason why Dr. Su's papers have been published by IOP: these facts can no longer be denied.

EVERYONE at Nasa/Esa/Caltech is AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM.


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.


Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Needless to say, the other calculations you just posted are just as wrong, since now YOU HAVE LINKED THEM AS WELL TO THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

So if you are correct then the diagram that you have posted several times now showing the LISA space antenna is wrong then as that clearly shows the Earth orbiting the Sun, third planet out as per RE theory?

In fact several things you have posted contract what FE theory claims, so I assume then that you are not a true flat Earth believer.  Welcome to the RE and helicentric club!

A couple of other point need to be said:

If you need to resort to insults (and on occasions even worse..) towards those people who don' agree with you then there is something wrong going on. Not to mention being against the rules of the forum. Yet you have the audacity to suggest than others who dare to disagree with you are 'trolling' and should themselves be warned or banned when it should actually perhaps be the other way round.

You hide behind complex advanced maths equations and claims that few members on here actually understand.  That could be construed as a kind of 'smoke screen'. A means of preventing people from being able to identify that what you are posting is wrong and is actually meaningless.  Reeling off complex equations can make anyone look like an expert who actually knows nothing.

If the insults don't work when people point out why you are wrong you simply ignore them or again accuse them of 'trolling'.

Most of your posts are multiple duplicates of each other and many of the links to external content are actually just links to your other posts and are therefore meaningless as 'evidence' to back your claims. Many include facts and figures that show that your own claims are clearly wrong.

These are just my own thoughts from reading through this discussion but I suspect (with quite high confidence) that many others share them.  Over to the others now...

 

A means of preventing people from being able to identify that what you are posting is wrong and is actually meaningless.

Unfortunately for you, my equations and formulas really do work.

LN V =  2ⁿ x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)^1/2]^1/2...}^1/2))^1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n+1 - 1/V^1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

For a first approximation,

LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n - 1)

First results appear for n = 8 to 12, all the remaining digits for n = 19 and higher...

Example: x = 100,000        LN x = 11.5129255

with n = 20 the first approximation is LN x = 11.512445 (e^11.512445 = 100,001.958)

Do you understand what we are discussing here?

Yes.
Do you?
We are discussing the sun, and if RE is correct with it being a large sphere with nuclear fusion occurring in its core to produce the observed power output, or if as you claim instead it is a flat disc which doesn't undergo nuclear fusion.

So far you have provided absolutely nothing to indicate it is flat (or not a sphere), nor have you done anything to show it isn't a nuclear furnace.

Instead you bring up the same refuted arguments again and again and try to derail the thread onto what appears to be your pet favourite misinformation, the Sagnac effect.

Deal with the topic at hand.

Stop bringing up the Clayton which even your own sources accept is not valid for the sun (especially the surface) and is a crude approximation.

The "reasonable agreement" you are appealing to is a difference of 10^15 Pa, or 10^10 bar, and only shows reasonable agreement to 3*10^8 m.
i.e. it is looking at the core.
The thickness of the line on the graph is roughly 10^14 Pa.

The difference you are complaining about does not register on the graph.

Even if we extend it to the surface, that reasonable agreement still allows 10^10 bar difference.
That means it could be anywhere from 0 to 10^10 bar.

Guess what? That allows agreement between the Clayton model and your claimed value.
That means there is no problem.

The only problem comes when you pretend instead of the Clayton model being a crude approximation that it is based exactly upon the known laws of physics and agrees perfectly with the known values/numerical models.
But the only one saying that is you.

The pressure at the surface of the sun is basically 0.
When you deal with the massive pressures at the core, thousands of bar and absolute 0 are still basically 0.

Unfortunately for you, my equations and formulas really do work.

Except as shown by me and others repeatedly, they don't.
Showing one formula which works, which isn't anything spectacular, doesn't show that all your equations work.

Your natural logarithm formula is also completely off topic and is also almost entirely useless.

Now how about you stop with all the spam and instead try to provide a rational argument which actually addresses the actual topic for once?

These are just my own thoughts from reading through this discussion but I suspect (with quite high confidence) that many others share them.  Over to the others now...

They are definitely not just your own.
My main question about him is if he knows what he is saying is pure garbage and is just trolling everyone, or if he is deluded enough to actually believe it.

Unfortunately for you, my equations and formulas really do work

I don't think I explicitly said your equations are wrong, but how do they relate to or answer my original question which was in case you need reminding:

"What is the proposed power source of the Sun if, according to FE theory it is only 32 miles in diameter? You then claimed even more ludicrously that the Sun is "actually only 600 metres" in diameter.

I would like to know what kind of power source can provide enough energy to something which is just a few miles (or metres in your estimate) to sustain a power output of 1.9x10^30 watts for 4.6 billion years up to now.

I could lay out all the field equations of Einstein or Maxwell and prove them correct using first principles here which would look very pretty and be entirely correct but they wouldn't be relevant to answering the question.

 

I told you that your trolling was going to stop.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.

This is a scientific fact well-known at NASA/ESA/CALTECH.

It is being acknowledged at IOP.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


Again, the claim:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s


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.

ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS who have been made aware of the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT accept immediately the local-aether model.

This is the main reason why Dr. Su's papers have been published by IOP: these facts can no longer be denied.

EVERYONE at Nasa/Esa/Caltech is AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM.


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.


Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

I told you that your trolling was going to stop.

Are you hoping to try and troll so much I leave?

Like I said, your ignorance about the Sagnac effect has no place in this thread.

This thread is for discussing the power source of the sun.
You have provided nothing to show that the sun is not a nuclear furnace.

Do you have anything to provide to show that, or just more pathetic spam?

The fact that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is missing is crucial to our discussion, and it is a fact of science.

The Sun cannot be a nuclear furnace since it has ZERO gravity at the surface. Thus we are left with a huge gas centrifuge with no outer casing, running at some 1900 m/m, subject to the full centrifugal force of rotation.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².


Again, the claim:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s


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.

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.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.

I think I can say without too much doubt in my mind that GPS satellites and whether they register the orbital sagnac effect or not has got absolutely nothing to do with the power source in the [/b] flat Earth[/b] version of the Suns power source.

Sandy seems to be arguing with himself about something which isn't remotely connected to the subject matter of the question.

Again, what has whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not (we all apart from Sandy it seems know that it is) got to do with the power source of the Sun.  Specifically what could power the Sun for 4.6 billion years if it is only 32 miles (or 600 metres) across?

Agreed?

Quote

The ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.

I think I can say without too much doubt in my mind that GPS satellites and whether they register the orbital sagnac effect or not has got absolutely nothing to do with the power source in the [/b] flat Earth[/b] version of the Suns power source.

It has everything to do with the Sun's power source according to your tag team partner.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².



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.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

But it is... whatever you say and however many times you post the same old stuff and make the same old claims... the Earth is orbiting the Sun. That is something that has been known for many centuries. So whatever your beloved equations are telling you to the contrary, they are wrong. You cannot change nature to suit what you think or what your equations are telling you.  Fact is fact and that as far as I'm concerned is the end of it .

The fact

You mean your blatant lie?
There is no missing orbital Saganac effect

Like I said, if you want to discuss your ignorance on the Sagnac effect, go back to the prior threads where you had been repeatedly refuted.

There is plenty that shows the mass of the sun is as we know it.
Stop pretending it is based entirely upon one proven fact of science (that Earth orbits the sun).

Now again, deal with the topic at hand.

You have provided absolutely nothing to show that the sun is flat or not a nuclear furnace.
Appealing to your ignorance on the Sagnac effect to pretend Earth isn't orbiting the sun will not help you.
Appealing to the approximation of the Clayton model to pretend there is a problem with the numbers will not help you.
You have nothing except spam.

Of course "the value of 274 m/s2" does not rest entirely on that statement!

You have linked the correctness of the 274 m/s2 value to the Earth's orbital angular velocity figure.

Yes, and I was correct because who is going the question that a sidereal year is 365.256363004 Ephemeris days or 31,558,150 SI seconds.
So the Earth's orbital angular velocity figure = 2 x π/31,558,150 = 1.99099 x 10^-7‬.

And I also "linked the correctness of the 274 m/s2 value to the values from your authority on such matters, Phillips A.C. in his "The physics of stars" (Wiley,1994), Table 1.2:
Mass_sun = 1.99 x 10³⁰ kg
Rad_sun = 6.96 x 10⁸ m

He also kindly shows the equation to use (though we knew that didn't we?):

So g_sun = (6.67430 x 10^-11 x 1.99 x 10³⁰)/(6.96 x 10⁸)² = 274.2 m/s² - funny that!

And not only that but all references that I can find shoe the same result - just possibly the 274 m/s² is really pretty close!
Look:
HyperPhysics: Sun Surface gravity = 274 m/s².
SmartConversion: Surface Gravity (meter pr. square second: Sun 274
NASA: Sun Fact Sheet Surface gravity (m/s²) 274.0

It looks as though YOU are the odd man out!

Are you sure that you know more about the physical characteristics of the Sun than A. C. Phillips and those others?

Your doing.

No, not just me! It seems that everybody except YOU is doing it - claiming that g_sun = 274 m/s².

And now you are going to have to answer for it.

What do YOU plan to do about it? Post more spam totally irrelevant to the topic, "Solar power source".

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT << Don't shout so much, it's bad manners! >> rests entirely on this statement:
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

No, it does not rest entirely on that quite accurate statement! Can't YOU read plain English?

sandokhan
From what you are saying, you agree that the 24 GPS satellites exist, and they are in motion, around Earth.
Their functioned as a navigation devices, work. yes, no?

Their motion is an elliptical, orbit around the globe, yes, no?
If no how is their motion accomplished.

and

The observational sunspots, across the surface of the sun, thy rotate from left to right, through the center plane of the face of sun, at different rates, then at the bottom and top, how is this accomplished, on a flat disc.