-
Those who have been on this forum for some while may have noted the much quoted Sagnac effect, and how a certain individual uses it in a large percentage of his voluminous copy/pate posts to prove his anti-facts. Since then there have been numerous experiments that have confirmed relativity, a fact ignored by those who love cherry picking.
What needs to be remembered is there is indeed a Sagnac effect named after rather conservative French physicist Georges Sagnac. You can look him up and find out what he did back in 1913. It is important to note that the experiment was carried out in an effort to disprove Einstein and his new and revolutionary ideas on relativity while attempting to confirming the presence of the aether. Sagnac was very much old school and apparently resented the new kid on the block, Einstein. This is why it is latched on to by FE believers. The question is what is it they are latching on to?
Certain FE believers claim not only that the Sagnac effect disproves relativity but also suggests that we live on a flat and stationary world! In the context of relativity, the Sagnac effect can be explained. If anything, the Sagnac effect is a demonstration of the validity of relativity. The problem is the mathematics makes it a bit impenetrable for most and this is where the problems start as it allows certain people to confuse the issue, misrepresent the results and blind people with anti-science. This is the deliberate distortion of science to prove a fixed and unmoving position. Some people will go to any lengths to support their beliefs.
What we need to remember is that FEers have a list of requirements that must be met regardless of what science actually tells us. They need to misrepresent experiments like this to meet these requirements. In this case it’s the existance of the aether. Incidentally I don’t think for one moment Sagnac thought the earth was either flat nor stationary. He believed that light, like sound required a propagating medium. To be fair up until the 1900 it was a view held by most scientists. But as we all know things move on as new discoveries are made.
To get to the actual truth to be honest is not easy as most of the journals that have the best explanations of Sagnac are, like most academic journals, pay to read. It is true to say it’s interpretation has caused quite a stir in physics over the years some claiming it supports relativity and others disagreeing. What it doesn’t do is suggest the Earth is either stationary or flat and there lies the problem. Some FEers have hijacked this confusion then misrepresenting it.
The bottom line is if you are going to use science to back your case you have to be honest, not cherry pick and be open to all what science offers.
-
In the context of relativity, the Sagnac effect can be explained.
You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.
The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.
STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.
The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.
COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf
page 8
Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.
COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR
STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:
to = t'γ
where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...
to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)
dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)
dtR = relativity time ratio
Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c
dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)
dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)
dtS = Sagnac ratio
dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)
When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.
Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.
Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.
Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.
The SAGNAC EFFECT has two different modes of operation: the center of rotation coincides with the geometric center of the interferometer, and the center of rotation is located away from the interferometer.
Michelson was awarded a Nobel prize for the WRONG formula.
But I was able to derive the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
From a topological point of view, the SAGNAC EFFECT represents a MULTIPLY-CONNECTED domain, it can only be described by the original set of Maxwell's equations:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2039636#msg2039636
Fields can be described by a U(1) group transformation: the modified Maxwell equations (actually, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations).
Potentials (ether theory) can ONLY be described by SU(2) group transformations (and higher).
The group algebra underlying the commonly used Maxwell equations is U(1): but this only relates to the ripples in the sea of ether.
The Sagnac effect, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect can only be described by SU(2) group transformations (the quaternion formulation of the Maxwell equations).
-
You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.
You have repeatedly shown you either have no idea what you are talking about, or are lying about it.
That is why this thread is aimed at you. You are blatantly distorting science to try and prop up your lies.
STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.
Except the general description of the propagation of light. It isn't a relativistic effect.
That doesn't mean it refutes relativity.
COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8
And it is completely wrong, as it treats a point on the ring as being in an inertial reference frame, even though it clearly isn't.
Do it yourself, or not at all.
Michelson was awarded a Nobel prize for the WRONG formula.
No, you not liking the formula doesn't magically mean it is wrong.
He derived the correct formula.
It is the same one I derived, which you were unable to show any problems with.
Meanwhile all your attempts to derive the formula have failed.
But I was able to derive the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
Yet you don't bother providing it here and instead just link to it.
But looking at the link it is quite clear your derivation is wrong. You even notice where it goes wrong, and just outright reject it and lie.
From a topological point of view, the SAGNAC EFFECT represents a MULTIPLY-CONNECTED domain, it can only be described by the original set of Maxwell's equations:
Yet you ignore one of the most important parts, how it connects.
You have a light beam travelling in the same direction along the loop, even though that is completely impossible.
For each segment you have a beam travelling with the rotation and a beam travelling against it.
The shift you calculate for each segment is the extra time taken for the beam travelling with the rotation.
But what you are completely ignoring is that the beam going with the rotation in one segment then goes against the rotation in the other segment.
So no, you need to subtract them, not add.
-
I understand your anger; however, it is not warranted at all.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with an external pump configuration.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
MATHEMATICAL/THEORETICAL PROOF
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
This is the global, generalized Sagnac effect formula.
Full derivation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070591#msg2070591
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Michelson proceeded with his calculations AS IF he had placed a rectangular interferometer with the dimensions of 2010 ft (612.65 m) by 1113 ft (339.24 m) with its center of rotation coinciding with the center of rotation of the Earth (radius of 6,376.164 km).
Once the interferometer is moved away from the center of rotation, the Coriolis effect will be measured first: the formula involves the substraction of the separate phase differences.
By contrast, the much greater Sagnac effect formula will be derived by adding the separate phase differences.
-
I understand your anger; however, it is not warranted at all.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with an external pump configuration.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
MATHEMATICAL/THEORETICAL PROOF
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
This is the global, generalized Sagnac effect formula.
Full derivation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070591#msg2070591
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Michelson proceeded with his calculations AS IF he had placed a rectangular interferometer with the dimensions of 2010 ft (612.65 m) by 1113 ft (339.24 m) with its center of rotation coinciding with the center of rotation of the Earth (radius of 6,376.164 km).
Once the interferometer is moved away from the center of rotation, the Coriolis effect will be measured first: the formula involves the substraction of the separate phase differences.
By contrast, the much greater Sagnac effect formula will be derived by adding the separate phase differences.
Aside from the constant tedious pleading to authority made by the previous poster, let’s come at this from a different direction. Though if you care to read my opening post you will see this poster behaved as predicted, copy and paste avalanche laced with cherries. There are just as many papers that would offer a very different interpretation of Sagnac. But the previous poster never refers to them as he and his beliefs require relativity to be wrong. That is not science, it’s a distortion of science as mentioned in the opening post.
Sagnac and the effect has been used by some to try and refute Relativity. But what experimentation does relativity have in its favour?
Einstein predicted the following, to support or confirm relativity through experimentation:
Gravitational redshift of light
Perihelion precession of Mercury
Defection of light by the sun
All three experiments have been repeated over the years numerous times by various scientists and all the results appeared to prove Einstein and relativity to be correct. He also predicted gravity waves which were recently confirmed by the now famous LIGO experiment. Rather than copy and paste vast amounts of ‘stuff’ like you know who, you are at liberty to go and look all theses up’
There are also a plethora of more modern experiments that Einstein didn’t mention that others have gone on to carry out that confirm Relativity and prove Einstein to be correct. The previous poster of course ignores all this inconvenient science as it proves his assertions to be wrong and other interpretations of the Sagnac effect to be correct.
Because relativity is so important and fundemental to science a great deal of experamental effort has been expended to determine if is indeed true.
Here is a document that lists some of the successful experiments that confirm relativity. There are a great deal of others out there, all avoided by the previous poster. He will have his work cut out trying to debunk the thousands of experiments that have confirmed relativity.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04397.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04397.pdf)
What we have on the one hand are a raft of radically different experiments carried out by thousands of different scientists since the 1920s that appear to show Einstein and relativity to be correct.
On the other hand we have one controversial experiment the results of which have created some consternation among the physics community which the previous poster makes use of. He deliberately distorts the scientific facts in an effort to support the requirements of his world view which are:
The earth is flat
The aether exists
Relativity is wrong.
As to the aether existing, now that we understand the propagational properties of light we know it is not a requirement. A quick call to the astronauts in the ISS would confirm that. That is the same ISS that can be seen whizzing by if you are in the correct predicted place at the predicted time and the weather is good. I think they would also tell you that the earth is not flat! All the previous poster has to do, when not working on his perpetual motion machine, is go out and look up! ( will he ever finish it?)
As for the one who constantly rebukes people for ‘not doing their homework’ He needs, if using science to prove a point, to embrace all of science and it’s findings and not just the tiny bits he likes. He should also refrain from just making things up when it suits him or invoking conspiracy when all else fails.
There is also the constant elephant in the room of space travel, which he refutes, not using science but looking at what his beliefs require.
All his posts are a selective abuse of science which he uses to produce his deluge of anti facts. Look up his so called advanced workings which are all make belive nonsense wrapped up in a veneer of cherry picked pseudo science to understand my point.
I think we may need a number of threads to slowly reveal the true nonsense of the poster sandokhan.
-
There are also a plethora of more modern experiments that Einstein didn’t mention that others have gone on to carry out that confirm Relativity and prove Einstein to be correct.
Total demolition of TGR/TSR:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750 (it includes how Einstein faked the gravitational redshift experiments of 1919/1922 and also how he fudged the Mercury perihelion equation)
Fake TSR experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
Ether Shapiro delay, ether frame dragging, ether lensing, ether space probe B:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911878#msg1911878
-
There are just as many papers that would offer a very different interpretation of Sagnac.
The physics of the Sagnac effect must be foreign to you, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a statement.
You can only do two things with the phase shifts of the Sagnac interferometer located away from the center of rotation (such as the Michelson-Gale experiment, or the ring laser experiments): either ADD them, or SUBSTRACT them.
Let us see what happens if you do substract them, just as A. Michelson did.
The original interferometer built by Michelson and Gale in Clearing, IL, measured 2010 ft x 1113 ft: the laser technology has permitted a great reduction in size of the interferometer to just a few meters.
This is the original paper published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
This is the formula for the MGX and the ring laser interferometers:
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)
Here is the derivation:
(http://image.ibb.co/fjSJy7/ahasag2.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/fPWNAn/ahasag4.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/d6svVn/ahasag5.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/kF7137/ahasag6.jpg)
However, this the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for light beams.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
Thus A. Michelson knew well in advance that he was going to actually measure the Coriolis effect and not the Sagnac effect.
But Michelson, a Nobel prize winner, claimed that the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula was the SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT formula, thus ensuring that for the next 90 years the RE would always win the debate on heliocentrism vs. geocentrism (not even the proponents of aether theory could not dismiss the MGX since they would have had to explain the fringe shifts measured by Michelson and by every ring laser interferometer since 1925).
Bilger et al (1995) and Anderson et al (1994) used the Sagnac phase shift formula derived by A. Michelson, which was actually the Coriolis effect equation.
H.R. Bilger, G.E. Stedman, Z. Li, U. Schreiber and M. Schneider, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 44(2), 468 (1995)
R. Anderson, H.R. Bilger and G.E. Stedman, Am. J. Phys. 62(11), 975 (1994)
(http://image.ibb.co/m35Ckn/mig1.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/k33Md7/mig2.jpg)
However, the use the phase-conjugate mirror has allowed the greatest breakthroughs possible in ring laser interferometry.
Thus, the correct formula for the Sagnac phase shift for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation became possible:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
The rotational Sagnac effect formula is thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.
One is proportional to the velocity of the rotation (radius of Earth x angular velocity) and is an electromagnetic effect modifying the speed of the light beams; the other is proportional to the area of the interferometer and is a physical effect on the light beams.
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.
The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°
Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885
hsinΦ = 0.225967
4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72
THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.
In order to obtain the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT, you need to ADD the phase shifts.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with an external pump configuration.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
MATHEMATICAL/THEORETICAL PROOF
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
This is the global, generalized Sagnac effect formula.
Full derivation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070591#msg2070591
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
Michelson proceeded with his calculations AS IF he had placed a rectangular interferometer with the dimensions of 2010 ft (612.65 m) by 1113 ft (339.24 m) with its center of rotation coinciding with the center of rotation of the Earth (radius of 6,376.164 km).
Once the interferometer is moved away from the center of rotation, the Coriolis effect will be measured first: the formula involves the substraction of the separate phase differences.
By contrast, the much greater Sagnac effect formula will be derived by adding the separate phase differences.
-
I understand your anger; however, it is not warranted at all.
You clearly don't as it isn't anger at all.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
How about before trying to derail the thread with more nonsense, you deal with what you already have.
Why do you choose to add the shifts, rather than subtract them?
This requires the one beam of light to be moving with the direction of rotation on both segments of the loop. That is physically impossible.
If it is going with the rotation for one section of the loop it needs to be going against the direction for the other segment to complete the loop.
What you are calling the coriolis effect, is the Sagnac effect.
They are the same effect, produce the same result and have the same formula.
-
There are also a plethora of more modern experiments that Einstein didn’t mention that others have gone on to carry out that confirm Relativity and prove Einstein to be correct.
Total demolition of TGR/TSR:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750 (it includes how Einstein faked the gravitational redshift experiments of 1919/1922 and also how he fudged the Mercury perihelion equation)
Fake TSR experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
Ether Shapiro delay, ether frame dragging, ether lensing, ether space probe B:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911878#msg1911878
As soon as you resort to the word fake, it’s a cleat admission of defeat.
Providing lists to your own posts? What does that prove, absolutely nothing.
While I reference real proven scientific experiments, you reference yourself.
When you are unable to refute something scientifically you cry fake. That’s not science.
Nowhere have taken on board that list of scientific experiments that prove relativity,
Unable to put together a coherent argument and out of fear you resort instead to a tirade of cut and paste. Why do you bother?
-
I think Sandokan’s last post is a clear example of how NOT to make a point. Like most of his other posts it’s a stream of incoherent cut and paste that proves absolutely nothing. Exactly what point is he trying to make? You tell me.
-
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Have YOU done any experiments? The equipment is well within the reach of the home hobbyist, as demonstrated by this guy
-
The use of science in a debate can be dangerous ground. If you decide to go down that route then you should be open to arguments that are also based on science that may not agree with your own. Cherry picking scientists and their work and using only a small part of what they have said and using it out of context also puts you on shakey ground.
Much of this and other discussions revolve around Sagnac and his much quoted experiment. Sagnac was a true man of science who worked in many areas connected with the the electromagnetic spectrum, with optics being his main speciality. The background to his now much vaunted experiment was to prove the existance of the aether. He was an opponent to the then new ideas of Relativity, It had nothing at all to do with the earth being flat. Sagnac let’s make it clear did not believe in a flat earth he was conducting an experiment to prove his case in regards to how light traveled in space, and being as he thought, a wave, it required a medium.
The experiment was first performed by Georges Sagnac in 1913. At the time it was a challenging experiment, with lasers and modern equipment it’s pretty easily done. The basic idea is to take a beam of light and split it so that half the light goes around a path clockwise, and the other half counterclockwise. The two light beams are then combined so that they create an interference pattern. Any shift in the speed of light will then cause a shift in the interference pattern. This is similar to the method Michelson and Morley used. The big difference is that you take the entire apparatus and spin it. ( I’ll deal with the M and M in another thread)
If there really is an aether, then the device must be rotating through it, so there should be an observed shift in the interference pattern. Sure enough, when Sagnac performed this experiment he observed a shift. This experiment has been done countless times in a variety of ways, and the shift is consistently observed. The Sagnac effect is very real. Let’s be clear about that!
Sagnac thought this experiment confirmed the existence of the aether, and he’s partly right ish! A shift in the interference pattern is exactly what the aether model predicts. Sagnac also thought the experiment disproved relativity, and that’s where he’s wrong. A shift in the pattern is also predicted by special relativity, as Max von Laue predicted two years before Sagnac performed his experiment. It funny how FE types always skip over or ignore that fact.
What Sagnac failed to understand is that special relativity applies to frames of reference that are not rotating,.........ok.......so it doesn’t predict that light’s trip around the loop is the same in both directions when the device is rotating. If you were to look at the rotating device from above, you’d see that light that travels in the direction of the rotation actually travels a longer distance because the device is rotating away from it a bit. The light going in the opposite direction makes a shorter trip, since the device rotates into it. So relativity also predicts a shift in the interference pattern. This appears to be the bit that constantly stumps certain people.
As a result, the Sagnac experiment is inconclusive, since it agrees with both the aether and relativity models. This happens sometimes, and when it does you need a tie-breaker to distinguish one model from another. In this case there are several such experiments, but one very clear one comes from Einstein’s most famous prediction, E = mc2. If relativity is right, then mass and energy must be connected. If Einstein equation fails, then relativity is decidedly wrong. Of course if that were the case, things like nuclear power wouldn’t work, but since lots of people rely upon nuclear power every day, we can declare relativity the winner. There are of course a whole host of other experiments but let that one be the clincher.
Point to note that was a post on the Sagnac thingy that used no equations to baffle and confuse, but rather plain English. I rest my case.
-
In fact what do people find better? Posts in plain English, or posts that include hard to comprehend equations? Just wondering if people had a preference.
-
Einstein’s most famous prediction, E = mc2
Einstein's report card:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jj9J9Kz6gvM/W-nf9qri8sI/AAAAAAABe6k/Be_qLfYCW34N10thgkhrLm1sxr5VvOXOwCLcBGAs/s1600/WWeinstein1.jpg)
6 is rock bottom
1 is top grade
German-5, French-3, Italian-5, History-6, Geography-4, Algebra-6, Geometry-6, Physics-6, Chemistry-5, Biology-5, Technical drawing and Art-4
In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.. This exam consisted mainly of elementary and basic mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam.
While at the university, Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework.
By the way, it was J.C. Maxwell who coined up the relation E=mc2:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/6371
-
Einstein's report card:
Has nothing to do with this topic and thus is just pathetic spam to try and avoid another defeat.
Grow up, stay on topic.
Now I will ask again:
WHY DID YOU ADD THE 2 SHIFTS? That means that the one beam of light needs to travel along the 2 segments in the direction of rotation, while the other travels against the direction of rotation. That is impossible.
Perhaps a better question:
Can you draw a diagram showing the path of the light and the time required to travel each segment?
-
Has nothing to do with this topic
But it does, in a most direct way.
The fact that Einstein failed math and physics in high school and could not pass a simple engineering exam speaks volumes of the fact that someone else wrote his papers on relativity for him.
WHY DID YOU ADD THE 2 SHIFTS?
If you substract the shifts, you get the Coriolis effect formula.
What we want is the SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
I have already explained in great detail the experimental proof provided here earlier, which you seem not to remember.
In order to obtain the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT, you need to ADD the phase shifts.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with an external pump configuration.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
MATHEMATICAL/THEORETICAL PROOF
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
This is the global, generalized Sagnac effect formula.
Full derivation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070591#msg2070591
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Michelson proceeded with his calculations AS IF he had placed a rectangular interferometer with the dimensions of 2010 ft (612.65 m) by 1113 ft (339.24 m) with its center of rotation coinciding with the center of rotation of the Earth (radius of 6,376.164 km).
Once the interferometer is moved away from the center of rotation, the Coriolis effect will be measured first: the formula involves the substraction of the separate phase differences.
By contrast, the much greater Sagnac effect formula will be derived by adding the separate phase differences.
That means that the one beam of light needs to travel along the 2 segments in the direction of rotation, while the other travels against the direction of rotation. That is impossible.
You need to update your level of understanding of physics, which is quite poor given the caliber of your statement.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENT LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES YOU NEED TO ADD THE PHASE SHIFTS.
Experimentally proven by Dr. Yeh.
Published in the Journal of Optics Letters.
Confirmed by the US Naval Research Lab.
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
-
But it does, in a most direct way.
Not the topic you started to focus on.
You were focusing on the Sagnac effect, so deal with that before moving on.
WHY DID YOU ADD THE 2 SHIFTS?
If you substract the shifts, you get the Coriolis effect formula.
Which is more commonly known as the Sagnac effect formula. It is the formula you want.
What we want is the SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
Which means you subtract, not add.
So again, why did you add?
I have already explained in great detail the experimental proof provided here earlier, which you seem not to remember.
No you just sprouted a bunch of garbage.
In order to obtain the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT, you need to ADD the phase shifts.
Repeating your same baseless assertion doesn't magically make it true.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro
Is a completely different setup to the one you showed, and it uses angular velocity, not linear velocity.
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Not for the one you provided. You provided a simple loop, without any phase conjugate mirror.
Don't bother linking to more crap elsewhere, do it here.
Provide an image of the interferometer (a simple loop) clearly showing the path of each light and indicate how long it takes for the light to travel each segment.
Again, adding them equates to one beam of light going forward in both arms, and one going backwards in both arm.
Meanwhile in reality you have one beam go forward in one arm and backwards in the other, with the other beam going the other way. That requires subtracting the shifts from each arm.
Using your lack of reasoning you would end up with a sagnac shift for a circular loop rotating about the centre of 0.
Stop spamming a bunch of crap. Show the light path and the time for each to show why you need to add. Until you do that, you are just spouting garbage.
-
Has nothing to do with this topic
But it does, in a most direct way.
The fact that Einstein failed math and physics in high school and could not pass a simple engineering exam speaks volumes of the fact that someone else wrote his papers on relativity for him.
Rubbish! For someone who "failed math and physics in high school and could not pass a simple engineering exam" even Einstein's Special Relativity has had a great impact on modern science and there is tremendous amount of supporting evidence, see:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html)
Sandokhan, would you please list the impact your "Advanced Flat Earth Theory" has had on the world at large?
Then, more importantly, is the effect that General Relativity developed by this person who "failed math and physics in high school and could not pass a simple engineering exam" has had on modern science.
And there is considerable experimental evidence for Einstein's General Relativity too:
Experimental Tests of General Relativity, Slava G. Turyshev (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1735869_Experimental_Tests_of_General_Relativity)
So remind us again the impact your "Advanced Flat Earth Theory" has had on the world at large?
By the way your might compare your Sagnac calculations with these General relativistic Sagnac formula revised, Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1643).
And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
PS Have there been any recent reports of aircraft colliding with the sun?
-
Einstein’s most famous prediction, E = mc2
Einstein's report card:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jj9J9Kz6gvM/W-nf9qri8sI/AAAAAAABe6k/Be_qLfYCW34N10thgkhrLm1sxr5VvOXOwCLcBGAs/s1600/WWeinstein1.jpg)
6 is rock bottom
1 is top grade
German-5, French-3, Italian-5, History-6, Geography-4, Algebra-6, Geometry-6, Physics-6, Chemistry-5, Biology-5, Technical drawing and Art-4
In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.. This exam consisted mainly of elementary and basic mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam.
While at the university, Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework.
By the way, it was J.C. Maxwell who coined up the relation E=mc2:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/6371
Irrelevent. How about we see yours!
-
Which is more commonly known as the Sagnac effect formula. It is the formula you want.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding.
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)
However, this the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for light beams.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
Thus A. Michelson knew well in advance that he was going to actually measure the Coriolis effect and not the Sagnac effect.
But Michelson, a Nobel prize winner, claimed that the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula was the SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT formula, thus ensuring that for the next 90 years the RE would always win the debate on heliocentrism vs. geocentrism (not even the proponents of aether theory could not dismiss the MGX since they would have had to explain the fringe shifts measured by Michelson and by every ring laser interferometer since 1925).
Which means you subtract, not add.
This is Michelson's derivation where he listened to your advice and SUBSTRACTED the phase shifts:
Let us see what happens if you do substract them, just as A. Michelson did.
The original interferometer built by Michelson and Gale in Clearing, IL, measured 2010 ft x 1113 ft: the laser technology has permitted a great reduction in size of the interferometer to just a few meters.
This is the original paper published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Here is the derivation:
(http://image.ibb.co/fjSJy7/ahasag2.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/fPWNAn/ahasag4.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/d6svVn/ahasag5.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/kF7137/ahasag6.jpg)
If you substract the phase shifts, you get the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
-
Is a completely different setup to the one you showed, and it uses angular velocity, not linear velocity.
Your readers are simply laughing at you.
Can you read basic English?
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
You provided a simple loop, without any phase conjugate mirror.
The phase conjugate mirror is an integral part of today's nonlinear optics, a subject matter which seems to be foreign to you.
Again, adding them equates to one beam of light going forward in both arms, and one going backwards in both arm.
Meanwhile in reality you have one beam go forward in one arm and backwards in the other, with the other beam going the other way. That requires subtracting the shifts from each arm.
Read Michelson's derivation again.
Can you read the formula provided by Michelson?
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
The Coriolis effect means that the phase shift will be caused by the physical modification of the light paths (inflection and deflection due to the Coriolis force effect on the light beams).
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c - v2) (we combine the terms which feature c - v1,2)
(l1c - l1v2 - l2c + l2v1)/(c2 - cv2 - cv1 +v1v2)
Factoring out c and observing that the terms l1v2/c, l2v1/c and v1v2/c can be neglected, we obtain:
(l1 - l2)/(c - v2 - v1)
Since l1 ~= l2, we can see that the velocity addition equations for the true Sagnac effect, c + v and c - v (in this case c + v1 + v2 and c - v1 - v2) are not applicable to the Coriolis effect situation.
The Coriolis effect is caused by the physical deflection/inflection of the light beams, not by the modification of the velocities.
Let us proceed now exactly as Professor Yeh did in the phase conjugate mirror experiment described above:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Now, we have the correct, true Sagnac effect formula valid for an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation.
Averaging (v1 + v 2)/2 = v, and (l1 + l2)/2 = l, v1 ~= v2 = v, l1 ~= l2 = l, we obtain:
4lv/c2
Moreover, we can see that now the velocity addition equations are valid:
(l1 + l2)/(c - v2 - v1)
To obtain the Coriolis effect phase shift, we substract the phase differences for each separate segment.
This formula is proportional to the area and the angular velocity.
To get the Sagnac effect phase shift, we have to add the phase differences for each separate segment
This formula is proportional to the linear velocity (and the radius of rotation), and will feature the addition of the two separate speeds and segment lengths. We can average the lengths and the velocities, to get a final formula which features one length and one velocity.
This is the great omission in the calculation done by A. Michelson.
Again, adding them equates to one beam of light going forward in both arms, and one going backwards in both arm.
Meanwhile in reality you have one beam go forward in one arm and backwards in the other, with the other beam going the other way. That requires subtracting the shifts from each arm.
Completely wrong.
Here are the initial phase shifts:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
For each separate segment/arm of the interferometer, each with a slightly different length and a slightly distinct velocity, the calculations proceed as follows:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
By substracting these phase differences, one is actually going to derive the Coriolis effect formula:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams
Since the phase differences have already been calculated, one has to ADD them in order to get the final, total Sagnac effect:
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This fact has never been observed to the present day.
For a Sagnac interferometer, located away from the center of rotation, one has to ADD the separate phase differences in order to obtain the full Sagnac effect:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Using your lack of reasoning you would end up with a sagnac shift for a circular loop rotating about the centre of 0.
Are you back to your old drinking habits?
Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation (different radii, different velocities):
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
A beautiful generalization of the Sagnac formula for interferometers which are located away from the center of rotation.
Proven by Dr. Yeh's experiment.
Proof:
Δt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac differences, corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The Coriolis effect formula by contrast is just the physical effect of the Coriolis force upon the light beams, a modification of the paths of the light beams leading to a final formula where the effect is directly proportional to the area and to the angular velocity.
The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, the modification of the velocities of the light beams, c + v1 + v2 and c - v1 - v2, leading to the final formula where the Sagnac effect is directly proportional to the linear velocity (radius of rotation x angular velocity) and the length of the segments of the interferometer.
-
In fact what do people find better? Posts in plain English, or posts that include hard to comprehend equations? Just wondering if people had a preference.
Conversation length posts are best.
A general rule of thumb is if someone needs to spin their scroll wheel more than 27 times to get past your post you are singing in the shower, going through the 10 items or less lane with two over stuffed shopping carts and paying with an out of state check and trying to impress yourself with your ability to assemble various Google searches into a single incoherent blog.
Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about can get it done in two paragraphs.
-
Has nothing to do with this topic
But it does, in a most direct way.
The fact that Einstein failed math and physics in high school and could not pass a simple engineering exam speaks volumes of the fact that someone else wrote his papers on relativity for him.
WHY DID YOU ADD THE 2 SHIFTS?
If you substract the shifts, you get the Coriolis effect formula.
What we want is the SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
I have already explained in great detail the experimental proof provided here earlier, which you seem not to remember.
In order to obtain the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT, you need to ADD the phase shifts.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with an external pump configuration.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
MATHEMATICAL/THEORETICAL PROOF
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
This is the global, generalized Sagnac effect formula.
Full derivation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070591#msg2070591
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Michelson proceeded with his calculations AS IF he had placed a rectangular interferometer with the dimensions of 2010 ft (612.65 m) by 1113 ft (339.24 m) with its center of rotation coinciding with the center of rotation of the Earth (radius of 6,376.164 km).
Once the interferometer is moved away from the center of rotation, the Coriolis effect will be measured first: the formula involves the substraction of the separate phase differences.
By contrast, the much greater Sagnac effect formula will be derived by adding the separate phase differences.
That means that the one beam of light needs to travel along the 2 segments in the direction of rotation, while the other travels against the direction of rotation. That is impossible.
You need to update your level of understanding of physics, which is quite poor given the caliber of your statement.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENT LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES YOU NEED TO ADD THE PHASE SHIFTS.
Experimentally proven by Dr. Yeh.
Published in the Journal of Optics Letters.
Confirmed by the US Naval Research Lab.
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Another poorly constructed argument that starts with an irrelevent ad hominem. What we need to remover about Einstein is he produced some of the most relevant pieces of physics of the 20th century which have been ratified by countless experiments and demonstrated to be true by aspects of our modern world. Paul Dirac, you may of heard of him and your fond of name dropping, said General Relativity was quite possibly the greatest discovery ever made.
Stop doing the equation thing, it’s not a good way of presenting an argument. Use plain English.
-
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding.
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
I'm not the one lacking knowledge on it. You are the one blatantly lying about it.
That formula is the Sagnac effect formula.
Until you show a derivation, from scratch, for a simple ring interferometer, I will agree with my own derivation and that of others showing it is the correct formula.
[skipping your nonsense and looking for where you have addressed the question]
Nope, couldn't find it in that post, maybe your next one.
Still no justification for why you add, meaning the light beam travels along one segment with the rotation, and then magically teleports back to travel along the other segment again with the rotation.
So again, why do you add when the physical situation demands that you subtract?
Can you read basic English?
Yes, can you?
Notice how you switch to fibres, rather than a simple segment? Notice how it uses a PCM, rather than a simple ring?
Here are the initial phase shifts:
Like I said, provide a diagram clearly showing what each section is, because the shifts you calculate require one beam to go forwards along both arcs, which is not the physical reality of it.
You need to reverse one of your phase shifts due to the propagation of the light beams being reversed in the second segment. This leads to the correct Sagnac formula, equivalent to what you wish to pretend is only the Coriolis effect.
So again:
Stop just spouting garbage. Draw a diagram, clearly showing the light path and derive the shift directly from that, noting the time taken for each light beam, rather than trying to treat the 2 arms entirely separately.
-
Irrelevent.
Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.
He could not pass a basic engineering exam.
Someone else did his homework for him, while attending university.
Yet, you seem to trust this person when it comes to understanding the universe.
Here is what happens when you do that: a failure on A GRAND COSMIC SCALE.
DARK FLOW, the defiance of the general relativity on a cosmic scale:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Relativity has had a great impact on modern science and there is tremendous amount of supporting evidence
FAKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY TESTS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
And there is considerable experimental evidence for Einstein's General Relativity too
TOTAL DEMOLITION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HOW EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 SHIFT EXPERIMENTS AND HOW EINSTEIN FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
By the way your might compare your Sagnac calculations with these General relativistic Sagnac formula revised, Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri
Their result is still the Coriolis effect formula:
4AΩ/c^2
You are embarrassing yourself beyond redemption.
Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?
The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.
The next term is O(wr/c)2.
Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?
The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.
And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE SHAPE OF THE SUN CANNOT BE SPHERICAL AT ALL:
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.
Eugene N. Parker
It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.
British physicist C. E. R. Bruce
It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.
Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti
Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.
Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker
The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.
Ralph E. Juergens
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)
-
That formula is the Sagnac effect formula.
But it is not.
Please read.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding.
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)
However, this the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for light beams.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
Thus A. Michelson knew well in advance that he was going to actually measure the Coriolis effect and not the Sagnac effect.
But Michelson, a Nobel prize winner, claimed that the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula was the SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT formula, thus ensuring that for the next 90 years the RE would always win the debate on heliocentrism vs. geocentrism (not even the proponents of aether theory could not dismiss the MGX since they would have had to explain the fringe shifts measured by Michelson and by every ring laser interferometer since 1925).
Notice how you switch to fibres, rather than a simple segment? Notice how it uses a PCM, rather than a simple ring?
People are laughing at you.
The phase-conjugate mirror is an integral of nonlinear optics.
It has provided breakthroughs which were unimaginable 100 years ago.
Phase Conjugate Mirror
"Let us begin with the properties of a phase conjugate mirror. A phase conjugate mirror is like a mirror, in that it reflects incident light back towards where it came from, but it does so in a different way than a regular mirror.
In a regular mirror, light that strikes the mirror normal to its surface, is reflected straight back the way it came (A). This is also true of a phase conjugate mirror (B). When the light strikes a normal mirror at an angle, it reflects back in the opposite direction, such that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. (C)
(http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/PhaseConjugate/PhaCon1.jpg)
In a phase conjugate mirror, on the other hand, light is always reflected straight back the way it came from, no matter what the angle of incidence. (D)
This difference in the manner of reflection has significant consequences. For example if we place an irregular distorting glass in the path of a beam of light, the parallel rays get bent in random directions, and after reflection from a normal mirror, each ray of light is bent even farther, and the beam is scattered.
(http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/PhaseConjugate/PhaCon2.jpg)
With a phase conjugate mirror, on the other hand, each ray is reflected back in the direction it came from. This reflected conjugate wave therefore propagates backwards through the distorting medium, and essentially "un-does" the distortion, and returns to a coherent beam of parallel rays travelling in the opposite direction."
(http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/PhaseConjugate/PhaCon3.jpg)
Steven Lehar
http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~cvijayan/opc-review.pdf
Optical phase conjugation: principles, techniques, and applications
Over the last three decades, optical phase conjugation (OPC) has been one of the major
research subjects in the field of nonlinear optics and quantum electronics.
Optical phase conjugation (OPC)1 is a new laser-based technique developed since
1970s. As this technique is feasible for use in many significant applications, the study
of OPC has become one of the most active research subjects in the areas of nonlinear
optics and quantum electronics.
In the area of OPC-related studies, a huge number (more than thousands) of
research papers and conference presentations have been published since 1970s.
So again, why do you add when the physical situation demands that you subtract?
Because if you substract you are going to get the Coriolis effect.
If you add the phase shifts, you get the Sagnac effect.
-
Nope, couldn't find it in that post, maybe your next one.
Still no justification for why you add, meaning the light beam travels along one segment with the rotation, and then magically teleports back to travel along the other segment again with the rotation.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF (right from scratch, as required by the RE):
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with an external pump configuration.
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
The very same formula derived by me:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
FULL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF THE PHASE SHIFTS HAS JUST BEEN GIVEN.
MATHEMATICAL/THEORETICAL PROOF
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
The Coriolis effect means that the phase shift will be caused by the physical modification of the light paths (inflection and deflection due to the Coriolis force effect on the light beams).
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c - v2) (we combine the terms which feature c - v1,2)
(l1c - l1v2 - l2c + l2v1)/(c2 - cv2 - cv1 +v1v2)
Factoring out c and observing that the terms l1v2/c, l2v1/c and v1v2/c can be neglected, we obtain:
(l1 - l2)/(c - v2 - v1)
Since l1 ~= l2, we can see that the velocity addition equations for the true Sagnac effect, c + v and c - v (in this case c + v1 + v2 and c - v1 - v2) are not applicable to the Coriolis effect situation.
The Coriolis effect is caused by the physical deflection/inflection of the light beams, not by the modification of the velocities.
Let us proceed now exactly as Professor Yeh did in the phase conjugate mirror experiment described above:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Now, we have the correct, true Sagnac effect formula valid for an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation.
Averaging (v1 + v 2)/2 = v, and (l1 + l2)/2 = l, v1 ~= v2 = v, l1 ~= l2 = l, we obtain:
4lv/c2
Moreover, we can see that now the velocity addition equations are valid:
(l1 + l2)/(c - v2 - v1)
To obtain the Coriolis effect phase shift, we substract the phase differences for each separate segment.
This formula is proportional to the area and the angular velocity.
To get the Sagnac effect phase shift, we have to add the phase differences for each separate segment
This formula is proportional to the linear velocity (and the radius of rotation), and will feature the addition of the two separate speeds and segment lengths. We can average the lengths and the velocities, to get a final formula which features one length and one velocity.
This is the great omission in the calculation done by A. Michelson.
Here are the initial phase shifts:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
For each separate segment/arm of the interferometer, each with a slightly different length and a slightly distinct velocity, the calculations proceed as follows:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
By substracting these phase differences, one is actually going to derive the Coriolis effect formula:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams
Since the phase differences have already been calculated, one has to ADD them in order to get the final, total Sagnac effect:
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This fact has never been observed to the present day.
For a Sagnac interferometer, located away from the center of rotation, one has to ADD the separate phase differences in order to obtain the full Sagnac effect:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation (different radii, different velocities):
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
A beautiful generalization of the Sagnac formula for interferometers which are located away from the center of rotation.
Proven by Dr. Yeh's experiment.
Proof:
Δt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac differences, corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The Coriolis effect formula by contrast is just the physical effect of the Coriolis force upon the light beams, a modification of the paths of the light beams leading to a final formula where the effect is directly proportional to the area and to the angular velocity.
The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, the modification of the velocities of the light beams, c + v1 + v2 and c - v1 - v2, leading to the final formula where the Sagnac effect is directly proportional to the linear velocity (radius of rotation x angular velocity) and the length of the segments of the interferometer.
-
Irrelevent.
Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.
Totally incorrect, Mr Sandokhan! You fail, as usual!
Read: Rare Historical Photos, Albert Einstein’s matriculation certificate, 1896 (https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/albert-einsteins-matriculation-certificate-1896/)(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cXLogp_lBNM/U21VmDaMUlI/AAAAAAAAJDA/A2v0r_2IlIo/s1600/Albert+Einstein%E2%80%99s+matriculation+certificate,+1896.jpg)
Albert Einstein’s matriculation certificate, aged 17, 1896. It’s a myth that Einstein was bad at math.
This puts to rest that urban legend that Einstein was a “bad student”, although he received a three in French. He did, apparently, receive straight sixes in algebra, geometry, physics, and – history! Young Einstein knew what was important, it seems. Perhaps the legend is founded in the fact that the Swiss school system has a 6 as best grade, and 1 as poorest, while the German is the other way round. In his certificate of qualification for university matriculation the lessons which he was less interested in can easily be detected. But the average grade in his certificate was a 5, i.e. the grade “good”.
From: Rare Historical Photos, Albert Einstein’s matriculation certificate, 1896 (https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/albert-einsteins-matriculation-certificate-1896/).
Read this again, " He did, apparently, receive straight sixes in algebra, geometry, physics, and – history" and a siz in Switzerland was the highest possible grade!
Please do your homework properly Mr Sandokhan!
By the way
The dimensions of a sacred cubit are simply length and 2/π is dimensionless so it is quite invalid to equate them!
The dimensions of g are length/time2 and again π2 so again is dimensionless so it is quite invalid to equate them!
Any comments on another of your horrendous and far-reaching blunders.
-
This page is worthy of downloading, so i am going to do it right now...
Thanks Sanodkhan!
-
Irrelevent.
Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.
He could not pass a basic engineering exam.
Someone else did his homework for him, while attending university.
Yet, you seem to trust this person when it comes to understanding the universe.
Here is what happens when you do that: a failure on A GRAND COSMIC SCALE.
DARK FLOW, the defiance of the general relativity on a cosmic scale:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Relativity has had a great impact on modern science and there is tremendous amount of supporting evidence
FAKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY TESTS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
And there is considerable experimental evidence for Einstein's General Relativity too
TOTAL DEMOLITION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HOW EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 SHIFT EXPERIMENTS AND HOW EINSTEIN FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
By the way your might compare your Sagnac calculations with these General relativistic Sagnac formula revised, Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri
Their result is still the Coriolis effect formula:
4AΩ/c^2
You are embarrassing yourself beyond redemption.
Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?
The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.
The next term is O(wr/c)2.
Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?
The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.
And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE SHAPE OF THE SUN CANNOT BE SPHERICAL AT ALL:
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.
Eugene N. Parker
It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.
British physicist C. E. R. Bruce
It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.
Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti
Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.
Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker
The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.
Ralph E. Juergens
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)
-
Irrelevent.
Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.
He could not pass a basic engineering exam.
Someone else did his homework for him, while attending university.
Yet, you seem to trust this person when it comes to understanding the universe.
Here is what happens when you do that: a failure on A GRAND COSMIC SCALE.
DARK FLOW, the defiance of the general relativity on a cosmic scale:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Relativity has had a great impact on modern science and there is tremendous amount of supporting evidence
FAKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY TESTS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
And there is considerable experimental evidence for Einstein's General Relativity too
TOTAL DEMOLITION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HOW EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 SHIFT EXPERIMENTS AND HOW EINSTEIN FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
By the way your might compare your Sagnac calculations with these General relativistic Sagnac formula revised, Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri
Their result is still the Coriolis effect formula:
4AΩ/c^2
You are embarrassing yourself beyond redemption.
Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?
The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.
The next term is O(wr/c)2.
Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?
The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.
And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE SHAPE OF THE SUN CANNOT BE SPHERICAL AT ALL:
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.
Eugene N. Parker
It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.
British physicist C. E. R. Bruce
It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.
Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti
Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.
Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker
The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.
Ralph E. Juergens
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)
I’m afraid all you say is irrelevant, what he did when he was a younger man is of no consequence and in no way diminishes his achievements. He won a Nobel prize, which I suppose is pretty good and was he considered by his peers at the time to be amongst the greatest geniuses ever. I’m afraid what you think when compared what true men of science thought is meaningless in comparison.
You argument or reasoning that somehow him failing an exam brings his achievements into question is pretty weak and childish.
Why not start with all the experiments and day to day functionality that confirms his work. To deny them would be simply be akin to shoving your head in some sand while singing la la la..
-
Take a better look whom you are responding to.
-
Take a better look whom you are responding to.
Nice avatar! :)
Now, after all that has been written on the previous (downloaded) page, how would you summarize (in layman terms) what we can conclude from the results of MGPX???
-
Totally incorrect
In 1894, Einstein leaves Luitpold Gymnasium without a degree.
https://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/chronological_table.html
In fact, he dropped out of the Gymnasium.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=6UV0wMmnrIUC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=einstein+luitpold+gymnasium+dropped+out&source=bl&ots=D3IMe4bghv&sig=j7Wlxo7JZZuL4E1rSUi08iKRt44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRwaLFkePeAhUrLcAKHRvXB9oQ6AEwF3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=einstein%20luitpold%20gymnasium%20dropped%20out&f=false
In 1895 he fails the entrance exam to the Polytechnic University.
This is happening in October 1895.
Yet, we are to believe that in October 1896, he passes all of his classes with a mark of 6.
Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.
It could be that the REAL notes he received at Luitpold (where 6 is rock bottom) were switched over to the certificate from Aarau.
We know for sure that Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework while both were attending the same university:
http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html
“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."
Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.
The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.
-
How would you summarize (in layman terms) what we can conclude from the results of MGPX?
Albert Michelson and Henry Gale measured the Coriolis effect of the ether drift in 1925 (Clearing, Illinois).
However, Michelson claimed that the formula derived by him was the Sagnac effect formula.
Thus, already having received a Nobel prize for his previous experiments which now turn out to be Sagnac experiments in disguise, Michelson was able to hijack the entire debate on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism for the next one hundred years.
Several geocentrists, most notable R. Sungenis and R. Barrett, tried to argue that, given Mach's principle, the MGX experiment cannot distinguish between a rotating earth and a rotating ether field.
However, the heliocentrists responded immediately saying: "show us proof of the aether entrainment", while at the same time they brought up Hammar's experiment.
That is why geocentrists are helpless when faced with the claim made by Michelson: that back in 1925 he measured the Sagnac effect.
Even if they tried to argue that Michelson measured something else, the heliocentrists will respond: "show us then the correct formula".
Here is the formula put forth by Michelson:
(http://image.ibb.co/d6svVn/ahasag5.jpg)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
The equation derived by Michelson leads directly to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
The Coriolis effect means that the phase shift will be caused by the physical modification of the light paths (inflection and deflection due to the Coriolis force effect on the light beams).
The Coriolis effect formula:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
However, in 1986, for the first time, Professor Yeh provided the experimental proof that Michelson's derivation is totally wrong, as it pertains to the Sagnac effect.
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
Just like in the MGX, we have two different velocities and two different lengths.
Light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
For each separate segment/arm of the interferometer, each with a slightly different length and a slightly distinct velocity, the calculations proceed as follows:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
By substracting these phase differences, one is actually going to derive the Coriolis effect formula.
Since the phase differences have already been calculated, one has to ADD them in order to get the final, total Sagnac effect:
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This fact has never been observed to the present day.
For a Sagnac interferometer, located away from the center of rotation, one has to ADD the separate phase differences in order to obtain the full Sagnac effect:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
The same formula as that obtained by Professor Yeh.
This is a beautiful generalization of the Sagnac effect where the center of rotation coincides with the geometrical center of the interferometer:
Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation (different radii, different velocities):
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
Proof:
Δt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac differences, corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The Coriolis effect formula by contrast is just the physical effect of the Coriolis force upon the light beams, a modification of the paths of the light beams leading to a final formula where the effect is directly proportional to the area and to the angular velocity.
The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, the modification of the velocities of the light beams, c + v1 + v2 and c - v1 - v2, leading to the final formula where the Sagnac effect is directly proportional to the linear velocity (radius of rotation x angular velocity) and the length of the segments of the interferometer.
Michelson only measured the Coriolis effect and not the rotational Sagnac effect, since he substracted twice within the same derivation, he obtained a Coriolis effect formula.
-
Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.
The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°
Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885
hsinΦ = 0.225967
4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72
THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.
Let us take a look, again, at the formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
The very same formula derived by me:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Now, the correct formula features the VELOCITY ADDITION EQUATIONS in a proper form.
Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation (different radii, different velocities):
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The hare brained argument put forth by the RE (one beam to go forwards along both arcs) is easily debunked.
This is as far as Michelson went with his derivation:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Immediately we obtain the Coriolis effect formula, as proven in my previous message.
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
However, as shown by Professor Yeh's groundbreaking experiment, once we have the phase shifts (which have been already substracted, for each arm of the interferometer), we have to add them to the correct Sagnac effect formula.
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Two SEPARATE phase shifts for each arm.
Each arm features a different velocity and a different length, as required by A. Michelson.
Having obtained the phase shifts, by substraction, we add the final results to obtain the Sagnac effect, exactly as Professor Yeh did.
-
Very confusing, i must admit.
It seems that you are claiming that Michelson didn't measure the rotation of the earth a.k.a the rotation of an aether?
Quote No 1 :
Michelson-Gale confirmed that the Earth was spinning. If you take anything else from it you are misrepresenting their findings or you do not understand it properly.
To quote:
The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy.
The experiment is consistent with relativity for the same reason as all other Sagnac type experiments (see Sagnac effect). That is, rotation is absolute in special relativity, because there is no inertial frame of reference in which the whole device is at rest during the complete process of rotation, thus the light paths of the two rays are different in all of those frames, consequently a positive result must occur.
Here's another quote on gravitational ether:
However, this theory was directly refuted by the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925). The great difference of this experiment against the usual Sagnac experiments is the fact that the rotation of earth itself was measured. If the aether is completely dragged by the Earth's gravitational field, a negative result has to be expected - but the result was positive.
Now, let's see this very interesting quote :
Two months after publication of the first paper, Sagnac would conclude his second and final paper on the matter with these words-
"The result of this methodology demonstrates that, in the surrounding space [of the apparatus], light is propagated with a velocity Vo
which is independent of the movement of the parts of the system, light source (...) and the optical circuit."
This is the central theme of Sagnac: that the propagation of light appears to be independent of the state of rotation of his self-contained apparatus, exactly because one can differentially measure its advance or retardation as a function of the speed of rotation of the apparatus.
What is the consequence of the Sagnac experiment for the MGP experiment? To begin with, Sagnac's apparatus was rotating (with the control fringe pattern being obtained first with the apparatus 'at rest'), whereas the MGP setup was a stationary one.
This fact is intimately linked to the nature of the measurements in question: the Sagnac experiment detects the rotation of the revolving interferometer (relative to the 'rest state'), whereas the MGP experiment, with its interferometer fixed to the local revolving frame, detected the rotation of the earth.
Because of the resolution limits, the Sagnac experiment could never have hoped to detect the rotation of the earth, anymore than the MM experiment could have detected the rotation of its own apparatus.
What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary
motion.
But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades.
An open-loop Sagnac effect (dt= 2A?/c2) is today well established for the paths of electromagnetic signals around the planet: employing the GPS satellite relay system, delays have been measured by clocks on the order of fractions of microseconds in the W-E transmission with respect to the E-W transmission.
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
Why?
Because an open-loop Sagnac effect can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Case closed!
-
The Coriolis effect is a PHYSICAL EFFECT, a deflection of the light beam.
The Sagnac effect is an ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT, a modification of the velocity of the light beam.
These facts are well known.
The topological considerations of the Sagnac effect, using Stokes' rule/theorem, confirm these findings:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979
Now, let us take a closer look at the entire process of derivation of both sets of formulas.
This is Michelson's derivation, which leads to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Two consecutive substractions.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
We add the terms which are located in the same direction, and substract the final difference.
By constrast, Michelson substracted TWICE, thus obtaining the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
That is, he substracted, once, the terms located in the same direction, and then, twice, he substracted the final difference.
Here is Michelson's final formula:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
A formula proportional to the AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER, measuring a PHYSICAL EFFECT, the Coriolis effect.
Now, the correct Sagnac formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This formula is proportional to the VELOCITY OF THE LIGHT BEAMS, exactly what the Sagnac effect entails.
The formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
-
Take a better look whom you are responding to.
Why? please elaborate.
-
@Sandokhan, in order to try to clarify all this, i am going to put forward a few simple questions :
1. Is this line of reasoning right or wrong, according to you :
If there were no aether then both beams would take the same time the earth's rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the earth were standing still with the universe, including the aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.
2. Do you consider MGP experiment useless because Michelson screw up the math, or we can still make something useful out of his measurements by modifying his wrong math?
3. Do you agree with the following line of reasoning (regarding geocentric implications of an open-loop Sagnac effect), i repeat :
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
Why?
Because an open-loop Sagnac effect can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU REPLIED TO MY THREE QUESTIONS WITH YES OR NO, AND AFTER EACH SPECIFIC YES OR NO YOU CAN ADD AS MANY BLOCKS OF TEXT AS YOU WISH... :)
Thanks!
-
Irrelevent.
Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.
Yes, that is right, that claim is irrelevant.
Not only is it an outright lie, it has absolutely nothing to do with your completely incorrect derivation of the Sagnac effect.
[skipping over your irrelevant BS which doesn't involve providing a derivation or justification]
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Finally, a diagram.
Now can you use that to show why you should add instead of subtract?
By having subtracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Which is the only way to do it due to the direction of propagation of the light around the loop.
Anything else will not match the physical reality.
[and more irrelevant garbage skipped].
Still no justification for why you add rather than subtract.
Perhaps these diagram can help.
For this the centre of rotation is the blue dot, and we ignore the phase shift on moving in and out (i.e. the dashed lines).
The phase shift for each segment is the time taken for the forwards propagating light beam minus the time taken for the backwards propagating light beam. i.e. the inside one minus the outside one.
This is what we have in reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/WQpbiUH.png)
Notice that the light beams reverse direction between the 2 segments. The red one moves with the rotation on one and against it on the other.
This means the overall time shift will be the difference between them, i.e. the red one takes more time in the inner segment but less time on the outer segment. As such, we need to subtract the 2 individual shifts.
The better way to do this is to instead calculate the total time for red and orange and then use that to determine the difference, as I have already done and you were completely unable to refute.
Meanwhile, this is what your nonsense demands:
(https://i.imgur.com/7FQYFZ1.png)
Notice how now the red path goes forwards in both segments. This means that it will take longer for both segments and thus you must add the shifts. But also notice this requires the light path to no longer follow the loop and instead cross over in the middle.
But now, these crossing sections cannot possibly be radial and will contribute to the shift as well and thus must also be considered.
As such, adding the 2 shifts does not correspond to the simple ring interferometer and in no way produces the correct result.
-
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
At the risk of having Sandy go down yet another rabbit hole, his open loop Sagan nonsense is reliant upon properties of a phase conjugate mirror which have not been demonstrated, likely because he has no idea what a phase conjugate mirror actually is.
It isn't just a fancy piece of glass which magically has phase conjugate properties. It is an optically pumped medium (i.e. they shoot lasers at it, normally 2, I think it must be 2 but I'm not sure if more still work) which results in interference to produce the phase conjugate effect. He has failed to demonstrate that this applies generally to any reference frame, which is especially problematic as a simple analysis indicates that isn't the case at all.
For a simple explanation of why, if you have this PCM in an inertial reference frame which is moving away from an emitter and detector, then the beam of light going towards it is redshifted to the frame of the PCM. The PCM then reflects this, keeping it consistent in its reference frame. This is then redshifted to go back into the reference from of the emitter and detector. As such the detector receives red shifted light.
The same issue applies to sideways motion. If you have a source which reflects light off a stationary PCM (in its reference frame) at an angle, then it will come back to the source.
However if this angle is steep enough that the PCM can be put into motion such that in the PCM's reference frame the light comes in normal to the PCM, then it will reflect normal to the PCM in its frame and thus will behave like a normal mirror in the source's reference frame.
To put all that simply, motion of the PCM can affect the interference between the 4 beams of light (incoming, outgoing, and the 2 pumps) which means it will no longer have the phase conjugate properties.
-
Stop bullshitting your readers.
By now, you are down to shitty diagrams, which is pathetic: they are caricatures drawn with your left hand, useless garbage.
Anything else will not match the physical reality.
Here is some reality for you.
in 1986, for the first time, Professor Yeh provided the experimental proof that Michelson's derivation is totally wrong, as it pertains to the Sagnac effect.
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
Just like in the MGX, we have two different velocities and two different lengths.
Light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Take a look at the final formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
Exactly my formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
The equation derived by Michelson leads directly to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
The Coriolis effect means that the phase shift will be caused by the physical modification of the light paths (inflection and deflection due to the Coriolis force effect on the light beams).
The Coriolis effect formula:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The Coriolis effect is a PHYSICAL EFFECT, a deflection of the light beam.
The Sagnac effect is an ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT, a modification of the velocity of the light beam.
These facts are well known.
Now, let us take a closer look at the entire process of derivation of both sets of formulas.
This is Michelson's derivation, which leads to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Two consecutive substractions.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
We add the terms which are located in the same direction, and substract the final difference.
By constrast, Michelson substracted TWICE, thus obtaining the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
That is, he substracted, once, the terms located in the same direction, and then, twice, he substracted the final difference.
Here is Michelson's final formula:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
A formula proportional to the AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER, measuring a PHYSICAL EFFECT, the Coriolis effect.
Now, the correct Sagnac formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This formula is proportional to the VELOCITY OF THE LIGHT BEAMS, exactly what the Sagnac effect entails.
The formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
I win!
-
reliant upon properties of a phase conjugate mirror which have not been demonstrated
Stop bullshitting your readers.
The experiment performed by Professor Yeh was published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world: Journal of Optics Letters.
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
It was published in the ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT OF THE US OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH.
Professor Yeh is one of the greatest experts in the world on the Sagnac effect.
Here is the final formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
The very same formula derived by me:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
-
Stop bullshitting your readers.
Good advice, you should try following it for once.
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro
We are not talking about them. They have no place in this discussion.
Once you admit you were completely wrong regarding your formula for a simple ring interferometer the like of MMG, then we can move on to other experiments.
For now you need to explain why you add the 2 phase shifts.
So again, why do you add the 2 segments?
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
No, we don't.
That is the exact opposite of what we do.
Again, that corresponds to this:
(https://i.imgur.com/7FQYFZ1.png)
We want to find the time difference between the red and orange paths.
You require that the red path goes with the rotation along both segments, but that is not how the experiment is actually conducted.
This is how the experiment is conducted:
(https://i.imgur.com/WQpbiUH.png)
So we have 4 times (were for simplicity I will just take yours rather than deriving them myself):
We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
Which now allows for simplification without ending up with 0 by noting v<<c, thus we get:
dt=2*l1v1/c2-2*l2v2/c2
=(2*l1v1-2*l2v2)/c2
=2*(l1v1-l2v2)/c2
Notice it is a difference of terms, not an addition like you claim.
So again, why do you insist on adding when it clearly doesn't match the physical reality of the experiment?
Adding them requires that the light path criss cross rather than follows the loop, and ignores the phase shift from the criss crossing.
I win!
No, you lose, big time, as you are yet to show why you subtract when that does not match the physical experiment. In fact that is effectively you kicking the ball into your own goal.
-
2*(l1v1-l2v2)/c2
Congratulations, you have just derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
So again, why do you add the 2 segments?
I have already explained, which means you are not paying attention while you are drawing those shitty diagrams.
Now, let us take a closer look at the entire process of derivation of both sets of formulas.
This is Michelson's derivation, which leads to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Two consecutive substractions.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
We add the terms which are located in the same direction, and substract the final difference.
By constrast, Michelson substracted TWICE, thus obtaining the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
That is, he substracted, once, the terms located in the same direction, and then, twice, he substracted the final difference.
Here is Michelson's final formula:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
A formula proportional to the AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER, measuring a PHYSICAL EFFECT, the Coriolis effect.
Now, the correct Sagnac formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This formula is proportional to the VELOCITY OF THE LIGHT BEAMS, exactly what the Sagnac effect entails.
The formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
They have no place in this discussion.
They certainly do.
The formula derived by Professor Yeh is identical to the one derived by me.
Experimental proof published in the Journal of Optics Letters.
Please read:
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
Just like in the MGX, we have two different velocities and two different lengths.
Light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Take a look at the final formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
Exactly my formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
I win!
Again.
-
2*(l1v1-l2v2)/c2
Congratulations, you have just derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Yes, which is also known as the Sagnac effect.
You are still yet to explain why you subtract, will it be found in this post?
Nope, just the same baseless assertions.
Again, reality, what MMG was, and what has the subtraction of the shifts from the individual segments.
(https://i.imgur.com/WQpbiUH.png)
Again, your nonsense, where you add the shifts, adding the time taken in the same direction, while ignoring the shift from the criss cross:
(https://i.imgur.com/7FQYFZ1.png)
Unless you can explain why you add the segments in the same direction, instead of adding the segments which contain the same light beam, you lose.
And no, repeating the same BS, or trying to talk about a completely different experiment is not explaining it.
So again, why do you add, when that would require the light beam to propagate in the same direction along both segments, requiring the light beams to criss cross in the middle leading to additional shifts; rather than subtract, which instead requires the light to travel along the loop?
Until you actually answer that, anything else you post is irrelevant.
-
Perhaps this will help, using your picture:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1, and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3, answer the following questions:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm1 and arm 3?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm1 and arm 3?
Thus what is the difference in time taken for the light beams? (Note: this is the difference between the 3rd and 6th questions above)?
Note: this is fundamentally different to your claim, where you add the blue in arm 1 with the brown in arm 3, even though they are different light beams.
-
Yes, which is also known as the Sagnac effect.
Can't be both.
Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
People are beginning to wonder if you are all there, jackblack.
You have just been shown two important historical references where the SAME formula is derived, and it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
to talk about a completely different experiment is not explaining it.
The very same experiment.
Sagnac effect featuring two different lengths and two different velocities.
The formula derived by Professor Yeh is identical to the one derived by me.
Experimental proof published in the Journal of Optics Letters.
Please read:
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
Just like in the MGX, we have two different velocities and two different lengths.
Light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Take a look at the final formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
Exactly my formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Each and every aspect raised by you was carefully analyzed and posted earlier.
The equation derived by Michelson leads directly to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
This is Michelson's derivation, which leads to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Two consecutive substractions.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
We add the terms which are located in the same direction, and substract the final difference.
By constrast, Michelson substracted TWICE, thus obtaining the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
That is, he substracted, once, the terms located in the same direction, and then, twice, he substracted the final difference.
Here is Michelson's final formula:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
A formula proportional to the AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER, measuring a PHYSICAL EFFECT, the Coriolis effect.
Now, the correct Sagnac formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This formula is proportional to the VELOCITY OF THE LIGHT BEAMS, exactly what the Sagnac effect entails.
You have only the Coriolis effect formula.
I have the correct generalized Sagnac effect formula, proven experimentally by Professor Yeh.
I win.
Each and every time.
-
more repetitions of the same refuted garbage
Stop just repeating the same crap.
You need to explain why you add.
Baselessly asserting that you need to add the segments going the same way is not answering why you need to add, it is just reasserting that you do.
Repeating the same refuted claims again and again while ignoring what has been said doesn't mean you win. It means you lose and you are a sore loser that doesn't want to admit you have lost, so you keep pretending you haven't.
Again, adding the segments going the same direction corresponds to this:
(https://i.imgur.com/7FQYFZ1.png)
As in order to add the segments doing the same direction, you need the right light beam to travel along both segments in the same direction.
That is not what the experiment is.
Again, try answering the simple questions based upon your picture:
Perhaps this will help, using your picture:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1, and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3, answer the following questions:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm1 and arm 3?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm1 and arm 3?
Thus what is the difference in time taken for the light beams? (Note: this is the difference between the 3rd and 6th questions above)?
Note: this is fundamentally different to your claim, where you add the blue in arm 1 with the brown in arm 3, even though they are different light beams.
Can you answer these very simple questions? Or do you know that answering them will show you to be wrong?
-
And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
<< Totally irrelevant to the question asked! >>
So please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
-
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE SHAPE OF THE SUN CANNOT BE SPHERICAL AT ALL:
Absolutely incorrect and the sun IS almost perfectly spherical!"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller:
the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
This is quite meaningless because the atmospheric pressure of the earth that we measure is at the surface of the solid earth and the sun has no such solid surface.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
What you seem to ignore is that those depths are measured from the very ill-defined surface of the photosphere.
Hence those pressures are largely (there are many other minor effects) just the "solar atmospheric pressure" due to the weight of the "solar atmospheric" above that depth.
The atmospheric pressure on earth is also due to the weight of the atmospheric but we measure from the well-defined earth's surface.
Because of its swift rotation, There is no "swift rotation"!
the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it.
The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Your "swift rotation" is only one revolution per 24.47 days (at the equator) is not really such a "swift rotation".
The surface gravitation on the sun is about 274 m/s2 and the centripetal acceleration at the equator (ω2/Rsun) about 0.00614 m/s2.
Since g >> Acent the sun would be expected to be almost round, which it is:NASA Science, How Round is the Sun? (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun)
(https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-red/s3fs-public/styles/large/public/mnt/medialibrary/2008/10/02/02oct_oblatesun_resources/notasphere_med.gif?itok=xUPQNFNh)
In this diagram, the sun's oblateness has been magnified 10,000 times for easy visibility.
The blue curve traces the sun's shape averaged over a three month period.
The black asterisked curve traces a shorter 10-day average. The wiggles in the 10-day curve are real, caused by strong magnetic ridges in the vicinity of sunspots.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one.
No, it doesn't. The shape does not fit the ideal gravitational shape exactly but that is due to magnetic ridges at the sunspot and they are relatively quite small!
And near the surface of the sun's atmosphere, "the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one" but deeper down the situation is quite different.
-
Take a better look whom you are responding to.
Are you joking or just a joke?
-
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
Here is the precise experiment carried out by Professor Yeh.
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
Just like in the MGX, we have two different velocities and two different lengths.
Light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Take a look at the final formula derived by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
Exactly my formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
My formula agrees precisely and exactly with the experimental proof.
What you did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
This is what you wrote:
2*(l1v1-l2v2)/c2
Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
As in order to add the segments doing the same direction, you need the right light beam to travel along both segments in the same direction.
Completely wrong.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The CORIOLIS EFFECT involves two substractions.
The SAGNAC EFFECT involves one substraction and one addition.
Here is why you have to add.
The equation derived by Michelson leads directly to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
This is Michelson's derivation, which leads to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Two consecutive substractions.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
Here is how the phase components work out.
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Or we can proceed from the first equation provided by Michelson.
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
By substracting these phase differences, one is actually going to derive the Coriolis effect formula.
Since the phase differences have already been calculated, one has to ADD them in order to get the final, total Sagnac effect, just like the PEER REVIEWED PAPER provided by Professor Yeh:
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
We add the terms which are located in the same direction, and substract the final difference.
By constrast, Michelson substracted TWICE, thus obtaining the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
That is, he substracted, once, the terms located in the same direction, and then, twice, he substracted the final difference.
Here is Michelson's final formula:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
A formula proportional to the AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER, measuring a PHYSICAL EFFECT, the Coriolis effect.
Now, the correct Sagnac formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
This formula is proportional to the VELOCITY OF THE LIGHT BEAMS, exactly what the Sagnac effect entails.
You have only the Coriolis effect formula.
I have the correct generalized Sagnac effect formula, proven experimentally by Professor Yeh.
I have a peer reviewed paper which was published in one of the best scientific journals in the world, which agrees with me.
The very same formula.
This formula is used by the US OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH as well.
Here it is:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
THIS FORMULA ADDS THE PHASE DIFFERENCES, for a Sagnac interferometer which features two arms of different length, and different velocities.
Here is my formula:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
A precise agreement.
-
Absolutely incorrect and the sun IS almost perfectly spherical!
Let's put your word to the test.
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)
Hence those pressures are largely (there are many other minor effects) just the "solar atmospheric pressure" due to the weight of the "solar atmospheric" above that depth.
You still don't get it.
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
The surface gravitation on the sun is about 274 m/s2 and the centripetal acceleration at the equator (ω2/Rsun) about 0.00614 m/s2.
Since g >> Acent the sun would be expected to be almost round, which it is:
Let's put your word to the test.
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
-
More useless spam
No where in there did you answer the questions. Instead you just repeated the same refuted BS.
Repeating the same refuted BS doesn't magically make you correct.
You need to address the issues raised. So again:
WHY DO YOU ADD RATHER THAN SUBTRACT?
Adding requires that the same beam of light travels with the direction of rotation in both segments.
This means it starts at the back, travels along one segment than magically warps to the back of the other segment, and then moves forward again.
This makes absolutely no sense and does not match the experiment at all.
It isn't surprising that a result which literally does not match the experiment, isn't produced.
Subtracting the shift corresponds to the light travelling in one direction around the loop, first going with the rotation in one segment and then against the rotation in the other to complete the loop.
Again, answer these simple questions if you are capable of doing so (if you can't, stop talking as you clearly don't understand what you are talking about):
Perhaps this will help, using your picture:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1, and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3, answer the following questions:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm1 and arm 3?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm1 and arm 3?
Thus what is the difference in time taken for the light beams? (Note: this is the difference between the 3rd and 6th questions above)?
Note: this is fundamentally different to your claim, where you add the blue in arm 1 with the brown in arm 3, even though they are different light beams.
-
This is what you put forth in front of your readers, the following equation:
2*(l1v1-l2v2)/c2
It is very easy to show that this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, which requires two consecutive substractions.
If you want the Sagnac effect, you have to add.
The equation derived by Michelson leads directly to the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Can you understand this much?
You have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Here are the papers to prove it.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
Adding requires that the same beam of light travels with the direction of rotation in both segments.
This means it starts at the back, travels along one segment than magically warps to the back of the other segment, and then moves forward again.
You are lying through your teeth.
Adding requires no such thing at all.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.
For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.
THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
Very simple to follow.
Here is how the phase components work out.
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Or we can proceed from the first equation provided by Michelson.
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
By substracting these phase differences, one is actually going to derive the Coriolis effect formula.
Since the phase differences have already been calculated, one has to ADD them in order to get the final, total Sagnac effect, just like the PEER REVIEWED PAPER provided by Professor Yeh:
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
does not match the experiment, isn't produced.
I am sorry, did you say experiment?
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
Just like in the MGX, we have two different velocities and two different lengths.
Light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
HERE IS THE FINAL EQUATION/FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH, PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF OPTICS LETTERS, USED BY THE US OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
It matches exactly the formula derived by me:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Thus what is the difference in time taken for the light beams?
Here is how the phase difference is calculated.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.
For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.
THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
Very simple to follow.
Here is how the phase components work out.
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
You have derived the Coriolis effect formula.
I have the correct Sagnac effect formula, proven experimentally by Professor Yeh.
I win.
-
This is what you put forth in front of your readers, the following equation:
2*(l1v1-l2v2)/c2
It is very easy to show that this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula
Which is the Sagnac effect.
If you want the Sagnac effect, you have to add.
No, if you want a pure BS effect which doesn't match reality at all, then you need to add.
Again, stop repeating the same refuted BS and try to answer these simple questions:
Perhaps this will help, using your picture:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1, and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3, answer the following questions:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm1 and arm 3?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 1?
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm 3?
Thus what is the total time taken for the light beam indicated in blue for arm1 and arm 3?
Thus what is the difference in time taken for the light beams? (Note: this is the difference between the 3rd and 6th questions above)?
Note: this is fundamentally different to your claim, where you add the blue in arm 1 with the brown in arm 3, even though they are different light beams.
Until you answer these questions, you have no ground to stand upon.
-
Anyone reading this thread will wonder what’s going on!
There was an experiment carried out by a guy called Sagnac to prove the existance of the aether and disprove relativity. He himself did not believe in a flat unmoving earth, which is quite ironical.
The irony I speak of is in the whole concept behind the experiment and that of the MM experiment. Both experiments were designed to account for the rotating of the earth! Why was the Sagnac experiment spun? If anything the Sagnac experiment irrespective of what you believe the results to be was designed on the basis of the earth being a rotating globe.
If you belive in the Sagnac experiment it follows that you must also believe the world is NOT flat and stationary!
Just to reiterate neither Sagnac or any other the other physicists who took part in such experiments believed in a flat earth. This experiment has been hijacked by flat earthers in a kack -handed way to try and prove the existance of the aether and disprove Relativity. They have of course failed on both counts, see below. What they have also done is to contradict their own flat earth beliefs.
Sabdokhan loves to quote science and scientists, the same science and scientists who believe in a spinning globe earth and not a flat one. This is a clear example of both cherry picking and the distortion of science. I think in his answers Sandokhan has proved himself to be guilty of both.
My challenge to Sandokhan is to explain all these contradictions, in plain English. Your attempt to baffle people by copying pages of cut and paste equations is not how to debate a point, all it does is allow you to hide behind a smokescreen of numbers.
http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/PIRT_VII-XII/pages/text/PIRT_X/Sfarti_2.pdf (http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/PIRT_VII-XII/pages/text/PIRT_X/Sfarti_2.pdf)
-
Which is the Sagnac effect.
Can't be both.
Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA derived by Michelson:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Can you understand this much?
You have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Here are the papers to prove it.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
You can't have it both ways.
What you derived, as proven in these papers, is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
What you want is the SAGNAC EFFECT.
I have answered your questions regarding the final formula for the phase differences.
With more details than anyone else would be willing to offer.
Please read again.
Here is the diagram:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.
For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.
THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
Very simple to follow.
Here is how the phase components work out.
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Or we can proceed from the first equation provided by Michelson.
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
By substracting these phase differences, one is actually going to derive the Coriolis effect formula.
Since the phase differences have already been calculated, one has to ADD them in order to get the final, total Sagnac effect, just like the PEER REVIEWED PAPER provided by Professor Yeh:
2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
The classic Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:
Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v)
Now, the CORRECT, generalized Sagnac effect formula, which features the correct velocity addition formula, as well as the addition of the paths:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)
The latter formula is a GENERALIZATION of the former phase difference formula.
you have no ground to stand upon.
I stand on the same ground as Professor Yeh, as the Journal of Optics Letters, as THE US OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH.
Here is the formula published, peer reviewed, by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
It matches exactly the formula derived by me:
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
You derived the Coriolis effect formula, as proven above.
I have derived the Sagnac effect formula, as proven above.
Let us compare the two formulas.
The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°
Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885
hsinΦ = 0.225967
4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72
THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
-
Absolutely incorrect and the sun IS almost perfectly spherical!
(https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg)
Looks perfectly round to me!
How to Photograph the Sun (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-photograph-sun)
Let's put your word to the test.
[<< R E A D my post again. If you can't understand it go back to school! >>
Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.
-
Totally incorrect
In 1894, Einstein leaves Luitpold Gymnasium without a degree.
https://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/chronological_table.html
In fact, he dropped out of the Gymnasium.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=6UV0wMmnrIUC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=einstein+luitpold+gymnasium+dropped+out&source=bl&ots=D3IMe4bghv&sig=j7Wlxo7JZZuL4E1rSUi08iKRt44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRwaLFkePeAhUrLcAKHRvXB9oQ6AEwF3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=einstein%20luitpold%20gymnasium%20dropped%20out&f=false
In 1895 he fails the entrance exam to the Polytechnic University.
This is happening in October 1895.
Yet, we are to believe that in October 1896, he passes all of his classes with a mark of 6.
Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.
It could be that the REAL notes he received at Luitpold (where 6 is rock bottom) were switched over to the certificate from Aarau.
We know for sure that Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework while both were attending the same university:
http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html
“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."
Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.
The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.
Regardless of all what you say the scientific world, you are so fond of misquoting and distorting, all hail Einstein and his achievements to be among the greatest of all time.... and that is a fact,......not one of you many made up factoids.
-
My challenge to Sandokhan is to explain all these contradictions, in plain English. Your attempt to baffle people by copying pages of cut and paste equations is not how to debate a point, all it does is allow you to hide behind a smokescreen of numbers.
http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/PIRT_VII-XII/pages/text/PIRT_X/Sfarti_2.pdf
You simply do not understand what it means to do your homework.
Take a look at the date this following message was posted:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846045#msg1846045
DECEMBER 09, 2016
There have been several attempts to try to explain the Sagnac effect, either using STR, GTR or other field theories.
J.H. Field (STR, time dilation), R. Klauber (NTO, non-time orthogonal metric in spacetime), A. Tartaglia/M.L. Ruggiero/G. Rizzi (flat spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), P. Maraner/J.P. Zendri (Minkowski spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), S.J.G. Gift (GTR), M.F. Yagan (cumulative Doppler effect using STR), A.G. Kelly (universal relativity), A. Sfarti (STR), F. Amador (Evans field theory), F. Selleri (specific set of spacetime transformations which lead directly to MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).
These authors do not seem to understand that there is no such thing as the theory of relativity/spacetime continuum:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg
DISCOIDAL SHAPE OF THE SUN.
It cannot be spherical.
Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?
YOU CANNOT INVOKE GRAVITY WHEN THE PRESSURE IN THE CHROMOSPHERE IS 0.0000000000001 BAR.
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
all hail Einstein and his achievements to be among the greatest of all time
Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.
The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.
-
Let’s make it quite clear to all the readers of this discussion.
ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE deigned! EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT designed!.. THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.
NONE OF THE PHYICISTS SANDOKHAN IS FOUND OF QUOTING WERE BELIVERS IN A FLAT STATIONARY EARTH.
IF QUESTIONED I AM SURE NONE OF THE SCIENTISTS HE QUOTES WOULD AGREE WITH HIM ON HIS BELIEFS ABOUT THE SUN AND COSMOS.
-
My challenge to Sandokhan is to explain all these contradictions, in plain English. Your attempt to baffle people by copying pages of cut and paste equations is not how to debate a point, all it does is allow you to hide behind a smokescreen of numbers.
http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/PIRT_VII-XII/pages/text/PIRT_X/Sfarti_2.pdf
You simply do not understand what it means to do your homework.
Take a look at the date this following message was posted:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846045#msg1846045
DECEMBER 09, 2016
There have been several attempts to try to explain the Sagnac effect, either using STR, GTR or other field theories.
J.H. Field (STR, time dilation), R. Klauber (NTO, non-time orthogonal metric in spacetime), A. Tartaglia/M.L. Ruggiero/G. Rizzi (flat spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), P. Maraner/J.P. Zendri (Minkowski spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), S.J.G. Gift (GTR), M.F. Yagan (cumulative Doppler effect using STR), A.G. Kelly (universal relativity), A. Sfarti (STR), F. Amador (Evans field theory), F. Selleri (specific set of spacetime transformations which lead directly to MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).
These authors do not seem to understand that there is no such thing as the theory of relativity/spacetime continuum:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg
DISCOIDAL SHAPE OF THE SUN.
It cannot be spherical.
Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?
YOU CANNOT INVOKE GRAVITY WHEN THE PRESSURE IN THE CHROMOSPHERE IS 0.0000000000001 BAR.
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
all hail Einstein and his achievements to be among the greatest of all time
Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.
The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.
So irrational, why not deal with one point at a time. While you are at it please explain in plain English your contradictions.
-
ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE DESIGNES EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT DESINED THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.
Brilliant.
However, Michelson and Gale only detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the light beams of the interferometer.
The Sagnac effect is some 21,000 times greater than the Coriolis effect.
No rotation of the Earth.
Only a rotating ether drift above the interferometer.
-
Can't be both.
Yes it can.
Both the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect are simply apparently strange things happening in a non-inertial reference frames.
And yet again, you just repeat the same refuted BS.
How long will it take before you learn that repeating the same BS and ignoring what has been said doesn't magically make you correct, and instead shows you have no argument.
As 6 questions at once seems too much for you, lets try it simpler, 1 question at a time:
Using your picture:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1 (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
-
The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT are not the same thing: they require quite different formulas to be described.
The Coriolis effect is a physical effect upon the light beams.
The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the light beams.
A marked and huge difference.
Here is the proof that the formula derived by Michelson is actually the Coriolis effect formula:
Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA derived by Michelson:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Can you understand this much?
You have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Here are the papers to prove it.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
You can't have it both ways.
What you derived, as proven in these papers, is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
Same as it ever was.
This is what Michelson put forth in front of his readers.
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
Now, if you substract, you are going to get the Coriolis effect.
Been there, done that.
If you want to obtain the Sagnac effect, you must add the components.
Just like Professor Yeh did.
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
Now, we can do it differently, that is, we add first and then we substract.
This way is even more revealing.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.
For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.
THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
Very simple to follow.
Here is how the phase components work out.
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Either way, we obtain the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA, derived experimentally by Professor Yeh:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
-
[repeated BS removed]
Still no answer to these very simple questions.
I ask again:
Using your picture:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1 (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
-
The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT are not the same thing: they require quite different formulas to be described.
The Coriolis effect is a physical effect upon the light beams. The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the light beams.
A marked and huge difference.
Yes, there surely is a "marked and huge difference". Dr. Ludwik Silberstein quite convincingly shows that for EM waves the Coriolis effect is too small to be even measured.
Here is the proof that the formula derived by Michelson is actually the Coriolis effect formula:
Here is the CORIOLIS SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA derived by Michelson:
FIFYdt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Can you understand this much?
You have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Here are the papers to prove it.
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
And don't forget the "Verification of the special relativity theory" part of it.Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams: Verification of the special relativity theory by SANKAR HAJRA (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory)
But I have to ask, Why would you take SANKAR HAJRA as an authority it being the Coriolis Effect and not the Sagnac Effect above the authority of say Albert Michelson and Dr. Ludwik Silberstein?
Especially when SANKAR HAJRA ends with this big if: 5. Measurement and conclusion
(a) If the relativity principle is correct and the experiment is carried out ideally, there will be a minute blackening of the photographic plate centring the point O2.
(b) If our present analysis is correct, there will be blackening of the photographic plate from the point T2 (of the bottom side mirror) westward in the second observation and there will be blackening of the photographic plate from the point T4 (of the bottom side mirror) westward in the third observation. All the distances viz., O2-T2 and O2 T4 could be measured and shown to be 2lu/c and 2lv/c respectively.
I think that I'll go with Albert Michelson and call it the Sagnac Delay!
You might note that Dr. Ludwik Silberstein never says that he has derived the "CORIOLIS FORCE" only the Sagnac Delay!
Dr Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
No, Dr. Silberstein did not propose that the Sagnac effect must be explained by "the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves".
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921 (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf)
Had you read his paper properly your would have noted that he simply showed that the Coriolis effect caused the light rays to deviate very slightly from straight paths between the mirrors.For the Earth (and a triangle parallel to the equatorial plane) even if κ = 1 (no drag) this would amount to 0.''00052 per kilometer of a,
and the difference between the angle sum of ACBA and ABCA would be the double of this. Thus, even for a = 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
In other words, rather than the "the Sagnac effect, . . . . , must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect" the Coriolis effect "would certainly be too small to be measured directly."
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
No, he did not "prove that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is" but he "proves that the formula for the Sagnac effect on the light beams is" . . . .
Please read what te paper actually says not what you want it to say!
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
And shows that the effect of this "convex and concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2" ""would certainly be too small to be measured directly."
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2; A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
No, no, no! Dr Ludwik Silberstein derived the Sagnac delay and he was quite unambiguous about this!
And on page 12 of 17 Dr Ludwik Silberstein derives the Sagnac delay using both Einstein's SR and GR: 2. Let us now try to find out what aspect the same problem
assumes from the standpoint of the theory of relativity, the special
and the generalized one.
It goes without saying that with neither of these theories can there be any question of an aether and its being dragged by the Earth in its daily rotation around its axis, or in its annual motion around the SUN.
And you will find your very learned Dr Ludwik Silberstein treats all of aether drag, SR and GR as possibilities worth testing further which, to some extent the Michelson-Gale-Pearon experiment did..
You can't have it both ways.
What you derived, as proven in these papers, is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
No it is NOT and so it is having NOT TWO WAYS! It is not the Coriolis Effect, it is the Sagnac Effect.
<< The rest I think we can ignore >>
In closing I do wish you would carefully read your own references. I don't know why you would use a reference like that of Dr Ludwik Silberstein.
It quite clearly disproves all you are claiming and obviously strongly supports the rotating earth orbiting the sun!
-
Dis thread tho
-
The derivation of the Coriolis effect for light beams is undergraduate level.
Very easy to do.
Two papers which prove that the formula derived by Michelson is the Coriolis effect equation:
Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
ONLY someone who should not be allowed to post in the upper forums, could write something like this:
In other words, rather than the "the Sagnac effect, . . . . , must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect" the Coriolis effect "would certainly be too small to be measured directly."
The quote you provided, pg 298 of the paper, has nothing to do with the Sagnac or the Coriolis effect.
Dr. Silberstein is deriving the equation of the light path in relation to Fermat's principle.
Did you even read the paper?
How then could make such a catastrophic blunder?
He starts the derivation of the Coriolis effect on page 298 at the bottom.
The fact that you CONFUSED and MIXED UP two different situations tells volumes about your miserable training as physicist.
No, Dr. Silberstein did not propose that the Sagnac effect must be explained by "the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves".
But he did.
In fact, in three papers.
Remember, the CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect.
It relates directly to the area of the interferometer.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
(https://image.ibb.co/bZAaCy/mgrot4.jpg)
Dr. Silberstein reveals the error committed by M. von Laue in the paper published in 1911:
"Laue seems, by the way, to be under the misapprehension that the light rays relative to the rotating table are straight lines, which they are not."
Dr. Silberstein proved that the effect measured by Sagnac is A PHYSICAL EFFECT, a deflection/inflection of the light beams due to the CORIOLIS FORCE.
Dr. Silberstein is describing the Coriolis effect, whether the lines are straight or not, NOT the electromagnetic effect (the Sagnac effect).
HERE IS THE PROOF THAT DR. SILBERSTEIN DERIVED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT:
One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false
CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?
Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.
Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.
Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.
Dr. Silberstein:
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
The fact that Dr. Silberstein deals also with TSR/TGR is outside the scope of our discussion: it is very easy to show the errors inherent in TSR/TGR.
Why would you take SANKAR HAJRA as an authority it being the Coriolis Effect and not the Sagnac Effect above the authority of say Albert Michelson and Dr. Ludwik Silberstein?
S. Hajra is using the STANDARD derivation of the Coriolis effect; as I said, undergraduate work, very simple.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory
You cannot have a single formula for two different effects.
Each effect has its own formula.
Here is the formula derived by Michelson:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Exactly the same formula derived both by Hajra and Silberstein (who used areas to build up/derive the formula).
It is a physical effect.
Here is the formula derived by Professor Yeh, which was peer reviewed, and is currently used by the US OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
Someone is wondering aloud:
Still no answer to these very simple questions.
You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Here are not one, but two derivations of the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
This is what Michelson put forth in front of his readers.
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) = 2l1v1/c2
l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2) = 2l2v2/c2
The phase differences have already been obtained.
Now, if you substract, you are going to get the Coriolis effect.
Been there, done that.
If you want to obtain the Sagnac effect, you must add the components.
Just like Professor Yeh did.
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
Now, we can do it differently, that is, we add first and then we substract.
This way is even more revealing.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.
For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.
THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
Very simple to follow.
Here is how the phase components work out.
Now, let carefully analyze this equation.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.
This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2) = (l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2)
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2) = (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2)
Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) and (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:
(l1c - l1v2 + l2c - l2v1)/(c2 - cv1 - cv2 + v1v2) - (l1c + l1v2 + l2c + l2v1)/(c2 + cv1 + cv2 + v1v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2
Either way, we obtain the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA, derived experimentally by Professor Yeh:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
Get it straight through your heads: there are TWO SEPARATE FORMULAS for two DIFFERENT EFFECTS.
You cannot have one formula for two very different physical phenomena.
-
ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE DESIGNES EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT DESINED THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.
Brilliant.
However, Michelson and Gale only detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the light beams of the interferometer.
The Sagnac effect is some 21,000 times greater than the Coriolis effect.
No rotation of the Earth.
Only a rotating ether drift above the interferometer.
Nonsense. Answer this question honestly.
Was George Sagnac a believer in the flat Earth?
-
ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE DESIGNES EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT DESINED THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.
Brilliant.
However, Michelson and Gale only detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the light beams of the interferometer.
The Sagnac effect is some 21,000 times greater than the Coriolis effect.
No rotation of the Earth.
Only a rotating ether drift above the interferometer.
Brilliant, that’s pretty much correct , I am!.....That’s the first thing you have said I agree with.
Does it not worry that none of the scientists you quote would agree with you on the nature of the Sun,Earth or cosmos at large. As you are so fond of quoting Nobel prize winners, name one who advocates a flat earth, aether, small sun as you appear to believe in.
-
Very easy to do.
Yes, which makes it surprising that you are unable to answer simple questions on it.
Rather than answer these very simple questions which would lead us straight to the result you insist on posting pages and pages of garbage which get us no closer to the answer as it just repeats the same baseless assertions.
You cannot have one formula for two very different physical phenomena.
That's right, it is the one formula for one phenomenon which you seem to want to pretend is true.
So again:
Using your picture (now with some excess removed):
(https://i.imgur.com/idj5Rnx.png)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1 (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
Are you capable of providing an answer to this very simple question, so we can move on to the next one or are you only capable of repeating the same refuted BS to avoid having to admit to yet another failure?
-
Very easy to do.
Yes, which makes it surprising that you are unable to answer simple questions on it.
Rather than answer these very simple questions which would lead us straight to the result you insist on posting pages and pages of garbage which get us no closer to the answer as it just repeats the same baseless assertions.
You cannot have one formula for two very different physical phenomena.
That's right, it is the one formula for one phenomenon which you seem to want to pretend is true.
So again:
Using your picture (now with some excess removed):
(https://i.imgur.com/idj5Rnx.png)
I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l1 and travelling at a velocity of v1 (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l3 and v3:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?
Are you capable of providing an answer to this very simple question, so we can move on to the next one or are you only capable of repeating the same refuted BS to avoid having to admit to yet another failure?
Wow...if ever I need some dead horses flogged, I know who to ask. Your tenaciousness knows no bounds. I imagine Sandokhan will have a made up formula for that. :)
-
Wow...if ever I need some dead horses flogged, I know who to ask. Your tenaciousness knows no bounds. I imagine Sandokhan will have a made up formula for that. :)
This has happened repeatedly, with me resorting to asking him very simple question he repeatedly refuses to answer before running away because he knows he can't defend his position.
I will keep flogging the dead horse until it chooses to leave. If I had the power to remove it, I would.
He does have an answer. It has already been provided above.
Of the 7 questions he effectively has the correct answers for 4 of them, provided here (he uses 1 and 2 instead of 1 and 3):
We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
The first 2 correspond to those going with the motion, (the simple justification of why is that they are a bigger number).
As the brown beam goes with the rotation in arm 1, that means the answer to Q1 (brown in arm 1) is:
l1/(c - v1)
And as the blue beam goes with the rotation in arm 3, that means Q5 (blue in arm 3) is:
l3/(c - v3)
Then the other 2 go against the motion, as brown goes against the motion in arm 3, Q2 is:
l3/(c + v3)
And finally Q4 is:
l1/(c + v1)
Now a sane person would find the overall shift as the time taken for blue minus time taken for brown (or vice versa), i.e.:
(blue1+blue3)-(brown1+brown3), or alternatively (blue1-brown1)+(blue3-brown3).
For some reason he instead things it should be:
(blue1+brown3)-(blue3+brown1), which makes no sense at all.
I'm also fairly sure he knows he is spouting garbage or has no idea what he is talking about because any honest person that understands would answer those questions rather than repeating the same nonsense.
-
Irrelevent.
Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.
He could not pass a basic engineering exam.
Someone else did his homework for him, while attending university.
Yet, you seem to trust this person when it comes to understanding the universe.
Here is what happens when you do that: a failure on A GRAND COSMIC SCALE.
DARK FLOW, the defiance of the general relativity on a cosmic scale:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Relativity has had a great impact on modern science and there is tremendous amount of supporting evidence
FAKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY TESTS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
And there is considerable experimental evidence for Einstein's General Relativity too
TOTAL DEMOLITION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HOW EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 SHIFT EXPERIMENTS AND HOW EINSTEIN FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
By the way your might compare your Sagnac calculations with these General relativistic Sagnac formula revised, Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri
Their result is still the Coriolis effect formula:
4AΩ/c^2
You are embarrassing yourself beyond redemption.
Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?
The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.
The next term is O(wr/c)2.
Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?
The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.
And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE SHAPE OF THE SUN CANNOT BE SPHERICAL AT ALL:
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.
Eugene N. Parker
It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.
British physicist C. E. R. Bruce
It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.
Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti
Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.
Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker
The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.
Ralph E. Juergens
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
G = gr2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)
And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)
I’m afraid all you say is irrelevant, what he did when he was a younger man is of no consequence and in no way diminishes his achievements. He won a Nobel prize, which I suppose is pretty good and was he considered by his peers at the time to be amongst the greatest geniuses ever. I’m afraid what you think when compared what true men of science thought is meaningless in comparison.
You argument or reasoning that somehow him failing an exam brings his achievements into question is pretty weak and childish.
Why not start with all the experiments and day to day functionality that confirms his work. To deny them would be simply be akin to shoving your head in some sand while singing la la la..
I was wondering who would be the one to respond to this
without bothering to actually read it first.
I'm not surprised it was you. ::)
-
I was wondering who would be the one to respond to this
without bothering to actually read it first.
I was contemplating asking you why you were copying his posts, did the quote break and you tried responding to something, were you trying to achieve it in case he deleted it; but nope now I have my answer.
-
https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg
DISCOIDAL SHAPE OF THE SUN.
It cannot be spherical.
Tough! The sun is spherical, end of story. Look at these videos of sun-spots showing the sun's rotation.
One Solar Rotation of Sunspots, SDO | Solar Dynamics Observatory | |
The Solar Rotation with Sunspots numbered. (Oct 13 - Nov 15, 2011) Solar Ham Published on Nov 15, 2011 |
Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?
No. At its equator, the solar rotation period is 24.47 days. Hence its angular velocity is given by ω = 2 x π/(24.47 x 86400) = 2.97 x 10-06
and that is VERY slow!
Hence the centripetal acceleration is given by: Acent = ω2 x Rsun = 0.00615 m/s2.
And if my sums are right the acceleration due to gravity at the sun's surface should be about 274.4 m/s2.
So I would say that the centripetal acceleration at the sun's surface is extremely small compared to the sun's gravity, agreed?
YOU CANNOT INVOKE GRAVITY WHEN THE PRESSURE IN THE CHROMOSPHERE IS 0.0000000000001 BAR.
(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)
Yes I can and I do!
The pressure of 0.0000000000001 BAR in the Chromosphere no more relevant than the atmospheric pressure 440 km above the earth being 0.0000000000104 Bar - and it is!
-
Sandokhan exemplifies the whole topic of this discussion pretty well. Scientific distortion.
He continually quotes the work of scientists, none of whom would support a flat earth and his beliefs in regard to the sun or cosmos. I asked him how many Nobel prize winning physicists, as he loves to quote them, have been flat earth believers, so far he has not responded.
He picks experiments like the one performed by Sagnac, who was not a flat earth believer, and distorts the results for his own ends cherry picking as he goes.
While Sagnac’s experiment did indeed throw up some perplexing results they have now been explained away by a multitude of experimenters, as it’s a Relativity easy experiment to do with modern equipment.
The experiment did not disprove relativity nor did it confirm any belief pointing to the earth being flat.
He contradicts his whole ‘scientific’ approach by ignoring all the current scientific evidence relating to the sun. He claims it’s not spherical!....time laps images show this rotation. It being gas means it’s rotation is not like a solid planet, the equator rotates at a different rate from the poles. There are also a number of probes orbiting the sun, though he would play the fake card on those, which is very unscientific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes)
If you choose to use science, then use it and don’t abuse it.
-
Sandokhan exemplifies the whole topic of this discussion pretty well. Scientific distortion.
He continually quotes the work of scientists, none of whom would support a flat earth and his beliefs in regard to the sun or cosmos. I asked him how many Nobel prize winning physicists, as he loves to quote them, have been flat earth believers, so far he has not responded.
He picks experiments like the one performed by Sagnac, who was not a flat earth believer, and distorts the results for his own ends cherry picking as he goes.
While Sagnac’s experiment did indeed throw up some perplexing results they have now been explained away by a multitude of experimenters, as it’s a Relativity easy experiment to do with modern equipment.
The experiment did not disprove relativity nor did it confirm any belief pointing to the earth being flat.
He contradicts his whole ‘scientific’ approach by ignoring all the current scientific evidence relating to the sun. He claims it’s not spherical!....time laps images show this rotation. It being gas means it’s rotation is not like a solid planet, the equator rotates at a different rate from the poles. There are also a number of probes orbiting the sun, though he would play the fake card on those, which is very unscientific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes)
If you choose to use science, then use it and don’t abuse it.
An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :
odiupicku
17 hours ago
@tim denham Give me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent scientist who lived in last 2 500 years or even christian theologian who ever lived (in last 2 000 years) on this earth who believed that the earth was flat!!! JUST ONE NAME, can you do that??? The earth is motionless and in the center of the universe, but the earth isn't flat for God sake, what is wrong with you people? How about this (simple challenge) : If the earth were flat, then the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to do (to deal with) is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so??? So, why don't you try to draw functional flat earth map? Why??? I'll tell you why : because it is absolutely impossible, that's why! Bye!
-------------------------------
tim denham
10 hours ago
+odiupicku so u believe a bunch of liars and scriptures written by jesuits. i dont. no map from the 1800s is the same and u sir are obviously a shill that any higher minded person can see. tesla (if he ever existed ) robotham Carlisle. come on dude there 100s
----------------------------------------
odiupicku
29 minutes ago
Tesla? Give me a break, that's a brazen lie, i saw some fake Tesla's quotes that circulate around (on the net), but you have to be aware that these quotes are fake, this is one similar example : https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/ The Early Church Fathers were all geocentrists, and none of them was flat-earther (despite the fact that the Bible is indeed a flat earth book, as well (not only geocentric)), check this out : FLAT EARTH BIBLE : http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/07/the-biblical-flat-earth-early-church.html
--------------------------------------------
Tim Denham wasn't able to sanely respond to my challenge :
SHALL WE EVER SEE ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT?* :
The distances between the equator and the north pole cannot be the same for a globe and a flat earth. Just think of half a ball. To draw the distance between the top and the bottom of the half ball, you would have to draw along the curve of the ball. Now, if you flatten the half ball, you will get the same distance between the center of the circle and the outside edge. However, the size of the bottom of the half ball has to expand out to a larger circle. So, either your distance around the equator is wrong or your distance between the equator and the north pole is wrong or your flat earth model is wrong. Take your pick.
Since the known distance from the north/south pole to the equator is 10,000 km (5400 nm)...and since the known circumference of the earth is 40,000 km (21600 nm)...then it follows that the earth cannot be a flat disk since the radius of a disk of 40,000 km is 6369 km...not 10,000 km...So, the only way around this simple argument is providing any evidence to the contrary regarding the circumference of the equator or the distance from the poles to the equator or both. There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = *10 000 km.* Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
Now, if the earth were a flat disc (on which the distance from the NP to the Equator would be 10000 km, as it is the case in our reality), then the circumference of such a disc (at the equator) would be 62800 km, not 40000 km!!! This number (62800 km) is absolutely preposterous (and in every conceivable aspect beyond the wildest imagination of an utter lunatic), so that only a complete idiot would give any attention to such ludicrous fanciful value. So, since the KNOWN distance from the North Pole to the Equator is out of question, and since the KNOWN value for the circumference of the Equator is out of question, also, your flat earth dreams end up right here, once and for all.
If Sandokhan is able to respond sanely to my challenge then we should all become flat-earthers, if not, then he should recant his belief in his absurd religion (to be honest : not so absurd as a belief that the earth turns on it's axis, and that there is no medium through which light can propagate so that c+v could be equal to c-v which is not the case, as MGP experiment confirmed).
-
odiupicku
29 minutes ago
Tesla? Give me a break, that's a brazen lie, i saw some fake Tesla's quotes that circulate around (on the net), but you have to be aware that these quotes are fake,
Nikola Tesla was a strong supporter of the Heliocentric Solar System and modern cosmology and don't take any notice of fake quotes read what he wrote himself.
Hear is an earlier reply to YOU that you seem to have forgotten!
And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood.
Sure, why not? It's exactly as that very smart cookie, Nikola Tesla, wrote:NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But this is not all. The whole`solar system is urged towards the remote constellation Hercules at a speed which some estimate at some twenty miles per second and owing to this there should be similar annual changes in the flux of energy, which may reach the appalling figure of over one hundred billion foot pounds. All these varying and purely mechanical effects are rendered more complex through the inclination of the orbital planes and many other permanent or casual mass actions.
this is one similar example : https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/ The Early Church Fathers were all geocentrists, and none of them was flat-earther (despite the fact that the Bible is indeed a flat earth book, as well (not only geocentric)), check this out : FLAT EARTH BIBLE : http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/07/the-biblical-flat-earth-early-church.html
Sure they were all geocentrists, so what? That was over 400 years ago and a lot has changed since then - Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton to name a few causes of that change.
--------------------------------------------
Tim Denham wasn't able to sanely respond to my challenge :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If Sandokhan is able to respond sanely to my challenge then we should all become flat-earthers, if not, then he should recant his belief in his absurd religion (to be honest : not so absurd as a belief that the earth turns on it's axis, and that there is no medium through which light can propagate so that c+v could be equal to c-v which is not the case, as MGP experiment confirmed).
But there is no luminiferous aether yet:
- Bradley's stellar aberrations indicates that the earth does orbit the sun and
- the MGPX (and numerous similar experiments and instruments since) show that the earth does indeed rotate.
I showed these in this post that you don't seem to have read yet!1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.
Really?
Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einstein’s Theory (https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nph120/Cosmol/specrel.pdf)
Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/22/three-experiments-that-show-relativity-is-real/#7a2f78d29998)
2. As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX, and other interferometry experiments...
Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow.
No, it hasn't. Please get this straight Airy's experiment was NOT a failure! It was a valid experiment that returned a NULL result and that is quite a different matter.
You might read:
The wonderful world of Hammar’s experiment by A. Sfarti (https://www.academia.edu/30816725/The_wonderful_world_of_Hammars_experiment) or at The Wonderful World of Hammar’s Experiment by A. Sfarti (http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/PSIJ_33/2016/Nov/Sfarti1242016PSIJ29643_1.pdf)
Aether drag hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis)
Problems of complete aether dragging
Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:- The Fizeau experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
- The Sagnac effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect) shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.
- Oliver Lodge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Lodge) conducted experiments in the 1890s, seeking evidence that the propagation of light is influenced by being in the proximity of large rotating masses, and found no such influence.
- In the Hammar experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammar_experiment), conducted by Gustaf Wilhelm Hammar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Wilhelm_Hammar) in 1935, a common path interferometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_path_interferometer) was used. Massive lead blocks were installed on both sides of only one leg of the interferometer. This arrangement should cause different amounts of aether drag and therefore produce a positive result. However, the result was again negative.
- It is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration). In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope. Consider a bucket on a train about to enter a tunnel, and a drop of water drips from the tunnel entrance into the bucket at the very center. The drop will not hit the center at the bottom of the bucket. The bucket is analogous to the tube of a telescope, the drop is a photon and the train is the earth. If aether is dragged then the droplet would be traveling with the train when it is dropped and would hit the center of bucket at the bottom. The amount of stellar aberration, α, is given by:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/180081b30ff93b61e3fc3f5bf5ec0473f152fd10) So: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e494a9215d3eb5a6c821f6de7afd719407a2a1e8)
The speed at which the earth goes round the sun, v = 30 km/s, and the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s which gives α = 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of aberration is observed and this contradicts the complete aether drag hypothesis.
The only interpretation consistent with all of the experiments taken together is that there can be no luminiferous aether (in the "old" sense of aether) leaving SR and GR as possible explanations.
-
odiupicku
29 minutes ago
Tesla? Give me a break, that's a brazen lie, i saw some fake Tesla's quotes that circulate around (on the net), but you have to be aware that these quotes are fake,
Nikola Tesla was a strong supporter of the Heliocentric Solar System and modern cosmology and don't take any notice of fake quotes read what he wrote himself.
What is wrong with you? You should address these words to the guy with whom i was talking, not to me...are you still in hurry? Take your time, and read with due attention so to be able to figure out to whom are you talking to (at least), and then feel free to hurry up so that you can try to catch your elusive train to Yuma...O.K.? lol
1. Bradley's stellar aberrations indicates that the earth does orbit the sun and
2. the MGPX (and numerous similar experiments and instruments since) show that the earth does indeed rotate.
1. James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Boškovic (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich. Boškovic even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.
Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.
Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.
2. The relativistic expectation sanctioned by Einstein in 1924, was that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift in order to
confirm General Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag.
Note that the expectations regarding the null result had now been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth. So argued Einstein.
In this context, the authors (Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc.,Ph.D. and Alexandra N. Correa, HBA) wonder why should rotation be measurable because of a Space-Time drag of inertial frames in rotation, and translation remain unmeasurable and unable to elicit the dragging of its own inertial frame, when translation is also a gravitational motion and there must be equivalence in principle between inertial and non-inertial frames?
After all, to be consistent with itself, as Aspden has pointed out, Relativity should have followed Mach's lead and proposed that one should not
be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space.
Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the
MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?
Back in 1924, the relativistic expectation, as proposed by Silberstein and sanctioned by Einstein, was indeed that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift if it were to confirm Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag.
The expectations regarding the null result had been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth - so argued Relativity.
The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation.
Indeed, why should GR predict that rotation was optically measurable but not translation?
This question is all the more poignant as Ernst Mach, whose work was considered by Einstein himself to be the forerunner of Relativity, had suggested precisely this postulate on the basis of what he saw to be the impossibility of distinguishing whether the earth rotated or .was immobile and the stars alone circled the earth.
To be continued at your request (after i see reasonable answer to the questions above)...
-
An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :
I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.
Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.
to be honest : not so absurd as a belief that the earth turns on it's axis, and that there is no medium through which light can propagate
You mean no were near as rational as the fact that Earth turns on its axis and light's medium is the electromagnetic field?
And far more absurd than the simple belief that Earth is round but magically stationay.
so that c+v could be equal to c-v which is not the case, as MGP experiment confirmed
No it didn't. Again, the speed of light is constant in an inertial reference frame. The MGP experiment is a non-inertial reference frame. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
What did seem to imply that was MMX, but in reality it actually showed that (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)=(c-v)/(1+c(-v)/c^2), i.e. 1=1.
proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!!
And that experiment was fundamentally flawed, requiring water to drag the light to slow it down, but not drag it to change its direction in the frame of the aether. It literally makes no sense.
there must be equivalence in principle between inertial and non-inertial frames
No there mustn't.
The fact that one is inertial and one is not means there is no equivalence.
What there is equivalence between is gravitational attraction towards a body and that body accelerating towards you.
This is the same as the equivalence between a centrifugal force, and the object causing that force rotating.
After all, to be consistent with itself, [appeal to authority] Relativity should have [appeal to authority] proposed that one should not
be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space.
Why?
The point of relativity was that the speed of light is constant in an inertial reference frame. There is no requirement for that to also hold in non-inertial reference frames.
why should Relativity [snip] expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand [snip] null result [snip] with regard to translation of the earth?
That has already been explained repeatedly.
One is based upon translation, an inertial motion. The other is based upon rotation, or translation of the apparatus with respect to itself, and thus is not an inertial motion.
These kinds of motions are different.
What you are suggesting as akin to suggesting why throwing a ball in a moving train produces a null result but throwing it on a merry go round produces a shift. It is because one is inertial one is not.
There is no justification to just assert they are the same.
than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. [snip] that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe
Stop lying. There was no small persistent positive shift. Firstly -0.04 is negative. I assume you have included it so you can skim over the fact that the fringe shift gets smaller and smaller as instruments were improved?
No fringe shift was detected within experimental uncertainty. Saying there was a persistent shift observed is an outright lie.
Stop ignoring the fact that all of this has already been addressed.
You repeating the same refuted BS doesn't make it true.
-
I’m really not sure what some of the previous posts were about. The thread is supposed to be discussing the distortion of science!
-
I’m really not sure what some of the previous posts were about. The thread is supposed to be discussing the distortion of science!
It was about how clikljamas horribly distorts science to pretend there is an aether.
-
An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :
I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.
Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.
H. Thirring in 1918 and 1922 suggested that Einstein's theory of gravitation or GR should be taken to indicate that the spontaneous orientation of gyroscopes and the phenomenon of atmospheric wind could be treated as if the earth were stationary (not rotating) and 'the distant stars' were moving around it at a speed high enough (>>c) to generate strong gravitational effects (fictional centrifugal and Coriolis forces).
"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921
"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.
"[W]e have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
"[Redshifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology
"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time
"If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations" - Paul Davies in Nature
"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it[...] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis in Scientific American
"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006
"[Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - Lawrence Krauss, 2009
"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck, 2011
"[R]ed shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
"If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it" - Joseph Silk in The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe
"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - Jonathan Katz in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe
"To date, there has been no general way of determining [that] we live at a typical position in the Universe" - Chris Clarkson et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008
Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory are the "conspiracy theories" Geocentrism is the only proven fact of science, yet scientific community runs from it like the plague because it cuts through their worldview.. . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call geocentrists "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.
Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.
What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.
Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.
When De revolutionibus by Copernicus (1473-1543) was published in May of 1543, it used a text of the protestant theologian Andreas Osiander as an introduction, in which he explained that heliocentrism was a proposal of an astronomical model to facilitate the calculations of celestial motions, but he did not want to draw any realistic conclusions in the field of natural philosophy. In Bellarmine’s letter, the distinction is clear between the astronomer-mathematician who does calculations on one side and, on the other side, the natural philospher who qualitatively describes the real in light of a theologically inspired metaphysics:
«For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.».
BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338
Galileo recanted his heliocentric belief :
-
[Irrelevant distortion of science pruned]
Notice how none of them actually indicate Earth is stationary? Instead the closest you get is a quote mine which indicate that you can't tell the difference between Earth being stationary and the entire universe moving around it vs Earth moving?
And you don't even provide full references for them. You are just copying and pasting crap from elsewhere.
And then you blatantly lie about it. None of that indicates the universe is geocentric, so not, that is no the only proven fact of science, it is not proven at all.
-
1. Bradley's stellar aberrations indicates that the earth does orbit the sun and
2. the MGPX (and numerous similar experiments and instruments since) show that the earth does indeed rotate.
1. James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Boškovic (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich. Boškovic even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.
<< We know about Airy's experiment >>
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.
OR that there is no luminiferous aether!
2. The relativistic expectation sanctioned by Einstein in 1924, was that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift in order to
confirm General Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag.
Note that the expectations regarding the null result had now been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth. So argued Einstein.
In this context, the authors (Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc.,Ph.D. and Alexandra N. Correa, HBA) wonder why should rotation be measurable because of a Space-Time drag of inertial frames in rotation, and translation remain unmeasurable and unable to elicit the dragging of its own inertial frame, when translation is also a gravitational motion and there must be equivalence in principle between inertial and non-inertial frames?
After all, to be consistent with itself, as Aspden has pointed out, Relativity should have followed Mach's lead and proposed that one should not
be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space.
Why should GR "to be consistent with itself . . . have followed Mach's lead and proposed that one should not be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space"?
Mach's Principle was nothing more than a hypothesis that was never shown to have any basis.
Even Isaac Newton, long before Ernst Mach was aware of the implications and proposed the "Newton's Bucket Experiment".
No, Einstein General Relativity does not include Mach's Principle. Initially, Einstein would certainly have preferred a system but he found that was not possible.
Ernst Mach hypothesised that even rotary motion was relative so that the forces due to rotation (centripetal, Coriolis etc) could be explained the stars, etc rotating above the object.
Funnily the name was given to the "principle" by Einstein who discarded it on "his pathway to General Relativity".
You can read more in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity (https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html) in technology Chapter "Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")".
Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?
Because the MMX experiment was intended to measure a uniform linear velocity (no acceleration) and the MGP experiment was measuring a rotation which involves acceleration - big difference!
Back in 1924, the relativistic expectation, as proposed by Silberstein and sanctioned by Einstein, was indeed that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift if it were to confirm Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag.
The expectations regarding the null result had been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth - so argued Relativity.
And relativity argued correctly. But it did not need relativity to explain it.
Fom Newton's time uniform linear motion has been known to be relative but non-uniform motion, necessarily requiring acceleration is not relative but absolute.
The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes,
No, it had some experimental error as do all experiments "The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000".
but it is quite a different measurement to the MMX experiment.
the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation.
No, it couldn't. The rate of rotation is directly proportional the number of fringes (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MandG4.jpg).
Indeed, why should GR predict that rotation was optically measurable but not translation?
That is quite a deep question but essentially uniforn translation does not require any acceleration but uniform rotation always requires centripetal acceleration towards the
This question is all the more poignant as Ernst Mach, whose work was considered by Einstein himself to be the forerunner of Relativity, had suggested precisely this postulate on the basis of what he saw to be the impossibility of distinguishing whether the earth rotated or .was immobile and the stars alone circled the earth.
Einstein would have preferred Mach's "total relativity" of both linear and angular motion but that not possible and the cause is acceleration which applied to masses causes inertial forces which can be measured.
But these things are so hard to explain to you because you do not seem to understand or accept even the simplest "laws" of motion.
-
An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :
I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.
Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.
H. Thirring in 1918 and 1922 suggested that Einstein's theory of gravitation or GR should be taken to indicate that the spontaneous orientation of gyroscopes and the phenomenon of atmospheric wind could be treated as if the earth were stationary (not rotating) and 'the distant stars' were moving around it at a speed high enough (>>c) to generate strong gravitational effects (fictional centrifugal and Coriolis forces).
But Thirring wrote:However, that argument is not cogent, as E. Mach showed, in particular. Namely, we do not necessarily need to attribute the existence of those centrifugal forces
to a motion of K′. If Newton’s laws of mechanics do not admit such a concept then that would quite probably be rooted in some flaw in the theory…”
I do not believe that "E. Mach showed" any such thing. He only postulated that concept and nowhere proved it or even privided any evidence to it - maybe you've found that evidence.
This might be some useful background material in Mach's Principle: Mach’s Principle, J V Narlikar (https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/016/04/0310-0320)
«For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.».
BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338
And why would we put any weight in that now?
Galileo recanted his heliocentric belief :
I'll look in more detail later, but look at: Did Galileo Recant Heliocentrism a Year Before His Death? A Debate: Nickel v. Sungenis. (http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/James_Nickel.pdf)
-
Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?
Because the MMX experiment was intended to measure a uniform linear velocity (no acceleration) and the MGP experiment was measuring a rotation which involves acceleration - big difference!
1. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference, why should inertial frames be unable to optically measure their translation, but non-inertial frames be able to measure their rotation? The question is all the more poignant as Newton's Law of Gravitation was easily deduced from Kepler's Laws of Planetarian Translation, but remained disconnected from planetarian rotation. Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.
Because Relativity, in its restricted form, had largely discarded the problem of rotation from consideration of the null effect of the MM-type experiments, it could appear to be consistent with both electromagnetic detectability of rotation and undetectability of translation, and thus appear to withstand not only this contradiction but also its ambivalence with regard to the detectability or undetectability of rotation!
The ensuing confusion amongst physicists was so deep, that the results of the MGP experiment could advantageously be seen to confirm Einstein's Relativity with respect to rotational motion, irrespective of the outcome of the experiment (!) - and just as well appeared to confirm the adequacy of Michelson's method to detect the rotary deflection predicted by aether theory. While Relativity was satisfied with the negative result with respect to translation, it was nearly indifferent to the results obtained with respect to rotation.
This ambiguous situation was reflected in the ranks of relativists. Those who believed that the positive result from the MGP experiment was significant, like Silberstein, would argue that all it proved was that "the earth rotates in its axis", and those who believed that the result was non-significant, like A. Compton, would conclude that the earth's rotation had no effect on the speed of light and that the MGP experiment had definitely disproved the aether-drag hypothesis and confirmed Relativity. The latter view has today become the accepted one, and most discussions of the speed of light tests ignore the MGP experiment and feel justified in doing so.
Jaffe, in his book, "Michelson and the speed of light", gives the matter one paragraph in which he does not even report the findings.
However, at the time, in 1925, the lines were not yet drawn in the sand, and the perplexed and ambivalent state of physicists and relativists alike was translated by the famous New York Times headline of January 9, 1925 - "Michelson Proves Einstein Theory - Ether-Drift is Confirmed - Rays found to travel at different speeds when sent in opposite directions"!!
The paradox could not have been greater.
A. Compton was ultimately correct - if the results of the MGP experiment are, or were, to be considered significant, they could never be seen as proving Einstein's theory. What was consistent with Mach's principle was the complete inability of an observer to detect either his rotation or his translation by optical reference to a fixed aether. Hence, for A. Compton, the MGP experiment presented a non-significant phase difference and therefore confirmed Relativity because there was no aether-drag that could or should be invoked.
With the triumph of this view, a new set of rules had insidiously crept into the game. Relativity now required a null result in both the MM and the MGP experiments, and the door was closed on the matter of the aether.
2. For Sagnac, the result of his famous experiment proves the existence of the aether. In his paper, Sagnac also predicts that a similar effect would be observed from the diurnal Earth rotation (the Earth taken as a rotating turntable) using a very large interferometer. The argument of this author (Gianni Pascoli) appears a priori quite convincing. The existence of a propagation medium for light waves seems to be confirmed by his experiment.
But in science, an hypothesis cannot be validated only if it allows one to explain all the experiments, not one in particular. Other experiments definitively invalidate the hypothesis of the aether, according to Gianni Pascoli. Perhaps most famous is the crucial experiment of Michelson and Morley. The aim of this experiment was to measure the displacement of the Earth with respect to the aether. Using an interferometric device, they showed that the velocity of the aether wind, if any, was less than 5 km/s (we should remember that the alleged velocity of the Earth in the solar system is 30 km/s, and therefore much greater). The procedure has obviously been repeated several times within a year (in case at a given time, and by an extraordinary coincidence, the Earth's velocity at the time of measurement had been less than 5 km/s with respect to the aether), but no seasonal effects have been found. The Michelson–Morley experiment has been repeated with ever-increasing accuracy.
The Michelson-type experiment carried out by Georg Joos in 1930 allowed him to give a bound to the velocity of the aether wind of less than 1.5 km/s. More recently, experiments have been carried out using various sophisticated devices, such as lasers and masers, optical resonators and microwaves, etc. The conclusion is always the same: no measurable aether wind which speed would be close to the alleged orbital speed of the earth. If we only focus on the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is still perfectly legitimate to imagine that the Earth completely drags the aether in its translatory motion (Fresnel had already suggested in 1818 the hypothesis of a partial dragging of the aether with moving substances). In this case, the negative result of the Michelson experiment has a trivial explanation.
Unfortunately, however, such an assumption cannot be maintained. There are two immediate reasons for this :
---First of all, it is inconsistent with the aberration of fixed stars (as we know, during a year the stars describe a small ellipse on the background of the sky. This effect cannot occur if the aether is fully dragged by the Earth).
---Secondly, the experiment of Sagnac was repeated by Michelson and Gale in 1925, but this time taking the Earth as a rotating disk (as already suggested by Sagnac himself). These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation).
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
3. It appears rather amazing that the "correct relativistic interpretation" of the Sagnac effect took eight years. A seemingly obvious reason is that Sagnac's experiment was not very much discussed in the scientific literature, even in France after the discovery of 1913. Conscious of this situation, in 1919, Sagnac published five papers on his work in the Comptes rendus. The paradox is that his ideas were nevertheless borne by a French group of strong antirelativists. In 1919, Sagnac was even rewarded with the Pierson–Perrin Prize for his achievements on this topic (first for the experiment, seen as a rebuttal of the relativity principle, the constancy of light, and also for having proven the reality of absolute space and time).
Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. (two years after Sagnac had conducted his famous, decisive experiment). Isn't that interesting???
-
Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?
Because the MMX experiment was intended to measure a uniform linear velocity (no acceleration) and the MGP experiment was measuring a rotation which involves acceleration - big difference!
1. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference, why should inertial frames be unable to optically measure their translation, but non-inertial frames be able to measure their rotation? The question is all the more poignant as Newton's Law of Gravitation was easily deduced from Kepler's Laws of Planetarian Translation, but remained disconnected from planetarian rotation. Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.
Whoever claimed that
"With General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference".
It appears that in the early stages of the development of GR he would liked to have had "the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference" but Einstein was not attempting to "invent" a theory but to "discover" a theory of how things behave.
This is a massive quote, but if you won't go to the references I gave maybe I can bring a little here:
Einstein would have preferred a theory that fitted with Mach's Principle (Einstein's term for it), but found that he was unable to adhere to the relativity of angular motion.
And it was a thought experiment similar to yours that forced Einstein to depart from adherence to Mach's Principle with regard to angular motion.
He reasoned this way: << in the following I have tried to format it as Norton did, maybe unsuccessfully? >>
Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")
What also attracted Einstein in this analysis was that it promised to remedy a defect he perceived in both Newton's physics and in special relativity. In both, you will recall, it is just a brute fact that certain motions are distinguished as inertial. This, in Einstein's view, was worrisome. It was no better than the original idea that there is an ether state of absolute rest. There seemed to Einstein no good reason for why one state should be the absolute rest state rather than another. Correspondingly, Einstein saw no good reason for why some motions should be singled out as inertial and others as accelerating.
| | In 1916, Einstein formulated this worry in a thought experiment. He imagined two fluid bodies in a distant part of space. These bodies, the reader quickly infers, are like stars or planets, which form roughly spherical shapes under their own gravity. Einstein further imagined that there is relative rotation between the two bodies about the axis that joins them. This relative rotation is verifiable by observers on each body, who can trace out the motion of the other body. Each would judge the other to be rotating.
(http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/Two_spheres_1.png) |
It can happen in ordinary Newtonian physics that one of these bodies is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame and the other one is. In that case, the second rotating body will bulge but not the first. This effect arises on the earth. It rotates about the axis of its north and south poles. It bulges slightly at the equator as a result of centrifugal forces that seek to fling the matter of the earth away from this axis.
| | It would be entirely unacceptable, Einstein now asserted, were this to happen to two spheres in an otherwise empty space. For there is no difference in the observable relations between the two spheres. Each rotates with respect to the other. So why should just one bulge? The supposition of Newton's absolute space or of inertial systems, Einstein protested, was an inadequate explanation. Einstein demanded something observable to make the difference. |
| Einstein was an avid reader of the physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach. In Mach's writings, Einstein had found what seemed to be a solution to the problem. Mach seemed to be proposing, Einstein thought, that the privileging of certain states of motion is due to the distribution of matter in the universe. Why is our frame of reference inertial? It is because the stars are at rest in our frame. | | Why is my wording so careful here? it is not clear that what Einstein reported Mach as saying is what Mach actually said. For more, see John D. Norton, "Mach's Principle before Einstein." in J. Barbour and H. Pfister, eds., Mach's Principle: From Newton's Bucket to Quantum Gravity: Einstein Studies, Vol. 6. Boston: Birkhäuser, 1995, pp.9-57. Download (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#machsprinciple). |
When we try to accelerate, we feel inertial forces. These are the forces that make us dizzy when we spin in a fun fair; or they are the forces that throw our coffee in the air when our airplane hits an air pocket.
These forces, Einstein understood Mach to assert, arise from an interaction between the mass of our body (and our coffee) and all the other masses of the universe, distributed in the stars. Einstein first called this idea the "relativity of inertia" and later, in 1918, "Mach's Principle."
| | In the case of Einstein's two fluid spheres, the bulge of one of them would now be explained by the fact that this bulging sphere was rotating with respect to all the other masses of the universe, whereas the other sphere was not. That would be the observable difference between the two fluid bodies.
(http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/Two_spheres_2.png)This analysis was clearly inspired by Mach's famous account of Newton's bucket experiment. Newton had noted that water in a spinning bucket adopts a concave surface. The concavity is a result, Newton urged, of its rotation with respect to absolute space. No, Mach had responded several hundred years later, all one has in the case of Newton's bucket in rotation with respect to the stars. We cannot know anything more than what our direct observations tell us. All they tell us is that these inertial forces arise when we accelerate relative to the stars. |
The weakness of this analysis is that there is no account of how rotation with respect to distant masses could
produce these inertial forces. In 1907, Einstein hoped that his emerging theory of gravity would provide the
mechanism. It could then satisfy Mach's Principle and, through it, generalize the principle of relativity to acceleration.
For in a theory that satisfies Mach's Principle, no state of motion is intrinsically inertial or accelerating.
When we see something accelerating, it is not accelerating absolutely in such a theory; it is merely accelerating
with respect to the stars. Preferred inertial motions need not enter into the account anymore. All motion,
accelerated or inertial, would be relative. |
To deliver this sort of account of inertial forces, Einstein's theory would need to break down the strict division between inertial and accelerated motion of his special theory of relativity. The principle of equivalence promised to weaken this division. According to it, whether the physicist in the box was to be judged accelerating or not depended on your point of view. An inertial observer would judge the physicist to be accelerating uniformly in a gravitation free space. The physicist would judge him or herself to be unaccelerated in a gravitational field. It was a first step towards generalizing the principle of relativity to acceleration, Einstein believed.
Learning About Gravitation
By his own later judgment, Einstein did not, in the end, find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle. The immediate benefit of his new principle of equivalence, however, was that it let Einstein learn a lot about gravitation. For the principle delivered to Einstein one special case of a gravitational field that, he believed, conformed with relativity theory and in which all bodies truly fell alike. Einstein's program of research on gravity in the five years following 1907 was simply to examine the properties of this one special case and to try to generalize them to recover a full theory. His early hope was that the generalization of the principle of relativity would somehow emerge in the course of those investigations.
From: Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle") (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/#L4669)
So no, By his own later judgment, Einstein did not, in the end, find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle.
And as a result, claiming that angular motions are purely relative is definitely in conflict with Einstein's GR. Einstein claimed no such thing.
Because Relativity, in its restricted form, had largely discarded the problem of rotation from consideration of the null effect of the MM-type experiments, it could appear to be consistent with both electromagnetic detectability of rotation and undetectability of translation, and thus appear to withstand not only this contradiction but also its ambivalence with regard to the detectability or undetectability of rotation!
Special Relativity simply a "special" theory (hence the name!) that applied only to Inertial Reference Frames, ie non-accelerating reference frames.
Many people get into trouble by misapplying it to situations that involve acceleration and this includes rotation and the so-called twins-paradox.
The ensuing confusion amongst physicists was so deep, that the results of the MGP experiment could advantageously be seen to confirm Einstein's Relativity with respect to rotational motion, irrespective of the outcome of the experiment (!) - and just as well appeared to confirm the adequacy of Michelson's method to detect the rotary deflection predicted by aether theory. While Relativity was satisfied with the negative result with respect to translation, it was nearly indifferent to the results obtained with respect to rotation.
No, relativity was satisfied with the NULL result with respect to translation but GR fully explained the results obtained with respect to rotation but the MGP is also consistent with an aether with no entrainment - which the MMX and subsequent experiments all but ruled out. Michelson, himself, (who fully accepted GR) said as much before the experiment.
This ambiguous situation was reflected in the ranks of relativists. Those who believed that the positive result from the MGP experiment was significant, like Silberstein, would argue that all it proved was that "the earth rotates in its axis", and those who believed that the result was non-significant, like A. Compton, would conclude that the earth's rotation had no effect on the speed of light and that the MGP experiment had definitely disproved the aether-drag hypothesis and confirmed Relativity. The latter view has today become the accepted one, and most discussions of the speed of light tests ignore the MGP experiment and feel justified in doing so.
I don't follow? Certainly Michelson and Silberstein, would argue that all it proved was that "the earth rotates on its axis" but none of those scientists ever had the slightest doubt as to that.
This is with reference to the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment to measure the earth's rotation using the Sagnac Effect, but is very relevant.
As mentioned above, as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Foucault's pendulum). Nevertheless, he (along with Gale) agreed to perform the experiment in 1925 (at considerable cost) at the urging of "relativists", who wished him to verify the shift of 236/1000 of a fringe predicted by special relativity. This was intended mainly to refute the theory of an ether fully dragged around with the spinning earth, as well as the only physically plausible ballistic theory of light propagation, both of which predict zero phase shift (for a circular device). Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said,
"We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that
the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
As Harvey Lemon wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".
From Math Pages, 2.7 The Sagnac Effect (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm)
Note that Michelson himself claims that the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment is
"an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".
But note that the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was evidence that there was no ether, that the ether moved with the earth or that the earth was stationary.
So the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment shows that the earth rotates, that is the earth not stationary.
But the Michelson-Morely experiment and numerous later experiments show that either there is no ether or that the earth is stationary.
The only consistent conclusion is that the earth rotates and that there is no ether.
<< I've run time - maybe I'll get back to it. >>
3. It appears rather amazing that the "correct relativistic interpretation" of the Sagnac effect took eight years. A seemingly obvious reason is that Sagnac's experiment was not very much discussed in the scientific literature, even in France after the discovery of 1913. Conscious of this situation, in 1919, Sagnac published five papers on his work in the Comptes rendus. The paradox is that his ideas were nevertheless borne by a French group of strong antirelativists. In 1919, Sagnac was even rewarded with the Pierson–Perrin Prize for his achievements on this topic (first for the experiment, seen as a rebuttal of the relativity principle, the constancy of light, and also for having proven the reality of absolute space and time).
And a possible explanation is that the Sagnac effect can be explained without resorting the relativity and if analysed from an Inertial Reference Frame there is no problem.
Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. (two years after Sagnac had conducted his famous, decisive experiment). Isn't that interesting???
No, Einstein had been working in his GR for almost 10 years!
-
I noticed you completley ignored my response.
Have you found any prominent scientists in the past 100 years that say Earth is the stationary
1. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference, why should inertial frames be unable to optically measure their translation, but non-inertial frames be able to measure their rotation?
He didn't demonstrate that. They are not the same. The big difference, objects spanning an inertial reference frame, without forces acting upon them, do not move w.r.t each other.
Objects in a non-inertial reference frame, without forces acting upon them, do move w.r.t each other.
Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.
Nope. The orbits can be seen as translation, rather than of the system itself rotating. This is especially true for the elliptical orbits, where it clearly isn't rotation.
This effects the rotation rate of the planet. For example, Earth rotates once every 23 hours and 56 minutes, not once every 24 hours. You can try setting it up differently, where the Earth rotates about its axis once every 24 hours, and rotates around the sun once every ~365.2425 days.
But the important part isn't the linear velocity, it is the angular velocity.
That is because any circular motion can be replaced by another circular motion with a centre of rotation elsewhere.
The paradox could not have been greater.
You are yet to show any paradox.
What was consistent with Mach's principle was the complete inability of an observer to detect either his rotation or his translation by optical reference to a fixed aether.
No, Mach's principle is that you can't tell if you are rotating or the entire universe is rotating around you.
Relativity now required a null result in both the MM and the MGP experiments
Stop lying. It required no such thing. If anything, it demanded the exact opposite.
For the inertial reference frame, the 2 beams cannot arrive at the same time., and the door was closed on the matter of the aether.[/b]
For Sagnac, the result of his famous experiment proves the existence of the aether.
And he was wrong.
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.
But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.
-
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
- George Orwell
-
The results of the Sagnac experiment, the MGP experiment and the Brillet and Hall experiment, all indicate that one can effectively measure rotation by optical means, whether the interferometer is rotating or not. Given the required resolution, a rotating interferometer will always be capable of optically measuring its own rate of rotation, as well as that of the revolving frame on which its axis of rotation is inertially at rest. A stationary interferometer can only electromagnetically measure the rate of rotation of the revolving frame on which it is inertially at rest.
No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.
Curiously, many relativists and experimentalists get caught in their ignorance of the Sagnac effect. In 1979, Brillet and Hall reported a null result (absence of frequency shift) with frequency-locked laser beams, one set in a rotating interferometer, and the other kept stationary, and thus concluded in favour of the isotropy of space. However, not only did they observe a 50 Hz signal at precisely the rotation rate of the turntable employed, but also another more troublesome signal, at 17Hz.
Aspden, who has suggested that the null result may well be the inevitable consequence of such frequency-locked laser tests because "the frequency of the lasers will adjust to the reorientation of the apparatus exactly to cancel any effect due to motion through the light-reference frame", commented on the 17Hz frequency shift findings of Brillet and Hall, which had been ignored by them as a "persistent spurious signal":
"Interpreting the 17 Hz signal as the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85*1013 Hz, we find the ratio 1.92*10^-13 and, as this is 0.131 (v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21*10^-6, giving v as 363 m/sec. If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of earth rotation at Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40°N, Boulder has, in fact, an earth rotation speed of 355 m/sec." Apparently, Brillet and Hall were conducting a control on the MGP experiment using the Sagnac effect to detect the earth's speed of rotation and with the required resolution, without knowing it!
More recently still, there have been confirmations of the Sagnac effect for electrons and neutrons. In 1993, Hasselbach and Nicklaus reported a shift of 0.06 fringes using rotating electron beams. The result clearly indicates that atmospheric charges flow faster westward than in the opposite direction. Werner et al confirmed the Sagnac effect with neutron interferometry. With a swiveling apparatus, they showed that if the interferometer rotated in a N-S plane the effect was extinguished, whereas in a W-E plane it was at a maximum.
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.
But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.
1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :
If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity.
2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :
This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.
3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :
This is utter nonsense, and here is why :
A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.
PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)
B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.
PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.
C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).
PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.
ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).
-
I'll leave all that to JackBlack, thanks.
1. Let's consider hypothesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :
If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity.
2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :
This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.
3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :
This is utter nonsense, and here is why :
A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.
PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)
B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.
PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.
C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).
PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.
ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).
I'm not going over and over the same sort of re-hashed material!
Your "1. Let's consider hypothesis No 1 : If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" is consistent with the Sagnac or MGP with no Aether or with Aether and zero dragging.
Your "2. Let's consider hypothesis No 2 : Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" is consistent with Sagnac or MGP but not with Bradley's stellar aberration.
Your "3. Let's consider hypothesis No 3 : or both rotating around the axis of Earth" is, I agree, nonsense and I won't bother with all your possibilities.
So we are left with the best explanation being no aether and Einstein's Relativity.
You might read again:
The wonderful world of Hammar’s experiment by A. Sfarti (https://www.academia.edu/30816725/The_wonderful_world_of_Hammars_experiment) or at The Wonderful World of Hammar’s Experiment by A. Sfarti (http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/PSIJ_33/2016/Nov/Sfarti1242016PSIJ29643_1.pdf)
Aether drag hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis)
Problems of complete aether dragging
Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:- The Fizeau experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
- The Sagnac effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect) shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.
- Oliver Lodge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Lodge) conducted experiments in the 1890s, seeking evidence that the propagation of light is influenced by being in the proximity of large rotating masses, and found no such influence.
- In the Hammar experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammar_experiment), conducted by Gustaf Wilhelm Hammar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Wilhelm_Hammar) in 1935, a common path interferometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_path_interferometer) was used. Massive lead blocks were installed on both sides of only one leg of the interferometer. This arrangement should cause different amounts of aether drag and therefore produce a positive result. However, the result was again negative.
- It is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration). In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope. Consider a bucket on a train about to enter a tunnel, and a drop of water drips from the tunnel entrance into the bucket at the very center. The drop will not hit the center at the bottom of the bucket. The bucket is analogous to the tube of a telescope, the drop is a photon and the train is the earth. If aether is dragged then the droplet would be traveling with the train when it is dropped and would hit the center of bucket at the bottom. The amount of stellar aberration, α, is given by:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/180081b30ff93b61e3fc3f5bf5ec0473f152fd10) So: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e494a9215d3eb5a6c821f6de7afd719407a2a1e8)
The speed at which the earth goes round the sun, v = 30 km/s, and the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s which gives α = 20.5 seconds of arc every six months.
This amount of aberration is observed and this contradicts the complete aether drag hypothesis.
The only interpretation consistent with all of the experiments taken together is that there can be no luminiferous aether (in the "old" sense of aether) leaving SR and GR as possible explanations.
-
The results of the Sagnac experiment, the MGP experiment and the Brillet and Hall experiment, all indicate that one can effectively measure rotation by optical means, whether the interferometer is rotating or not. Given the required resolution, a rotating interferometer will always be capable of optically measuring its own rate of rotation, as well as that of the revolving frame on which its axis of rotation is inertially at rest. A stationary interferometer can only electromagnetically measure the rate of rotation of the revolving frame on which it is inertially at rest.
Yes, under the standard interpretation of the Sagnac effect you can optically detect/measure the rotation of a ring interferometer; however that is due to the interferometer rotating. It can be rotating w.r.t. some inertial frame, or it can be "stationary" in a non-inertial, rotating reference frame.
People not knowing about it doesn't magically make it false.
I dislike using frequency locked laser beams (which already present a problem for actual laser ring gyros which typically means they rock back and forth to prevent that locking and allow detection of the rotation of Earth) due to the issues pointed out, and thus would question any results coming from them.
I am tempted to just throw out any results from electrons and neutrons as they are particles which can have loads of different velocities (any below that of light).
1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :
If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion
This is focusing purely upon Earth's rotation, not its orbit.
If you want to include the orbit you then have additional factors to add in, if Earth orbits or not.
Even if you establish that Earth doesn't orbit the sun, or orbit w.r.t. the aether, that doesn't mean Earth is not rotating. They are 2 separate issues.
since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity.
Nope. MGP kind of experiments are only capable of detecting rotation, not translation.
What they would detect is a slight offset from the 24 hour period, which they do. The MM type experiments would record the shift though.
2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :
This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.
No it isn't.
There are numerous other experiments and observations which show this isn't the case, or raise serious questions as to how this is possible.
3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :
This is utter nonsense, and here is why :
A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.
Yes, that description is utter nonsense, but the possibility is not (at least if ignore the experiments showing aether is crap).
You would have Earth and the aether rotate in opposite directions at some rate between that of the stationary Earth, rotating aether and the rotating Earth, stationary aether.
For example, you would have Earth rotate so that it completes a revolution once every 48 hours, while the aether rotates in the opposite direction once every 48 hours.
However you are somewhat right in that you could have a more extreme situation. You could have the aether and Earth rotating in the same direction, at any speed, as long as the angular velocity of Earth was roughly 15 degrees per hour more than that of the aether.
That is because all you are detecting from the MGP experiment (under the aether model) is this relative motion, that the Earth moves these 15 degrees per hour more than the aether does.
It doesn't matter what the absolute speeds are (under the aether model), all that matters is that they are off by 15 degrees per hour.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to do the math showing that isn't the case.
But again, THIS MISSES THE IMPORTANT POINT!
When combined with other experiments the only acceptable conclusion regarding the motion of Earth through the aether is that the aether doesn't exist as the aether model of light cannot explain these phenomena.
-
3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :
This is utter nonsense, and here is why :
A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.
Yes, that description is utter nonsense, but the possibility is not (at least if ignore the experiments showing aether is crap).
You would have Earth and the aether rotate in opposite directions at some rate between that of the stationary Earth, rotating aether and the rotating Earth, stationary aether.
For example, you would have Earth rotate so that it completes a revolution once every 48 hours, while the aether rotates in the opposite direction once every 48 hours.
However you are somewhat right in that you could have a more extreme situation. You could have the aether and Earth rotating in the same direction, at any speed, as long as the angular velocity of Earth was roughly 15 degrees per hour more than that of the aether.
Well, since you are obviously aware of the fact that you have to attach aether's rotation (around the stationary earth) to the motion of the whole universe (including the sun) then in this hypothetical situation (which you have just described) we are no longer talking about the HELIOCENTRIC scenario, we are talking about GEOCENTRIC scenario.
So, instead of dealing with our major problem - which i pointed out yesterday (assuming that there is no inherent connection between motion of the stars, the sun and planets with the motion of aether (within your funny proposal)) : being unable to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth due to much higher speed of aether flow as a consequence of the alleged orbital motion of the earth - this time (after we have seen what you had in mind when talking about your murky, senseless idea) we (you) have to deal with quite another kind of a problem :
Jack is actually talking about GEOCENTRIC universe, isn't that so?
This is the same double talk techique which we can also recognize in the writtings of many scientists as i have already demonstrated in a several preceding posts, especially in this one :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2117759#msg2117759
So, if we are at the center of the universe, then what has left of your heliocentric fairytale???
All that left is this :
The problem is that the 'aether' that Einstein increasingly appeared to have in mind, rather than becoming, as promised, a 'non-material, non-mechanical and gravitational aether', became instead a pure metaphysical fiction; a disembodied physical reality endowed solely with a mathematical existence. Instead of discovering a dynamic aether comprised of non-mechanical and electrogravitic properties, Relativity ended up with a pure geometric form set in an imaginary four-dimensional Space-time.
And this fiction succeeded in the minds of physicists because it became metaphysically endowed with mechanical properties, courtesy of the dictatorship of the absolute speed of light. Hence, the curvature of space remains a function of matter, and when the matter required to explain this curvature is found to be 'missing', recourse is taken to the expedient explanation that it is missing no longer but has miraculously been 'born-again' as black or invisible (ie undetectable) mass...
It is here that Relativity ceased being a scientific theory, to become an academic doctrine bandied about with the same arbitrariness
as any other religious vision of the world. A platonic metaphysics of the form. It is physical nonsense to speak of a pure Space devoid of matter and energy. Such a pure Space is not an aether, but a meta-aether, a metaphysical aether, like the Ur-Aether of Lenard. And whether we call it the void of Spacetime and write it in four dimensions, or call it meta-aether and retain Euclidean Space as pure container, it remains a metaphysical abstraction.
-
Well, since you are obviously aware of the fact that you have to attach aether's rotation (around the stationary earth) to the motion of the whole universe (including the sun) then in this hypothetical situation (which you have just described) we are no longer talking about the HELIOCENTRIC scenario, we are talking about GEOCENTRIC scenario.
Your point?
I don't really care. We are talking about a hypothetical reality where aether is real and Earth does not translate w.r.t. the aether (which is shown to be wrong by stellar aberration).
In this magic fantasyworld the observed relative rotation of the aether w.r.t. Earth works regardless of what is moving as long as Earth angular velocity and the aether's differ by ~15 degrees per hour.
But as you seem to not even want to discuss this, lets just go back to reality shall we?
These experiments along with that of stellar aberration show conclusively that the aether does not exist, and thus that light does not propagate as a wave through the aether and that the ballistic model of light is wrong.
This means you cannot conclude that Earth doesn't orbit the sun from the null result of the MM type interferometer experiments. In fact, you couldn't really conclude anything about Earth's motion from light until a new model was made. But we have that new model, which is consistent and can explain these phenomenon just fine. This shows that inertial translation in general cannot be observed, and instead only non-inertial motion can be detected.
This shows what the OP is talking about.
You quite happily accept experiments which you think support you and are happy to blatantly lie or misrepresent things to pretend science supports you; while an honest examination of the science shows your position to be pure nonsense based upon models which have been soundly refuted as they cannot explain reality at all.
Now going to stop distorting science and instead accept that the aether has been refuted?
Hence, the curvature of space remains a function of matter, and when the matter required to explain this curvature is found to be 'missing'
It isn't found to be missing, it simply isn't observed. It is quite arrogant to think we have the capability to determine from Earth all the matter that exists in a galaxy just from observations of light from the galaxy. It also isn't undetectable, it is detectable via its gravitational effects.
-
Jack, you are the best example of the distortion of truth and common sense.
1. Let's begin with this honest testimony :
What I have now to record, I do with regret, and only because my sense of duty in the pursuit of truth compels me. It is the circumstance that SIR GEORGE AIRY, who retired from his position as Astronomer Royal in 1881, related— some nine years later— how he had for some time been harassed by a suspicion that certain errors had crept into some of the computations published in 1866, and that, though he had set himself seriously to the work of revision, his powers were no longer what they had been, and he was never able to examine sufficiently into the work. Then he spoke of a “ grievous error that had been committed in one of the first steps,” and pathetically added— “ My spirit in the work was broken, and I have never heartily proceeded with it since.” My sympathy goes out to Sir George in his tribulation of the spirit due to advancing age, while I am not unmindful of myself, for I realize that in him I have lost one who would have been a friend, who would have listened when I said that all was not as it should be with the science of astronomy ; and stood by my side, encouraging and helping, when I, younger and stronger, strove to put it right. I do not know whether Sir George Airy was influenced or not by the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it is at least a noteworthy coincidence that he made those comments only three years later ; but in any case science has need of him, and of such evident open- mindedness and sincerity as his, now.
Not content to believe that the earth did not move, further experiments were carried out by Nordmeyer in the year 1903, to test the earth’s velocity in relation to the Intensities of Light from the heavenly bodies, but he also failed to discover ANY MOVEMENT.
Even then astronomers were determined to hold on to their ancient theories, and deny the facts which had been twice demonstrated by the best means known to modern physical science.
2. Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
(https://i.postimg.cc/59qmpTX8/airys-failure-1.jpg)
Bradley analysis – dashed lines above : The middle telescope is tilted to see
the aberrated starlight. When light moves through the telescope from A to D
the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D . This determines the aberration
angle of tilt , arc tan( BD/AD).
Airy analysis – solid lines above: With water added (left telescope), the light
travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c.
So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and
the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ). Nice theory, but fails to
predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE
in the tilting required!
The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the
‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of
air.
Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model,
where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection
occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in
space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.
GC ALFA analysis : There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is
motionless. The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B,
but there’s no sideways motion. So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s
test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.
3. Everything explained in details : http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html
4.
-
Jack, you are the best example of the distortion of truth and common sense.
Projecting again I see.
1. Let's begin with this honest testimony :
Or how about we skip the "testimony" and go straight to the facts?
The key part of stellar aberration is that it shows Earth must be in motion with respect to any aether that exists which light propagates through. This is directly contradicted by MM which shows Earth must be stationary w.r.t. any aether.
You continually focusing on "testimony" rather than the actual science behind it is another example of you trying to distort science.
You don't care what the actual science shows. All you care about is manipulating whatever quotes you can find to try and prop your case.
As I have pointed out before, Airy's experiment was a complete failure. Not simply a null result, but a failure.
The theory behind it literally makes no sense (which isn't actually all that surprising given how nonsensical the aether already was).
His experiment requires water to be able to interact with and drag the light, to reduce its velocity, yet at the same time, to not interact with the light and not affect its direction at all. This makes no sense. If it is going to interact with the light and slow it down why would it not also drag it along?
Even if you want to ignore that complete and utter failure of reason, you still have the same massive problem:
Stellar aberration under the aether model of light shows Earth moves w.r.t. the aether. Airy's failure (when you ignore the problems with it) allegedly shows that Earth is at rest and the aether is moving, effectively in an orbit around us at some 30 km/s. This relative motion would still produce a result in the MM experiment.
You still have 2 contradictory experiments, one showing Earth moves w.r.t. the aether and one showing Earth is stationary w.r.t. the aether. This is a direct contradiction.
The aether was being adhered to religiously because people thought that if light was a wave (as some experiments showed it to be) then it needed a medium to travel, that it would not be able to travel through a vacuum. They were wrong.
This shows the aether model to be pure garbage.
You repeatedly ignoring this and instead trying to run down various rabbit holes is you blatantly distorting science to fit your narrative.
-
Jack, you are the best example of the distortion of truth and common sense.
1. Let's begin with this honest testimony :
What I have now to record, I do with regret, and only because my sense of duty in the pursuit of truth compels me. It is the circumstance that SIR GEORGE AIRY, who retired from his position as Astronomer Royal in 1881, related— some nine years later— how he had for some time been harassed by a suspicion that certain errors had crept into some of the computations published in 1866, and that, though he had set himself seriously to the work of revision, his powers were no longer what they had been, and he was never able to examine sufficiently into the work. Then he spoke of a “ grievous error that had been committed in one of the first steps,” and pathetically added— “ My spirit in the work was broken, and I have never heartily proceeded with it since.” My sympathy goes out to Sir George in his tribulation of the spirit due to advancing age, while I am not unmindful of myself, for I realize that in him I have lost one who would have been a friend, who would have listened when I said that all was not as it should be with the science of astronomy ; and stood by my side, encouraging and helping, when I, younger and stronger, strove to put it right. I do not know whether Sir George Airy was influenced or not by the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it is at least a noteworthy coincidence that he made those comments only three years later ; but in any case science has need of him, and of such evident open- mindedness and sincerity as his, now.
Not content to believe that the earth did not move, further experiments were carried out by Nordmeyer in the year 1903, to test the earth’s velocity in relation to the Intensities of Light from the heavenly bodies, but he also failed to discover ANY MOVEMENT.
Even then astronomers were determined to hold on to their ancient theories and deny the facts which had been twice demonstrated by the best means known to modern physical science.
Honest testimony can be honestly incorrect. At the time there were quite a few conflicting theories as to the propagation of light.
George Airy was, presumably, certain of the reality of the luminiferous aether and so could honestly believe that had experiment has proved that the earth was stationary.
George Airy would not be the first nor the last competent and honest scientist to have his opinions shown to be incorrect - history is littered with these.
Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model, where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.
Or alternatively "Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for " the theory that there is no luminiferous aether.
If you are suggesting that "the flexible aether's sidereal rotation explains the result" how does that explain stellar aberration showing a sinusoidal variation with an annual period?
Sidereal rotation is one revolution in about 23 hours 56 minutes.
-
Stellar aberration under the aether model of light shows Earth moves w.r.t. the aether.
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
Not surprising, given the fact that you do not even know the correct definition of the Sagnac effect.
Arago showed that a light beam (pointed toward or away from Earth's supposed orbit) had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass.
It always showed the Earth at rest in the ether.
Then, Fresnel came up with the experiment that bears his name.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2054512#msg2054512 (Fresnel formula hoax)
Then, Fizeau.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2053484#msg2053484 (Fizeau experiment hoax)
However, Hoek put an end to the debate regarding the stellar aberration.
Mascart did the same thing.
Hoek and Mascart experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136
Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450
"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.
To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."
Mascart Experiment
E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214
Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work
Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle. Polarizers are filters containing long-chain polymer molecules that are oriented in one specific position. As such, the incident light vibrating in the same plane as the polymer molecules is the only light absorbed, while light vibrating at right angles to the plane is passed through the polarizer. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving.
You were saying... what?
-
Yes, jackblack, rabinoz and of course lonegranger have no idea, no knowledge, no scientific inference whatsoever about the correct definition of the Sagnac effect.
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
They are in good company: Michelson had no idea either.
Here is the correct definition of the Sagnac effect:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
And your readers are not amused, since you claimed all the while the opposite.
Your very equations and words betray your utter ignorance of the science of the Sagnac effect.
Here is how it's done.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner
l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):
{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}
Rearranging terms:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =
2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2
Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
You must derive the equations for the loops, and not for the open segments (as you have done).
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.
Experimentally, the Michelson-Gale test was a closed loop, but not mathematically. Michelson treated mathematically each of the longer sides/arms of the interferometer as a separate entity: no closed loop was formed at all. Therefore the mathematical description put forth by Michelson has nothing to do with the correct definition of the Sagnac effect (two pulses of light are sent in opposite direction around a closed loop) (either circular or a single uniform path). By treating each side/arm separately, Michelson was describing and analyzing the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
Connecting the two sides through a single mathematical description closes the loop; treating each side separately does not. The Sagnac effect requires, by definition, a structure, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
Now, what the frell is this?
The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.
We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.
This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
and
-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
Catastrophically wrong!!!
Here is the correct analysis:
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
The proper signs, in accordance with the direction, are in place.
What jackblack did is to substract the phase differences for TWO SEPARATE OPEN SEGMENTS, and not for the TWO LOOPS (as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect).
He assigned the wrong signs, moreover, he did not complete the counterclockwise and the clockwise addition of the components of the phase differences.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.
Here is the correct analysis:
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
jackblack assigned the SAME SIGN, even though he just said a few lines earlier, that they are in fact in opposite direction.
-
Not only he got the wrong signs, next he is comparing TWO OPEN SEGMENTS (arms l1 and l2) to each other, and not the TWO LOOPS:
l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
The very definition of the Sagnac effect requires a comparison of TWO LOOPS.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):
{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}
Rearranging terms:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =
2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2
Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
By contrast, jackblack used the wrong signs and compared two open segments to each other: a catastrophe of unmitigated proportions.
-
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
You sure do love repeating that garbage.
Continually insulting people doesn't magically negate what they say, nor does repeatedly lying and being unable to answer extremely simple question.
Nor does running off on tangents to try and pretend you are right.
Notice how you completely ignore the issue of stellar aberration and instead run off on tangents similar to Airy's failure?
Continually relying upon experiments which rely upon aether while repeatedly ignoring the massive problems with it doesn't help make your argument. It shows you have none.
Yes, there are numerous experiments which if the aether model was correct would indicate no motion of Earth w.r.t. the aether. Then there are others which show the opposite, that if the aether model was correct there is motion of Earth w.r.t. the aether.
Just focusing on those that show no motion while ignoring the contradictory results is a blatant misrepresentation of science.
When the experiments are taken together and analysed honestly, the only rational conclusion regarding the aether is that it doesn't exist, that light does not propagate through an aether at a fixed speed relative to this aether.
So good job bringing up more experiments to help show the aether model is garbage.
So why do you keep clinging to it?
They are in good company: Michelson had no idea either.
As you are going completely against many people, including basically all scientists, and actual derivations which show you to be wrong; have you ever considered the extremely likely possibility that you are the one that is wrong?
Repeating the same refuted bullshit won't magically make you correct.
If you wish to assert the accepted definition and formula for the Sagnac effect is wrong, you need to back it up. Yet you can't even answer extremely simple questions regarding it.
I know the definition. It is a shift in 2 counterpropagating beams of light around a loop which is rotating. This matches what I have indicated many times.
On the other hand you completely discard this and instead have pure nonsense.
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time (as the important part is really the difference), this is what I have said repeatedly.
This is what results in the formula I have shown.
Instead of accepting this, your delusional nonsense has this:
Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A
But you don't actually bother listing what is A B C and D, so who really knows what letters are where.
You leave out the 2 other arms, and you have one segment of each path in the wrong direction.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
No. You are literally saying it takes negative time to do something. That is pure garbage.
The actual times:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Again, there are 4 legs, not 2. This means you should actually have 4 components.
If you assume arm 2 and 4 to be insignificant (which is technically wrong for a rectangle, as they need to be radial to have no effect, but then again you don't even have a constant v for a rectangle either), then you end up with arm 1, where the light is propagating with the motion of the apparatus, a time of (again, just accepting the formula you provided rather than double checking it):
l1/(c - v1)
which is larger than if it is at rest.
Then for the time in arm 3 you get:
l3/(c + v3)
which is smaller than if the arm is at rest.
You need to add these 2 POSITIVE times to get a reference time for the loop (as well as 2 lots for arm 2 and 4).
You don't magically have negative times.
Then you do this again for the other loop, and then find the difference.
Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:
Which just goes to show how utterly wrong you are.
His experiment was fundamentally different to get a different formula.
It is completely irrelevant and you repeatedly bringing it up just shows how pathetic your argument is.
Now, what the frell is this?
This is a correct derivation (or part thereof) which has the light travelling around the loop rather than criss crossing, and without having magic negative times.
This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:
Yes, do you know why?
Because amazingly enough it doesn't matter if it goes in the opposite direction, it still takes a positive time.
You don't magically go backwards in time by going against the rotation.
Just how stupid do you think people are?
So now do I need to ask you simple questions about time and how you end up with magic negative times?
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
Yes, just like I did, but unlike your garbage, I had positive times, as it doesn't reach the end before it leaves like your nonsense indicates.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
And again, we have positive times, because the light gets to the end of an arm after it leaves the start of it, not before.
l2/(c - v2) + l1/(c + v1)
The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):
Or to put it simpler without bothering with the magic negative sign attached, we find the difference between the 2 propagation times as that is what the shift is. But again, we don't use your nonsense negative times.
That is what I did which you have no rational objection to.
This leaves us with what I showed before:
2(v1l1 - v3l3)/c2
So as you seem to fail to understand how times work, tell us simply how long it takes for the orange beam in arm 3 below to travel from the right side of it to the left side of it, assuming the arm has a length of l3, and is traveling at a velocity of v3.
Instead of trying to jump straight to the formula, show the derivation.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
If you can't do something as simple as that, just do everyone including yourself a favour by remaining silent.
-
I know the definition. It is a shift in 2 counterpropagating beams of light around a loop which is rotating.
Where are your loops???
You are still comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS: defying the very definition of the Sagnac effect.
Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A
Completely wrong!
The paths are very clear:
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time
You CANNOT ignore the sign, since by your own admission you have light beams travelling in opposite directions.
You are literally saying it takes negative time to do something.
No negative times at all.
Just two loops, continuous paths, as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):
{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}
Rearranging terms:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =
2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2
BY CONTRAST, here is what you did:
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.
You used the SAME sign for opposite directions.
Moreover, you compared two open segments, and not the two loops of the Sagnac interferometer.
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Again, there are 4 legs, not 2. This means you should actually have 4 components.
If you assume arm 2 and 4 to be insignificant (which is technically wrong for a rectangle, as they need to be radial to have no effect, but then again you don't even have a constant v for a rectangle either), then you end up with arm 1, where the light is propagating with the motion of the apparatus, a time of (again, just accepting the formula you provided rather than double checking it):
l1/(c - v1)
which is larger than if it is at rest.
Then for the time in arm 3 you get:
l3/(c + v3)
which is smaller than if the arm is at rest.
You need to add these 2 POSITIVE times to get a reference time for the loop (as well as 2 lots for arm 2 and 4).
You seem to need medical attention jackblack.
Of course the times will be larger and smaller, since you are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES, c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.
Positive times? Everyone is laughing at you.
You used the wrong signs.
You compared two open segments, in full defiance of the definition of the Sagnac effect.
I added correctly the terms for the two loops.
His experiment was fundamentally different to get a different formula.
The very same experiment: two different velocities, two different lengths.
Do not fool yourself into believing anything else.
Because amazingly enough it doesn't matter if it goes in the opposite direction, it still takes a positive time.
You don't magically go backwards in time by going against the rotation.
No backward time at all.
I am obeying the very definition of the Sagnac effect: comparing two LOOPS in opposite direction.
Each sign has been assigned properly.
No error at all.
You, on the other hand, used the wrong signs and compared two open segments.
Yes, just like I did, but unlike your garbage, I had positive times, as it doesn't reach the end before it leaves like your nonsense indicates.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)
Do you understand the definition of the Sagnac effect?
Let me remind you of it:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)
You have the wrong sign!!!
These beams are in opposite direction: one has a positive sign l1/(c - v1), the other has a negative sign -l2/(c + v2).
But again, we don't use your nonsense negative times.
There are NO negative signs.
Just TWO LOOPS: one counterclockwise, one clockwise.
Exactly as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.
Please read:
Here is how it's done.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner
l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):
{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}
Rearranging terms:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =
2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2
You, on the other hand, COMPARED TWO OPEN SEGMENTS, and used the WRONG SIGNS.
tell us simply how long it takes for the orange beam in arm 3 below to travel from the right side of it to the left side of it, assuming the arm has a length of l3, and is traveling at a velocity of v3.
Again, you are comparing SIDES/ARMS, not the two LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
Your full ignorance of the Sagnac effect is incredible.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.
-
Where are your loops???
That has been explained repeatedly. One is the blue loop, one is the orange loop.
We are both ignoring arm 2 and 4, and focusing on the 2 segments with a direction of motion aligned with the motion of the light.
Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A
Completely wrong!
Yes, so why do you keep doing this?
Skipping some BS.
You are literally saying it takes negative time to do something.
No negative times at all.
You are calculating times taken. You are claiming it takes this long to travel around the loop:
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
There should be no negative in here.
You are literally saying it takes less time to travel the entire loop than it takes to travel segment 1.
That is physically impossible and requires negative time.
Your analysis either has crossed loops or negative time, both complete garbage.
And skipping the rest of your garbage because you are just repeating the same refuted nonsense.
So how about we start nice and simple for you. Lets start with a system that isn't in motion.
How long does it take for light to propagate around the ring?
Assume that the length are l1, w, l3, w for arm1, arm2, arm 3 and arm4 respectively.
No motion, just a simple beam of light propagating around a stationary ring.
How long does it take for the light to make it around?
-
Stellar aberration under the aether model of light shows Earth moves w.r.t. the aether.
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
I tried doing my homework on the question of "How does current flat earth model explain sunrise and sunsets?"
And read in the first reply:
The FES FAQ has to be written by someone who really knows FET.
There is no 32 mile diameter Sun.
The Sun does rise and set.
Here is the real theory:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818
Which claimed:Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #410 on: August 09, 2017, 07:07:14 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818)
EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS I
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:
Then looking further, I find:Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #512 on: April 04, 2018, 01:01:13 AM » (http://)
EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818 (part I)
The Earth-Sun distance was first estimated to be somewhere around 25 km (in stark contrast to the 3000 mi distance claimed by the UA proponents). Using a variety of proofs, estimates and calculations, that distance was reduced to 12-15 km. Now, more proofs showing that this distance can be even lower, some 10 km.:
Since I know that these are completely incorrect I doubt the wisdom of this Great Teacher.
So until you satisfactorily explain your evidence for the sun being 600 m in diameter and 15-20 km (or is it 12-15 km or even some 10 km?) above the earth I'll choose to ignore all your other claims.
-
You should start calling it sunnear and sunfar.
-
You should start calling it sunnear and sunfar.
Maybe Sandokhan's distance to the sun explains this:
I witnessed the most mysterious thing ever - Plane flying THROUGH the Sun by Shahzwar Bugti
-
One is the blue loop, one is the orange loop.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Your formulas say otherwise: you are comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS, and not the TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
Here is what you posted:
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
You are using the WRONG SIGN!!!
You have two opposite directions.
Yet, you are using the very same sign for both.
You are the one using NEGATIVE TIMES.
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
and
-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
Catastrophically wrong!!!
You have no loop at all!
By your own admission, those light beams travel in OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.
You committed a huge blunder by using the same sign for both light beams.
That is why your "analysis" is pure garbage.
You are not using the correct definition of the Sagnac effect:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
There should be no negative in here.
You are literally saying it takes less time to travel the entire loop than it takes to travel segment 1.
Of course.
You are dealing with the Sagnac effect, or have you forgotten even this basic fact?
If you rotate the Sagnac interferometer, you are going to get LESS TIME for one loop (because of a greater velocity) and MORE TIME for the second loop (again, because of a smaller velocity).
Is that a surprise to you?
That is physically impossible and requires negative time.
Each and every Sagnac interferometer records this basic experimental observation: you will have different times for the two loops.
It requires two different velocities, in our case:
c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2
No motion, just a simple beam of light propagating around a stationary ring.
You are defying the definition of the Sagnac interferometer experiment.
Read again:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.
The Sagnac effect = light's travel times will be different along the two loop as the interferometer is being rotated.
You have no loops at all: you are comparing two open segments.
You are defying the definition of the Sagnac effect, which requires two loops of counterpropagating waves.
You used the same sign for light beams which travel in opposite direction, a huge error.
Here is the correct analysis:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner
l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):
{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}
Rearranging terms:
l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =
2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2
Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
You must derive the equations for the loops, and not for the open segments (as you have done).
-
One is the blue loop, one is the orange loop.
Your formulas say otherwise: you are comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS, and not the TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
No, I'm comparing the loop.
But that seems too advanced for you, so we need to start at the very basic level.
You are using the WRONG SIGN!!!
You have two opposite directions.
Yet, you are using the very same sign for both.
You are the one using NEGATIVE TIMES.
Yes, I am using the very same sign for both. Do you know why? Because both are positive times, not negative times like you want to pretend.
Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.
No, the sign at the front corresponds to the sign of the time. Is it a positive time or a negative time?
The sign for the directionality occurs elsewhere in the formula, specifically where the velocity of the arm is compared with the velocity of the light.
notice how one has c+v while the other has c-v?
So again, let's stick to the basics.
How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?
For completeness, and to avoid confusion, we will have l1 for arm1, l2 for arm 2, l3 for arm 3 and l4 for arm 4.
Can you provide an answer to this very simple question?
Can you provide the derivation for it?
-
No, I'm comparing the loop.
There are NO loops in your analysis.
Just the comparison of two OPEN SEGMENTS.
Here is the proof, using your own words.
We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
You are lying to yourself, and you are lying to your readers.
Where are the loops???
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
You are analyzing two different, open segments: the arms l1 and l2.
No loops at all.
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
Here are the two loops in full view:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner
l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
I have two loops, you have two open segments.
Yes, I am using the very same sign for both. Do you know why? Because both are positive times, not negative times like you want to pretend.
You are the one using negative times, not me.
Why?
Because you are using the same sign for light beams which travel in opposite directions.
They cannot have the same sign at all.
Very basic physics, but well outside of your understanding.
By your own admission, the following terms HAVE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS:
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
and
-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
Catastrophically wrong!!!
Opposite direction = OPPOSITE SIGNS
There are no negative "times" in my analysis at all.
Each clockwise and counterclockwise path has two components. We properly add them to form the two loops, as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.
You have no loops at all.
You are analyzing two different open segments.
No, the sign at the front corresponds to the sign of the time. Is it a positive time or a negative time?
The sign for the directionality occurs elsewhere in the formula, specifically where the velocity of the arm is compared with the velocity of the light.
notice how one has c+v while the other has c-v?
By now, you are down to these miserable and pathetic tactics?
Have you totally lost it, jackblack?
You are mixing up two different concepts: the speeds and the sign of directionality of the beams.
The two different speeds are marked by c + v and c - v: NO DIRECTIONALITY OF THE LIGHT BEAMS HERE. The c + v and c - v terms are derived from the TIME DIFFERENCES OF THE PATHS, very basic Sagnac experiment analysis.
You must use the proper signs to describe the directionality of the light beams, however.
YOU USED THE WRONG SIGNS:
By your own admission, the following terms HAVE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS:
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
and
-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
Catastrophically wrong!!!
Opposite direction = OPPOSITE SIGNS
How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?
You are trolling the upper forums.
Do you understand what we are discussing here?
THE SAGNAC EFFECT.
Let me remind you of the definition:
The Sagnac effect = light's travel times will be different along the two loop as the interferometer is being rotated.
We are comparing the phase differences of the light beams, as the interferometer IS BEING ROTATED, not while it is stationary.
You used the wrong signs.
You have no loops at all.
-
Just the comparison of two OPEN SEGMENTS.
It is effectively the same as yours. The only difference is that you have magical negative times which makes no sense at all.
I know Sagnac is for a rotating ring, but we are starting with a stationary one as you don't seem to understand that at all, and instead are just repeating the same refuted nonsense again and again.
We have to start at the basics before we go onto more complex things. If you don't understand the basics you have no chance at understanding the more complex things.
Now can you answer the simple question:
How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?
For completeness, and to avoid confusion, we will have l1 for arm1, l2 for arm 2, l3 for arm 3 and l4 for arm 4.
-
It is effectively the same as yours.
They could not be more different.
Here are your words:
We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)
Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)
Where are the loops???
Without the two loops you have no Sagnac effect: you must have two continuous loops or you are not analyzing the Sagnac effect at all.
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
You are comparing two different, open segments: the arms l1 and l2.
No loops at all.
You are comparing the segments A - B (the terms l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2) ) and C - D ((the terms l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1) ).
You have no loops at all.
Which means you do not understand the definition of the Sagnac effect:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
Here are the two loops in full view:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner
l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.
Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.
The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):
l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:
l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
I have two loops, you have two open segments.
The only difference is that you have magical negative times which makes no sense at all.
The only difference is that you are using the wrong signs: it cannot be more magical than that. Imagine: to use the same sign for light beams travelling in opposite directions.
You have light beams which are travelling in opposite directions.
Yet you are using the same sign to describe both.
A catastrophic error.
They cannot have the same sign at all.
Very basic physics, but well outside of your understanding.
By your own admission, the following terms HAVE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS:
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
and
-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
Yet, you use the same sign to describe them.
Catastrophically wrong!!!
Opposite direction = OPPOSITE SIGNS
l1/(c - v1)
which is larger than if it is at rest.
Then for the time in arm 2 you get:
l2/(c + v2)
which is smaller than if the arm is at rest.
Of course the times will be larger and smaller, since you are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES, c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.
Negative times? Everyone is laughing at you. The source of your misunderstanding the notion of the "negative time" stems from your inability to properly study the definition of the Sagnac effect.
You used the wrong signs, which means not only your full use of negative times in full defiance of scientific principles, but that you are comparing two segments: your analysis has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.
You compared two open segments, in full defiance of the definition of the Sagnac effect.
Each clockwise and counterclockwise path has two components. We properly add them to form the two loops, as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.
We are analyzing two CONTINUOUS loops, each having several components.
Each continuous loop has a definite direction.
You have no loops at all.
You are analyzing two different open segments.
I use the correct signs for both LOOPS.
The velocity addition equations are correct: c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.
You have no velocity equations at all, since you used the wrong signs and no loops at all.
Your analysis lacks both the loops and the correct signs.
Which means you have no idea of the correct definition of the Sagnac effect:
The Sagnac effect = light's travel times will be different along the two loops as the interferometer is being rotated.
You have no loops.
We are analyzing the Sagnac effect, not a stationary interferometer.
We are analyzing the phase differences of the light beams as they travel around the loops of the interferometer.
Your requests for a stationary interferometer are more signs of basic trolling.
Your analysis lacks both the correct signs and the two loops required by the correct definition of the Sagnac effect.
We have to start at the basics before we go onto more complex things.
You used the wrong signs and have no loops at all.
It doesn't get more basic than this.
You have no understanding of the very basics of the Sagnac effect.
The Sagnac effect consists of TWO CONTINUOUS LOOPS: since you compared two open segments, using the wrong signs, it means you have no grasp at all of the definition of the Sagnac effect.
-
Where are the loops???
Do you not understand? You are arguing against yourself. The only difference between my analysis and yours is that instead of adding together the time taken for the segments to produce the loop you instead found the different, in effect claiming one segment takes a negative time.
Now stop repeating the same refuted crap and stick to the basics as you clearly don't even understand that.
It doesn't get more basic than this.
Oh yes it does. We deal with stationary loops. If you can't understand that then we deal with a single length. Do I need to resort to that level of basics with you?
Now can you answer the simple question:
How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?
For completeness, and to avoid confusion, we will have l1 for arm1, l2 for arm 2, l3 for arm 3 and l4 for arm 4.
-
The way this thread has developed has proven my point. Science is not a good place for proper debate as there is too much space for misinformation, cherry picking, fake news and outright deception.
One of the main flat earth proponents who likes to quote scientists continually refuses point blank to answer questions on why none of the scientists he mentions are flat earth believers! He is also fond of quoting Nobel prize winners, so why has there has never been or will ever be any Nobel prize awarded for discoveries related to the flat earth? Would this not be o e of the greatest revelations ever?
If you want to use science in an argument or debate you must embrace all of science and not just those tiny bits that suit your requirements. Rejecting those parts of science that are impossible to argue against by claiming conspiracy is no more than an anti scientific copout.
-
The way this thread has developed has proven my point. Science is not a good place for proper debate as there is too much space for misinformation, cherry picking, fake news and outright deception.
One of the main flat earth proponents who likes to quote scientists continually refuses point blank to answer questions on why none of the scientists he mentions are flat earth believers! He is also fond of quoting Nobel prize winners, so why has there has never been or will ever be any Nobel prize awarded for discoveries related to the flat earth? Would this not be o e of the greatest revelations ever?
If you want to use science in an argument or debate you must embrace all of science and not just those tiny bits that suit your requirements. Rejecting those parts of science that are impossible to argue against by claiming conspiracy is no more than an anti scientific copout.
1. The earth is obviously NOT flat!!!
2. The earth is obviously stationary!!!
3. Just imagine yourself (or better try it in reality) walking on treadmill at 5-10 km/h (2,7 m/s -5,5 m/s) :
This girl is demonstrating these speeds (she is walking about 10 km/h in the first part of a video, and in the second part (closer to the end of the video) she is walking about 5-6 km/h) :
Now, try to imagine (or better try it in reality) that she (or better you yourself) suddenly stops.
Have you imagined this scenario? Have you figured out what would be your feeling (due to instantly restored initial momentum)?
Now, try this same procedure on the motionless ground, that is to say : just walk with the same speed and all of a sudden stop walking and try to imagine (or better try it in reality and see if you feel the same feeling as in the first scenario) what would you feel? Would you feel an effect of an instant restoration of lost momentum?
*It is just not the same thing to get the velocity back and to lose velocity!!!*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :
The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).
The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.
Concorde had a take-off speed of 220 knots (250 mph) or 400 km/h...Now, imagine concorde is rolling in a counter direction of earth's spin somewhere along the Arctic circle (at 400 km/h) where the alleged speed of earth's rotation is about 700 km/h.
SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :
The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east
The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.
While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.
The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA) we should expected such outcome : Even before leaving the ground concorde would cancel out more than 50 % of it's initial inertia (momentum). What does that mean? It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able (while concorde is restoring it's initial angular momentum (which he had before taking off)) to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left).
If the air behaved like a water, which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of partially lost INITIAL INERTIA of concorde, *passengers would be subdued (in the very moment the pilot of concorde abruptly turns an airplane to the right or to the left) to an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry concorde in a direction of earth's rotation.*
Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Popovich was quite right when posting his comment (you can find his comment below this very video, just scroll down a little bit) : Armando Silvier I lived in Germany and I drove Mercedes at 200km\h, and that's insanely fast. The surface of the earth travels almost ten times faster!!! *you are comparing that to clock arms? Seriously?* And we are not talking about linear path, but circular. You can't compare it to walking on the train while train is moving either. It's literally taking off and landing on a moving target. Use a little bit of common sense. The thing is that even if it is not very significant because of the inertia, it is not accounted for in any way, which means that we are NOT moving! Try to go deeper into the flight paths and the whole technology and you will see that moving earth is not a factor. That's because it's NOT.
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
PTOLOMY'S ARGUMENT AGAINST ROTATION OF THE EARTH : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1890SidM....9..293H
-
The way this thread has developed has proven my point. Science is not a good place for proper debate as there is too much space for misinformation, cherry picking, fake news and outright deception.
One of the main flat earth proponents who likes to quote scientists continually refuses point blank to answer questions on why none of the scientists he mentions are flat earth believers! He is also fond of quoting Nobel prize winners, so why has there has never been or will ever be any Nobel prize awarded for discoveries related to the flat earth? Would this not be o e of the greatest revelations ever?
If you want to use science in an argument or debate you must embrace all of science and not just those tiny bits that suit your requirements. Rejecting those parts of science that are impossible to argue against by claiming conspiracy is no more than an anti scientific copout.
1. The earth is obviously NOT flat!!!
2. The earth is obviously stationary!!!
3. Just imagine yourself (or better try it in reality) walking on treadmill at 5-10 km/h (2,7 m/s -5,5 m/s) :
This girl is demonstrating these speeds (she is walking about 10 km/h in the first part of a video, and in the second part (closer to the end of the video) she is walking about 5-6 km/h) :
Now, try to imagine (or better try it in reality) that she (or better you yourself) suddenly stops.
Have you imagined this scenario? Have you figured out what would be your feeling (due to instantly restored initial momentum)?
Now, try this same procedure on the motionless ground, that is to say : just walk with the same speed and all of a sudden stop walking and try to imagine (or better try it in reality and see if you feel the same feeling as in the first scenario) what would you feel? Would you feel an effect of an instant restoration of lost momentum?
*It is just not the same thing to get the velocity back and to lose velocity!!!*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :
The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).
The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.
Concorde had a take-off speed of 220 knots (250 mph) or 400 km/h...Now, imagine concorde is rolling in a counter direction of earth's spin somewhere along the Arctic circle (at 400 km/h) where the alleged speed of earth's rotation is about 700 km/h.
SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :
The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east
The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.
While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.
The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA) we should expected such outcome : Even before leaving the ground concorde would cancel out more than 50 % of it's initial inertia (momentum). What does that mean? It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able (while concorde is restoring it's initial angular momentum (which he had before taking off)) to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left).
If the air behaved like a water, which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of partially lost INITIAL INERTIA of concorde, *passengers would be subdued (in the very moment the pilot of concorde abruptly turns an airplane to the right or to the left) to an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry concorde in a direction of earth's rotation.*
Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Popovich was quite right when posting his comment (you can find his comment below this very video, just scroll down a little bit) : Armando Silvier I lived in Germany and I drove Mercedes at 200km\h, and that's insanely fast. The surface of the earth travels almost ten times faster!!! *you are comparing that to clock arms? Seriously?* And we are not talking about linear path, but circular. You can't compare it to walking on the train while train is moving either. It's literally taking off and landing on a moving target. Use a little bit of common sense. The thing is that even if it is not very significant because of the inertia, it is not accounted for in any way, which means that we are NOT moving! Try to go deeper into the flight paths and the whole technology and you will see that moving earth is not a factor. That's because it's NOT.
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
PTOLOMY'S ARGUMENT AGAINST ROTATION OF THE EARTH : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1890SidM....9..293H
The earth is not stationary.
Speed relative to size.
If you account for size and scale up or down you will realized why statements such as Boris Popovich's are utter crap.
The fastest human can run at a speed of 44.2 km/h. For the average size of a human that is 6 body lengths per second.
The Paratarsotomus macropalpis, a dust mite, is only .7mm and moves .255m per second (0.918km/h) but moves 322 body lengths per second. Scaled up to the size of a human, that dust mite would move at over 2400km/h.
Now scale the earth down to the size of a human and have it rotate at the same ~24hour revolution as the earth. How fast is a point on the surface moving? No very fast at all.
-
The earth is not stationary.
Speed relative to size.
If you account for size and scale up or down you will realized why statements such as Boris Popovich's are utter crap.
The fastest human can run at a speed of 44.2 km/h. For the average size of a human that is 6 body lengths per second.
The Paratarsotomus macropalpis, a dust mite, is only .7mm and moves .255m per second (0.918km/h) but moves 322 body lengths per second. Scaled up to the size of a human, that dust mite would move at over 2400km/h.
Now scale the earth down to the size of a human and have it rotate at the same ~24hour revolution as the earth. How fast is a point on the surface moving? No very fast at all.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Your ingenuity reminds me to one other genius to whom i addressed the following words below this video:
Logic and common sense are not your strong points...
You don't even know what you are talking about. Our alleged displacement of 0,0125 (which would be 0,0006/60*3 rpm according to your correct math, but UTTERLY STUPID LOGIC!!!) degree to the left (to the east) is equal to 1000 m, so if i moved my camera 20 cm and by doing such a short motion produced such a long sun-trail, how in the world these 1000 m of our alleged displacement in the same direction (to the left) due to the alleged rotation of the earth wouldn't affect sensor of my camera in the same manner as my 20 cm motion did affect it? Can you explain to us what difference does it make (regarding my claim that 1000 m long displacement in the same direction would cause even longer sun-trail in the sensor of my camera than my 20 cm long motion) if you call our alleged rotational motion to the left "0,0125 degr." (which would be 0,0006/60*3 rpm according to your correct math, but UTTERLY STUPID LOGIC!!!) instead of "1000 m"??? By giving another name to our alleged 1000 m you haven't managed to transform these 1000 m into something else, have you?
-
2. The earth is obviously stationary!!!
Stop spouting the same BS lies.
The Earth is not obviously stationary. So far all the evidence indicates linear, inertial motion is relative, and thus saying it is stationary in that sense makes very little sense.
However there is plenty of other evidence which indicates it is moving, specifically rotating, and gravity and Newton's third law indicates it should be moving as well.
When you jump, not only do you go up, you also push Earth away. It is insignificant, but it is still motion. Earth is moving.
Notice how you have now run away from yet another topic and try to bring up even more BS?
After repeating your ass handed to you regarding the aether, rather than an admit you were wrong you run away.
So I will take this change of topic as an admission that you were completely and utterly wrong regarding the aether and that the logical conclusion is that the aether does not exist, and that you will never bring it up again, and any attempt at doing so is you blatantly lying to everyone.
3. Just imagine yourself (or better try it in reality) walking on treadmill at 5-10 km/h (2,7 m/s -5,5 m/s) :
Or just imagine yourself running on a stationary surface.
The same thing happens.
It is all based upon relative motion.
You are in motion relative to the ground. It doesn't matter if you are moving or the ground is.
If you stop running, you faceplant.
For your pathetic boat example, the boat is propelled to counteract the drag from the water. If it is moving at a steady speed it has nothing to do with its inertia, it is entirely the drag.
Gaining and losing velocity is the exact same thing. Both require acceleration and thus force.
This has already been brought up countless times and you have had your ass handed to you in regards to this countless times.
It is just you completely ignoring science and reality.
Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
We have already done that the countless other times you have brought this garbage up.
You are yet to point out any actual problem with our refutations of your claims nor have you been able to provide any defense of your garbage.
Stop spouting the same refuted garbage as if it hasn't been refuted countless times already.
It just makes you look pathetic.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
And you clearly have no limits.
If you had a strong argument you would stick to it, and keep going until it was done, either being refuted and you accepting it, or you addressing the counter-arguments against it.
If you only had pathetic garbage that could easily be refuted, you would bring up as much as possible and continually jump between it to avoid admitting it is wrong.
What is it that you are doing?
If you think you have a valid argument, make it and stick to it. Don't run away and repeatedly change topics like you always do.
-
Jack, you refuted nothing, stop embarrassing yourself.
AETHER ISSUE - ONCE AGAIN - LET'S SUM UP IT - JUST FOR YOU :
1. Two months after publication of the first paper, Sagnac would conclude his second and final paper on the matter with these words-
"The result of this methodology demonstrates that, in the surrounding space [of the apparatus], light is propagated with a velocity Vo
which is independent of the movement of the parts of the system, light source (...) and the optical circuit."
This is the central theme of Sagnac: that the propagation of light appears to be independent of the state of rotation of his self-contained apparatus, exactly because one can differentially measure its advance or retardation as a function of the speed of rotation of the apparatus.
What is the consequence of the Sagnac experiment for the MGP experiment? To begin with, Sagnac's apparatus was rotating (with the control fringe pattern being obtained first with the apparatus 'at rest'), whereas the MGP setup was a stationary one.
This fact is intimately linked to the nature of the measurements in question: the Sagnac experiment detects the rotation of the revolving interferometer (relative to the 'rest state'), whereas the MGP experiment, with its interferometer fixed to the local revolving frame, detected the rotation of the earth.
Because of the resolution limits, the Sagnac experiment could never have hoped to detect the rotation of the earth, anymore than the MM experiment could have detected the rotation of its own apparatus.
What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary
motion.
But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades.
An open-loop Sagnac effect (dt= 2A?/c2) is today well established for the paths of electromagnetic signals around the planet: employing the GPS satellite relay system, delays have been measured by clocks on the order of fractions of microseconds in the W-E transmission with respect to the E-W transmission.
The results of the Sagnac experiment, the MGP experiment and the Brillet and Hall experiment, all indicate that one can effectively measure rotation by optical means, whetherthe interferometer is rotating or not. Given the required resolution, a rotating interferometer will always be capable of optically measuring its own rate of rotation, as well as that of the revolving frame on which its axis of rotation is inertially at rest. A stationary interferometer can only electromagnetically measure the rate of rotation of the revolving frame on which it is inertially at rest.
No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.
Curiously, many relativists and experimentalists get caught in their ignorance of the Sagnac effect. In 1979, Brillet and Hall reported a null result (absence of frequency shift) with frequency-locked laser beams, one set in a rotating interferometer, and the other kept stationary, and thus concluded in favour of the isotropy of space. However, not only did they observe a 50 Hz signal at precisely the rotation rate of the turntable employed, but also another more troublesome signal, at 17Hz. Aspden, who has suggested that the null
result may well be the inevitable consequence of such frequency-locked laser tests because "the frequency of the lasers will adjust to the reorientation of the apparatus exactly to cancel any effect due to motion through the light-reference frame", commented on the 17Hz frequency shift findings of Brillet and Hall, which had been ignored by them as a "persistent spurious signal":
"Interpreting the 17 Hz signal as the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85*1013 Hz, we find the ratio 1.92*10^-13 and, as this is 0.131 (v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21*10^-6, giving v as 363 m/sec. If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of earth rotation at Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40°N, Boulder has, in fact, an earth rotation speed of 355 m/sec." Apparently, Brillet and Hall were conducting a control on the MGP experiment using the Sagnac effect to detect the earth's speed of rotation and with the required resolution, without knowing it!
2. For Sagnac, the result of his famous experiment proves the existence of the aether. In his paper, Sagnac also predicts that a similar effect would be observed from the diurnal Earth rotation (the Earth taken as a rotating turntable) using a very large interferometer. The argument of this author (Gianni Pascoli) appears a priori quite convincing. The existence of a propagation medium for light waves seems to be confirmed by his experiment.
But in science, an hypothesis cannot be validated only if it allows one to explain all the experiments, not one in particular. Other experiments definitively invalidate the hypothesis of the aether, according to Gianni Pascoli. Perhaps most famous is the crucial experiment of Michelson and Morley. The aim of this experiment was to measure the displacement of the Earth with respect to the aether. Using an interferometric device, they showed that the velocity of the aether wind, if any, was less than 5 km/s (we should remember that the alleged velocity of the Earth in the solar system is 30 km/s, and therefore much greater). The procedure has obviously been repeated several times within a year (in case at a given time, and by an extraordinary coincidence, the Earth's velocity at the time of measurement had been less than 5 km/s with respect to the aether), but no seasonal effects have been found. The Michelson–Morley experiment has been repeated with ever-increasing accuracy.
The Michelson-type experiment carried out by Georg Joos in 1930 allowed him to give a bound to the velocity of the aether wind of less than 1.5 km/s. More recently, experiments have been carried out using various sophisticated devices, such as lasers and masers, optical resonators and microwaves, etc. The conclusion is always the same: no measurable aether wind which speed would be close to the alleged orbital speed of the earth. If we only focus on the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is still perfectly legitimate to imagine that the Earth completely drags the aether in its translatory motion (Fresnel had already suggested in 1818 the hypothesis of a partial dragging of the aether with moving substances). In this case, the negative result of the Michelson experiment has a trivial explanation.
Unfortunately, however, such an assumption cannot be maintained. There are two immediate reasons for this :
---First of all, it is inconsistent with the aberration of fixed stars (as we know, during a year the stars describe a small ellipse on the background of the sky. This effect cannot occur if the aether is fully dragged by the Earth).
---Secondly, the experiment of Sagnac was repeated by Michelson and Gale in 1925, but this time taking the Earth as a rotating disk (as already suggested by Sagnac himself). These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation).
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
3. It appears rather amazing that the "correct relativistic interpretation" of the Sagnac effect took eight years. A seemingly obvious reason is that Sagnac's experiment was not very much discussed in the scientific literature, even in France after the discovery of 1913. Conscious of this situation, in 1919, Sagnac published five papers on his work in the Comptes rendus. The paradox is that his ideas were nevertheless borne by a French group of strong antirelativists. In 1919, Sagnac was even rewarded with the Pierson–Perrin Prize for his achievements on this topic (first for the experiment, seen as a rebuttal of the relativity principle, the constancy of light, and also for having proven the reality of absolute space and time).
Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. (two years after Sagnac had conducted his famous, decisive experiment). Isn't that interesting???
3. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference, why should inertial frames be unable to optically measure their translation, but non-inertial frames be able to measure their rotation? The question is all the more poignant as Newton's Law of Gravitation was easily deduced from Kepler's Laws of Planetarian Translation, but remained disconnected from planetarian rotation. Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.
Because Relativity, in its restricted form, had largely discarded the problem of rotation from consideration of the null effect of the MM-type experiments, it could appear to be consistent with both electromagnetic detectability of rotation and undetectability of translation, and thus appear to withstand not only this contradiction but also its ambivalence with regard to the detectability or undetectability of rotation!
The ensuing confusion amongst physicists was so deep, that the results of the MGP experiment could advantageously be seen to confirm Einstein's Relativity with respect to rotational motion, irrespective of the outcome of the experiment (!) - and just as well appeared to confirm the adequacy of Michelson's method to detect the rotary deflection predicted by aether theory. While Relativity was satisfied with the negative result with respect to translation, it was nearly indifferent to the results obtained with respect to rotation.
This ambiguous situation was reflected in the ranks of relativists. Those who believed that the positive result from the MGP experiment was significant, like Silberstein, would argue that all it proved was that "the earth rotates in its axis", and those who believed that the result was non-significant, like A. Compton, would conclude that the earth's rotation had no effect on the speed of light and that the MGP experiment had definitely disproved the aether-drag hypothesis and confirmed Relativity. The latter view has today become the accepted one, and most discussions of the speed of light tests ignore the MGP experiment and feel justified in doing so.
Jaffe, in his book, "Michelson and the speed of light", gives the matter one paragraph in which he does not even report the findings.
However, at the time, in 1925, the lines were not yet drawn in the sand, and the perplexed and ambivalent state of physicists and relativists alike was translated by the famous New York Times headline of January 9, 1925 - "Michelson Proves Einstein Theory - Ether-Drift is Confirmed - Rays found to travel at different speeds when sent in opposite directions"!!
The paradox could not have been greater.
A. Compton was ultimately correct - if the results of the MGP experiment are, or were, to be considered significant, they could never be seen as proving Einstein's theory. What was consistent with Mach's principle was the complete inability of an observer to detect either his rotation or his translation by optical reference to a fixed aether. Hence, for A. Compton, the MGP experiment presented a non-significant phase difference and therefore confirmed Relativity because there was no aether-drag that could or should be invoked.
With the triumph of this view, a new set of rules had insidiously crept into the game. Relativity now required a null result in both the MM and the MGP experiments, and the door was closed on the matter of the aether.
-
4. H. Thirring in 1918 and 1922 suggested that Einstein's theory of gravitation or GR should be taken to indicate that the spontaneous orientation of gyroscopes and the phenomenon of atmospheric wind could be treated as if the earth were stationary (not rotating) and 'the distant stars' were moving around it at a speed high enough (>>c) to generate strong gravitational effects (fictional centrifugal and Coriolis forces).
"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921
"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.
"[W]e have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
"[Redshifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology
"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time
"If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations" - Paul Davies in Nature
"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it[...] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis in Scientific American
"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006
"[Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - Lawrence Krauss, 2009
"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck, 2011
"[R]ed shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
"If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it" - Joseph Silk in The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe
"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - Jonathan Katz in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe
"To date, there has been no general way of determining [that] we live at a typical position in the Universe" - Chris Clarkson et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008
Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory are the "conspiracy theories" Geocentrism is the only proven fact of science, yet scientific community runs from it like the plague because it cuts through their worldview.. . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call geocentrists "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.
Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.
What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.
Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.
When De revolutionibus by Copernicus (1473-1543) was published in May of 1543, it used a text of the protestant theologian Andreas Osiander as an introduction, in which he explained that heliocentrism was a proposal of an astronomical model to facilitate the calculations of celestial motions, but he did not want to draw any realistic conclusions in the field of natural philosophy. In Bellarmine’s letter, the distinction is clear between the astronomer-mathematician who does calculations on one side and, on the other side, the natural philospher who qualitatively describes the real in light of a theologically inspired metaphysics:
«For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.».
BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338
Galileo recanted his heliocentric belief :
5. You haven't done your homework on this one either.
Not surprising, given the fact that you do not even know the correct definition of the Sagnac effect.
Arago showed that a light beam (pointed toward or away from Earth's supposed orbit) had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass.
It always showed the Earth at rest in the ether.
Then, Fresnel came up with the experiment that bears his name.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2054512#msg2054512 (Fresnel formula hoax)
Then, Fizeau.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2053484#msg2053484 (Fizeau experiment hoax)
However, Hoek put an end to the debate regarding the stellar aberration.
Mascart did the same thing.
Hoek and Mascart experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136
Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450
"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.
To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."
Mascart Experiment
E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214
Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work
Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle. Polarizers are filters containing long-chain polymer molecules that are oriented in one specific position. As such, the incident light vibrating in the same plane as the polymer molecules is the only light absorbed, while light vibrating at right angles to the plane is passed through the polarizer. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving.
You were saying... what?
-
Do you and sando have a word generator?
Holy crap thats a lot of words.
-
No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.
Agreed. Much like how laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location in geostationary satellites. You know, the ones that remain in a fixed position over the equator and rotate along with earth.
-
AETHER ISSUE - ONCE AGAIN
Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss aether, or something else?
Stop switching back and forth among various topics to avoid admitted you were completely refutted.
LET'S SUM UP IT
Yes, let's sum it up, the main important points.
Based upon the aether model of light propagation:
1 - The MM experiment shows that Earth must not be translating w.r.t. the aether, with the original limited to a speed of roughly 5 km/s if I recall correctly, and subsequent ones getting even better.
2 - The phenomenon of stellar aberration shows that Earth must be moving w.r.t. the aether at a very significant speed (roughly 30 km/s).
These 2 phenomenon require that Earth is both moving and stationary w.r.t. the aether. This is impossible and shows the aether model does not work.
That is what you need to address regarding the aether.
Continuing to ignore this massive contradiction and instead only presenting things you think support you is you blatantly misrepresenting scientific discoveries.
Saganac didn't prove the aether model. He disproved the ballistic model. Sagnac is also expected under relativity.
Airy's failure was a complete failure which showed nothing as it relied upon the water dragging the light but not dragging the light.
MM only showed no motion of Earth relative to the aether, it doesn't show Earth is at rest w.r.t. some absolute space, nor did it detect any motion.
What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary
motion.
No one is disputing that. The closest you get is you and Sandy that don't like it showing Earth rotates.
It doesn't matter if it took people a long time to accept it.
Nor does it magically make aether correct, even if Sagnac believed it did.
Unfortunately, however, such an assumption cannot be maintained. There are two immediate reasons for this :
---First of all, it is inconsistent with the aberration of fixed stars
And that is what you need to deal with, but you continually ignore it. (as we know, during a year the stars describe a small ellipse on the background of the sky. This effect cannot occur if the aether is fully dragged by the Earth).
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments
Which is intentionally ignoring stellar aberration as it refutes that idea.
The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from MGP experiments is that light does not behave ballistically, and that there is some rotation of Earth.
The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from MM experiments and stellar aberration is that the aether model is wrong.
The paradox could not have been greater.
Yes, your paradox.
You require MM to try to pretend that Earth is stationary w.r.t. the aether and Airy's failure to pretend Earth is stationary, while stellar aberration itself under the aether model requires Earth to be moving w.r.t. the aether.
You have the massive paradox of Earth being stationary w.r.t. the aether while it is also moving w.r.t. the aether.
Until you manage to address that massive paradox, anything else you say regarding the refuted aether is irrelevant.
-
It’s amazing watching FE believers scrabble about looking for historical references to the aether! At one time people did in fact believe in the aether as a medium for light, but now we don’t. Why do you think after the 1920s the whole idea of the aether was quietly forgotten. It’s now one just one of the many requirements of flat earth belief.
-
@Jack, don't make me laugh!
1. I don't know what causes stellar aberration, and i don't have to know the real reason which lies behind that phenomena. Why i don't have to know it? Because Airy's failure experiment was designed to determine whether the real reason which causes this phenomena should be assigned to the earth's orbital motion or not!
Who designed this method of verification? One of the greatest physicist of all time.
Who was Ruđer Bošković : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html
>>>With his theory of forces R. Bošković was a forerunner of modern physics for almost two centuries. It was described in his most important book Theoria Philosophiae naturalis (Vienna 1758, Venice 1763, London 1922, American edition in 1966).
Werner Heisenberg (Nobel prize for physics in 1932) wrote the following:
"Among scientists from the 18th century Boskovic occupies outstanding place as a theologian, philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. His "Theoria philosophiae naturalis" announced hypotheses which were confirmed only in the course of last fifty years. "<<<
James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Bošković (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich. Bošković even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.
Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.
Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
(https://i.postimg.cc/59qmpTX8/airys-failure-1.jpg)
Bradley analysis – dashed lines above : The middle telescope is tilted to see
the aberrated starlight. When light moves through the telescope from A to D
the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D . This determines the aberration
angle of tilt , arc tan( BD/AD).
Airy analysis – solid lines above: With water added (left telescope), the light
travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c.
So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and
the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ). Nice theory, but fails to
predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE
in the tilting required!
The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the
‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of
air.
Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model,
where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection
occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in
space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.
GC ALFA analysis : There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is
motionless. The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B,
but there’s no sideways motion. So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s
test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.
SO, EARTH'S ORBITAL MOTION IS EXCLUDED AS A POSSIBLE REASON WHICH LIES BEHIND THIS PHENOMENA!!!
THIS IS HOW YOU CAN BE DOUBLE-SURE THAT STELLAR ABERRATION IS NOT CAUSED BY EARTH'S SUPPOSED MOTION AROUND THE SUN :
If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable
extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we
have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the
picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even
Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux
took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great
Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way
galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of
about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is
not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way
itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the
local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are
theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of
light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our
spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put
through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical
theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all
the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican
truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash
with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with
the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
The other way around, when holding on to their galactic
conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5
stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by
the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around
the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed
would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would
become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-
Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the
earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio
changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does
not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment,
paraded and promoted as a truth.
”Not true,” the theorists will object, “such out-dated reasoning in
a space knowing place cuts no ice with us. Relativity has no
difficulty with that kind of supposed contradiction.” I dare to
differ. Their Einsteinian panacea, foreshadowed by the
prevarications of Fresnel's “We cannot decide,” Lorentz's “We
cannot measure,” and Poincaré's “We cannot observe" is mere
eyewash.
Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.
This will be judged to be patently “unthinkable” or worse.
Bradley's unobservable and by Airy's failure emasculated “stellar
aberration” remains indispensable for holding on to a Big Bang
and a universe expanding into space or expanding space.
Manifestly, such a post- Copernican cosmos could not differ
much physically from the pre- Copernican one. To say that this is
a difference of motion only is nonsense. It allows me to agree
with Stephen W. Hawking: “You cannot disprove a theory by
finding even a single observation that disagrees with the
predictions of the theory.”
Conclusion: Einstein's cure-all cures
nothing! Assuredly, I do not claim that the foregoing proves my
modified Tychonian hypothesis. Experimentally, however, it
undoubtedly has the soundest credentials. More than three
centuries of efforts to disprove it have already come to naught.
The pseudo-heliocentric universe popularized for the benefit of
the man-in-the-street has, in fact, not a leg to stand on.
2. In Galileo's time Solar System has been perceived very differently in relation to today's science. Why they had to enlarge Solar System so much? To displace the earth from it's central place in the universe and to transform her into insignificant planet even within Solar System, let alone within the whole Big Bang paradigm (a.k.a. Infinite Universe).
Edwin Hubble was the first to see the centrally located earth. In his 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology, he expresses his deepest concerns about the fact that the red shift of galaxies was isotropic in whatever direction of the sky he looked, concluding:
“...Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth... This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable... Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position... must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”
Modern cosmology has tried to explain this phenomenon using the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model of Einstein’s “spatial curvature” equations to produce a non-Euclidean universe that is expanding as if on the surface of a balloon. As such, all the galaxies will appear to expand away from each other so that no single point could be designated the center of the expansion.
But as Stephen Hawking has admitted, the FLRW model has no evidence in its favor; rather, cosmologists choose it merely to preserve the Copernican principle.
He writes: “...the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.”
His co-author in another book, George F. R. Ellis admits much the same: “This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe.”
Hawking admits that the evidence could just as well point to a central earth: “...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.”
Using the simplest interpretation of the current cosmological evidence concerning galactic redshift; the anisotropy of the CMB; gamma-ray and X-ray bursts; and quasar distribution, as provided by the 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey; the 2001 Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other such studies, show that the Earth is at or very near the center of the universe and that alternative interpretations advancing homogeneity and the LCDM universe (e.g., “the center is everywhere and nowhere due to an expanding universe”) are contradicted by the di- quad- and octu-pole outcomes of the CMB; the large void area at the observation point; and the consistent concentric and quantized z-factor of the redshift around the observation point. Further evidence from the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac- type experiments from 1881 through 1932, as well as post-1932 maser and laser interferometry, including the Sagnac-based pre-programming for the Global Positioning Satellites, show that some type of ponderable ether exists, which is in principle agreement with Quantum Mechanics but opposed to Special Relativity. It is postulated that interpretations of the historic interferometer experiments that were said to yield a “null” result were simply the result of presuming, without proof, that the Earth was translating at 30km/sec around the sun, which leads to the conclusion that Special Relativity was invented precisely to avoid having to answer the Michelson-Morley experiment by admitting to a motionless Earth. In actuality, none of the interferometer experiments showed a “null” result, and as such they give convincing evidence of an ether drift that can be easily accounted for within the margin of an ether-universe rotating around a non-rotating and non-translating Earth.
So, over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013. While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe. However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.
Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:
"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun?—?the plane of the earth around the sun?—?the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
-
Or how about this method of verification :
GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO :
98250 km (Moon's translation across the sky in one hour : in apparently straight line (i subtracted about 3000 km (3500*29=101500))
380 000 km (the distance between the Moon and closer observer on the edge of the Arctic circle)
385 200 km (the distance between the Moon and farther observer on the opposite edge of the Arctic circle)
CLOSER OBSERVER : 98250/380 000 = 0,258 (ctg) = 14,496
FARTHER OBSERVER : 98250/385 200 = 0,255 (ctg) = 14,308
THE DIFFERENCE = 0,188 degrees
-----------------------------------------------------------
HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO :
3500 km (diameter of the Moon)
434 km (the distance which an observer at the Arctic circle crosses in one hour (46,8*111km = 5194,8 km/12 = 432,9)
5200 km (the diameter of the Arctic circle)
CLOSER OBSERVER : 3500-434 = 3066 km/h
FARTHER OBSERVER : 3500+434 = 3934 km/h
CLOSER OBSERVER = 3066/380 000 = 0,00806 (ctg) = 0,462
FARTHER OBSERVER = 3934/385 200 = 0,01021 (ctg) = 0,5851
THE DIFFERENCE = 0,123
------------------------------------------------------------
THE OVERALL DIFFERENCE = 0,188-0,123 = 0,065 degrees
------------------------------------------------------------
0,188/0,005 = 37,6
0,123/0,005 = 24,6
37,6-24,6 = 13 %
or simply :
0,065/0,005 = 13 %
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :
CONCLUSION :
If the Moon orbits the stationary earth then the observed difference in Moon's translation (across the sun's disc), in one hour period for the two observers positioned on the opposite sides of the Arcitc circle (after applying my method of verification explained in the video above) will be 0,188 degrees.
However, if the real motion of the Moon around the spinning earth were in the same direction in which earth allegedly turns on it's axis, then the difference in the apparent translation of the Moon (across the sun's disc), in one hour period (after applying my method of verification explained in the video above) would be 0,123 degrees.
-
I would estimate your calculations are wrong...
-
@Jack, don't make me laugh!
1. I don't know what causes stellar aberration, and i don't have to know the real reason which lies behind that phenomena.
That's right. All you need to know is that under the aether model it requires a relative motion between Earth and the aether.
It is this, combined with MM which shows that there is no relative motion between Earth and the aether that you need to address.
If an aether exists, either Earth is moving relative to it, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
That is the massive paradox that caused the aether model to be discarded.
This is what you need to address, either accepting that the aether model is garbage, or providing some defence of how this impossibility is possible.
Anything else you say is irrelevant.
That includes any other topics.
Like I said, pick one topic and stick to it. Stop jumping between different piles of refuted garbage to try and pretend you haven't had your ass handed to you yet again.
(And yes, that includes your zig-zag BS which has also been refuted repeatedly and while relies upon a complete ignorance of the difference between angular and linear velocities).
GROW UP!
Pick one topic and stick to it.
If you want to discuss the aether, tell us how the Earth is both moving and at rest w.r.t. the aether, when that is literally impossible, or accept the aether model is garbage. Then move on.
Why i don't have to know it? Because Airy's failure experiment was designed to determine whether the real reason which causes this phenomena should be assigned to the earth's orbital motion or not!
Stop lying. It was accepted that stellar aberration was caused by the relative motion of Earth through the aether. (Which was later discovered to be wrong as there is no aether).
Airy's failure was designed to determine if Earth was moving with the aether at rest, or if the aether was moving with Earth at rest. It still relied upon relative motion between Earth and the aether. But as pointed out repeatedly, IT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE RECORDING NO RESULTS OF MERIT! Not simply a null result, but no results. This is because it relies upon the water dragging the light, but not dragging the light, which again makes no sense.
-
Why i don't have to know it? Because Airy's failure experiment was designed to determine whether the real reason which causes this phenomena should be assigned to the earth's orbital motion or not!
Stop lying. It was accepted that stellar aberration was caused by the relative motion of Earth through the aether. (Which was later discovered to be wrong as there is no aether).
Airy's failure was designed to determine if Earth was moving with the aether at rest, or if the aether was moving with Earth at rest. It still relied upon relative motion between Earth and the aether. But as pointed out repeatedly, IT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE RECORDING NO RESULTS OF MERIT! Not simply a null result, but no results. This is because it relies upon the water dragging the light, but not dragging the light, which again makes no sense.
You either don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately lying...Whatever it is, you are drowning in your outrages lies and unbelievable stupidities, so don't have children, and i mean it!!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLCRBvhr/AIRY-LIES-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTZTfvSg/AIRY-LIES-2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBxqnXCm/AIRY-LIES-3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4gdnW6j/AIRY-LIES-4.jpg)
GEOCENTRICITY - An animated explanation of "Airy's Failure" experiment. :
-
You either don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately lying...Whatever it is, you are drowning in your outrages lies and unbelievable stupidities, so don't have children, and i mean it!!!
I see you are projecting to avoid the massive issues in your claims.
Again, if the aether model of light propagation is true:
stellar aberration requires that there is relative motion between Earth and the aether. (Note: this is even backed up in your last image where you state "proved that it was the aether drifting past the stationary surface of the Earth" meaning relative motion between the Earth and aether.)
MM shows that there is no relative motion between Earth and the aether.
This means Earth must be moving and stationary w.r.t. the aether.
This is impossible.
You need to address this paradox. Anything else you say is just irrelevant distraction.
Now can you address it?
Or can you just try for more pathetic distractions?
-
Hey, idiot, if i were you i wouldn't even take my next breath, seriously!!!
-
Hey, idiot, if i were you i wouldn't even take my next breath, seriously!!!
So now resorting to insults and wishing me dead.
I take it that means you are angry that I can continue with this one simple point to show you are completely ignoring science?
Again, do you have an answer to this paradox? If not can you admit that the aether model is wrong?
-
@Jack, don't make me laugh!
1. I don't know what causes stellar aberration, and i don't have to know the real reason which lies behind that phenomena. Why i don't have to know it? Because Airy's failure experiment was designed to determine whether the real reason which causes this phenomena should be assigned to the earth's orbital motion or not!
Well, I do know the real cause of stellar aberration and if you'd get your nose out of writings when there was no consensus as to the means of transport of light you might learn too!
Maybe take a look at:
Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion by Dr. Alec MacAndrew and David Palm (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/)
and
Reference Frames for Stellar Aberration by Milton Rothman (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tony_Rothman/publication/2817023_Reference_Frames_for_Stellar_Aberration/links/0deec517faa545a32c000000/Reference-Frames-for-Stellar-Aberration.pdf)
both of these look the motion of binary stars to show that stellar aberration must be caused by the earth's motion and not that of the stars.
But, since these are all "modern" you'll ignore then as you did ARISTARCHUS « Reply #22 on: November 17, 2018, 09:01:15 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78405.msg2115940#msg2115940)
But since you've now resorted to nothing more than argumentum ad hominem as you evidence it seems time to leave you to your own devices.
And when you have to resort to "conspiracy theories" to claim that this sort of thing is fake you are getting desperate.
Photos from EPIC on DSCVR do show the earth's rotation, but it is a bit slow - a bit like watching grass grow.
This site lets you step through successive photos NASA, DSCOVR: EPIC, Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/)
If you want if actually moving, here it is: A NASA camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR)
satellite captured a unique view of the moon as it moved in front of the
sunlit side of Earth last month. The series of test images shows the fully
illuminated “dark side” of the moon that is never visible from Earth.
The images were captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC),
a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope on the DSCOVR satellite orbiting
1 million miles from Earth. From its position between the sun and Earth,
DSCOVR conducts its primary mission of real-time solar wind monitoring
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon,
illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's
Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth
- one million miles away. Credits: NASA/NOAA |
But it all fits together with
-
Some more distortion of science :
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmFF1cpy/THE-SPEED-OF-LIGHT-OLE-ROEMER-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNcpf2CL/OLE-ROEMER-1.jpg)
210 * 12800 = 2 688 000
2 688 000 / 42,5 = 63247 km/h (earth's orbital speed)
63247 * 24 * 365 = 554 043 720 (the length of earth's alleged orbit)
554 043 720 / 3,14 / 2 = 88 223 522 (the distance to the sun according to Ole Roemer's contemporaries Wendelin (1635) and Horrocks (1639) : 14000 earth's radii)
88 223 522 / 660s (11 minutes) = 133 672 km/s
So, 133 672 km/s is the real number which Ole Roemer computed for the speed of light.
However, in all textbooks on astronomy you will find quite another numbers, for example :
EXAMPLE NO 1 :
Roemer's estimate for the speed of light was 140,000 miles/second, which is remarkably good considering the method employed.
Source : https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae22.cfm
EXAMPLE NO 2 :
Based on these observations, Roemer calculated that it would take light about 22 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth's orbit. Combining that value with earlier measurements of the Earth's semimajor axis (orbital radius) (described here and here) gives a speed of light of about 210,000 kilometers per second.
Source : http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/148-people-in-astronomy/history-of-astronomy/general-questions/993-who-first-measured-the-speed-of-light-intermediate
WHY LIE???
Maybe because of this :
EXAMPLE NO 1 :
140 000 miles = 224 000 km
224 000 * 660s = 147 840 000 km (the distance to the sun according to modern astronomy)
EXAMPLE NO 2 :
210 000 km * 660s = 138 600 000 km (the distance to the sun according to Cassini (1672) - 21700 earth's radii)
However, both deceptive calculations boil down to nothing since :
300 000 km/s (the real speed of light) * 660s = 198 000 000 km
ON TOP OF THAT :
1. In Helden’s 2010 book from the University of Chicago Press makes it clear that neither Flamsteed’s nor Cassini’s measurements deserve much credibility, which is why Halley didn’t believe in the results.
2.
In 1653, an astronomer named Christian Huygens (pronounced "Hoy-gens")
was the first to find this distance. He used a very clever idea (VERY CLEVER, INDEED - LOL),
but as you'll see in a moment, he had to make a guess about one of
his numbers. By pure blind coincidence (LOL), he guessed correctly and so
his measurement of the AU is essentially correct. However, since his
determination was not rigorous, the actual first measurement is
usually credited to Cassini, who used a method involving getting
the parallax of Mars. Cassini did this in 1672.
So how did Huygens do it? He knew that Venus showed phases when viewed
through a telescope, just like our own Moon does. He also knew that
the actual phase of Venus depended on the angle it made with the Sun
as seen from the Earth. When Venus is between the Earth and Sun, the
far side is lit, and so we see Venus as being dark. When
Venus is on the far side of the Sun from the Earth, we can see the
entire half facing us as lit, and Venus looks like a full Moon.
When Venus, the Sun and Earth form a right angle, Venus looks half
lit, like a half Moon.
Now, if you can measure any two internal angles in a triangle,
and know the length of one of its sides, you can determine the
length of another side. Since Huygens knew the Sun-Venus-Earth angle
(from the phases), and he could directly measure the Sun-Earth-Venus
angle (simply by measuring Venus' apparent distance from the Sun on the sky)
all he needed was to know the distance from Earth to Venus. Then he could
use some simple trigonometry to get the Earth-Sun distance.
This is where Huygens tripped up. He knew that if you measured the
apparent size of an object, and knew its true size, you could
find the distance to that object. Huygens thought he knew the actual size
of Venus using such unscientific techniques as numerology and mysticism.
Using these methods he thought that Venus was the same size as the Earth.
As it turn out, that is correct! Venus is indeed very close to being the same
size as the Earth, but in this case he got it right by pure chance.
But since he had the right number, he wound up getting the about the correct
number for the AU.
THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST!!!
-
*long list of complaints about scientists 400 years ago *
THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST!!!
Sometimes a scientist needs to make a best guess estimate if they lived 400 years ago with limited technology. What their level of inaccuracy has to do with today’s science means what exactly?
Time has shown their work to be pretty accurate for their time. Would not misrepresenting modern science by ignoring the last 300 plus years of advancement be the real DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST!!!
-
Some more distortion of science :
[snip]
THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST!!!
Well at least you have started labelling your posts honestly.
I saw nothing in there regarding the massive paradox you need to solve.
Don't think disappearing for a few days will make me forget.
Remember, if the aether model is correct, Earth must be moving and stationary w.r.t. the aether.
That is impossible.
So how does that work?
You either need to provide an explanation, or admit the aether model is wrong.
Only once you have done that can we move on.
-
Being a notorious liar (JackBlack) is perfectly consistent with being an ardent follower of one another notorious liar (Einstein).
Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
—?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887
Should i remind you once again to this example of human dishonesty :
There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)
Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.
"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)
How about this example :
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”
ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT
What i do find, is that phiosophers and other intellectuals, all Copernicans from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, had established the heliocentric cosmology so solidly over a 300 year period in the universities and publication circles that even the famous scientist von Humboldt was cowed into silence. Just before Darwin's book came out in 1859, Humboldt said: "I have known too far a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system..." Still, fear of "scorn of a thoughtless multitude" prevented him from saying anything. (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)
LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (ALBERT A. MICHELSON), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)
“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple; worm ignorant people take for a king…its exponents are brilliant men, but they are metaphysics rather than scientists.” Nikola Tesla
Because of the resolution limits, the Sagnac experiment could never have hoped to detect the rotation of the earth, anymore than the MM experiment could have detected the rotation of its own apparatus.
What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary
motion.
But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades.
An open-loop Sagnac effect (dt= 2A?/c2) is today well established for the paths of electromagnetic signals around the planet: employing the GPS satellite relay system, delays have been measured by clocks on the order of fractions of microseconds in the W-E transmission with respect to the E-W transmission.[/quote]
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
Why?
Because an open-loop Sagnac effect can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Case closed!
MMX REPLICATED (second part of the video) BEFORE YOUR OWN EYES :
-
Being a notorious liar (JackBlack) is perfectly consistent with being an ardent follower of one another notorious liar (Einstein).
I see you're projecting again.
I'm not the one lying here.
NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER
Stop lying. It was in the sense that he failed to detect any deviation which was not within experimental error.
As such, there was no detected shift. Saying there was one is an outright lie.
Regardless all of that is irrelevant, as stellar aberration demanded the shift from 30 km/s.
So if you like, I can make the paradox more specific:
In order for the aether model of light propagation to be correct, then stellar aberration requires that Earth be moving w.r.t. to the aether at ~30 km/s, in roughly a circle; while MMX requires that Earth be stationary or moving at much less than 30 km/s.
Trying to complain about limits of experimental accuracy and the possibility of a tiny velocity doesn't help your case.
Should i remind you once again to this example of human dishonesty :
No, I have seen plenty of examples from you.
And skipping the rest of your BS as you still haven't addressed the paradox.
Quit trying with your pathetic distractions to Sagnac, which don't help your case at all.
Now are you going to address the problem?
Again, stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s. MMX demands that Earth does not move at any significant velocity through the aether.
-
NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER
Stop lying. It was in the sense that he failed to detect any deviation which was not within experimental error.
As such, there was no detected shift. Saying there was one is an outright lie.
Regardless all of that is irrelevant, as stellar aberration demanded the shift from 30 km/s.
Hey clown, either you don't know how to read english or you want to claim that Michelson and Miller were liars, feel free to make your choice, i repeat :
Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
—?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887
Should i remind you once again to this example of human dishonesty :
There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)
Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.
"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)
Again, stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s. MMX demands that Earth does not move at any significant velocity through the aether.
Let me see if you know at least that much :
Why stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s (within heliocentric model, of course)??? Why exactly at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s?
-
Is it conceivable for you to answer the paradox "if the aether model is correct, Earth must be moving and stationary w.r.t. the aether.", in your own words in perhaps a paragraph or less. (You're not winning any arguments with the copy/pasting of yards of text).
-
Hey clown, either you don't know how to read english or you want to claim that Michelson and Miller were liars, feel free to make your choice, i repeat :
Projecting yet again I see.
I repeat:
Stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s. MMX demands that Earth does not move at any significant velocity through the aether.
Pretending MM got a non null result and thus the Earth might be moving through the aehter at some speed much lower than the required 30 km/s doesn't help your case.
How can Earth be both moving w.r.t. the aether at 30 km/s while at the same time have a speed much smaller than that (if any at all).
Let me see if you know at least that much :
Why stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s (within heliocentric model, of course)??? Why exactly at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s?
So you know your claims are pure garbage? You know stellar aberration, under the aether model, requires significant velocity and were hoping to get out of it by allowing a much smaller velocity and pretending MM reported that?
This angle for stellar aberration isn't just pulled out of thin air.
For the aether model of light propagation, it is based upon the relative velocity of Earth through the aether and the speed of light through the aether.
First considering light propagating perpendicular to Earth's motion: (the simple one)
For a given time interval (t), light will move down a distance of t*c, while Earth moves a distance of t*v.
This allows us to construct a right angle triangle, where the angle of aberration (from vertical) is given by atan(t*v/(t*c))=atan(v/c).
For a more general light source, coming it an an angle from vertical of a, then a similar argument is made, however the light is broken into its x and y components.
Letting the y component be that in the direction of motion of Earth, with Earth moving in the positive y direction, and x be that perpendicular to Earth's motion, however positive being going down.
Now the velocity of the light in the x direction will be c*cos(a), and that for the y direction will be c*sin(a).
The component in the y direction (that is with Earth) is cancelled by Earth's motion. For example, if Earth perfectly matched it, then there would be no aberration.
As I don't particularly care about sign for determining the speed (as I just want speed, not direction), then which way we subtract is not important as that just determines the sign.
For simplicity, that means for our right angle triangle, one side has length c*cos(a), while the other has a length of c*sin(a)-v. (I have already divided by t).
Now that means the observed angle will be atan((c*sin(a)-v/c*cos(a))=atan((sin(a)-v/c)/cos(a))=atan(tan(a)-v/(c*cos(a)))
The offset for abberation will be a minus this value:
a-atan((sin(a)-v/c)/cos(a))=a-atan(tan(a)-v/(c*cos(a)))
Now we could try figuring it out precisely, but lest see where the value is greatest.
Well, we already know that if a=0, then the angle is atan(v/c).
If is 90, then we end up with no need for a change as it is going straight into the telescope. That alone should be enough to indicate that it is going to be at a maximum when a=0. If you need more i can do the differentiation for you.
This means the maximum aberration you should ever get is atan(v/c).
Now, your own references indicate that you get an aberration of ~20 arc seconds.
The tan of 20 arc seconds gives us 0.00009696273=v/c.
That means v=0.00009696273*c=~0.00009696273*300000000=29088.8209577 m/s=~29 km/s.
Happy now?
So you have stellar aberration giving a minimum velocity of roughly 29 km/s, and MM giving a maximum velocity of less than 5 km/s.
This is an impossibility. 29 km/s is not less than 5 km/s.
This means the aether model is wrong.
(As a side note, this is also one way to calculate the distance to the sun. Assuming Earth orbits the sun, with a period matching the year, in a roughly circular orbit, then with the velocity obtained from stellar aberration we can calculate the circumference of Earth's orbit and thus the radius (distance to the sun).)
-
I'll put a bit in first about stellar aberration and sort out your blatant deception in the earlier post when I get the time to finish it.
Again, stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s. MMX demands that Earth does not move at any significant velocity through the aether.
Let me see if you know at least that much :
Why stellar aberration demands that Earth move in a roughly circular path through the aether at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s (within heliocentric model, of course)??? Why exactly at a velocity of roughly 30 km/s?
Stellar Aberration causes the apparent position of stars to vary in both directions about ±20.5 seconds of arc every six months. What ether motion could cause that?
Stellar Aberration. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration)
In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months.
This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The amount of stellar aberration, α, is given by: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/180081b30ff93b61e3fc3f5bf5ec0473f152fd10) So: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e494a9215d3eb5a6c821f6de7afd719407a2a1e8)
The speed at which the earth goes round the sun, v = 30 km/s, and the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s which gives α = ±20.5 seconds of arc every six months.
| On the right is shown how the stars appear to move throughout the year: | Stars at the ecliptic poles appear to move in circles, stars exactly in the ecliptic plane move in lines,
and stars at intermediate angles move in ellipses. Shown here are the apparent motions of stars
with the ecliptic latitudes corresponding to these cases, and with ecliptic longitude of 270°. |
| | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Aberration3.svg) |
It is the reversal of stellar aberration that is the big clue!
Not only that, if stellar aberration were caused by the motion of the stars and not of earth then binary stars would show a large selective shift as the components rotated about each other.
No such motion is observed! See Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion March 12, 2018 by David Palm (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/) which contains:
Reason #4: We test b) in Reason #3 empirically by observing rapidly orbiting binary stars . If aberration is caused by the velocity of the source, then the very high velocity of orbiting binary stars would cause an aberration in their observed position, and because the direction of their velocity is rapidly changing as they orbit, we would observe a change in the direction of the aberration. The consequence of this is that the observed separation of orbiting binaries would appear to be larger than they are and from what we observe – they would appear to be separated much further apart. That is not what we observe, hence the simple and straightforward explanation is shown to be the correct one – aberration is caused by the motion of the observer, and in the case of Earth-based observers by the motion of the Earth.
[De Sitter’s careful observations of binary stars in the early twentieth century substantiated the view that aberration does not depend on the motion of the source: “In 1913, Willem de Sitter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_de_Sitter) argued . . . a star in a double-star system would usually have an orbit that caused it to have alternating approach and recession velocities, and light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would then travel towards us at different speeds. . . . That is, Kepler’s laws of motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion) would apparently be violated for a distant observer. De Sitter made a study of double stars and found no cases where the stars’ computed orbits appeared non-Keplerian” (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment); see also E. Eisner, “Aberration of Light from Binary Stars-a Paradox?“ (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967AmJPh..35..817E))
Like it or not, Mr cikljamas, "E pur si muove[/b]". And yet it moves . . . . (Italian: E pur si muove . . . . )
a phrase attributed (probably incorrectly) to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei.
-
Not only that, if stellar aberration were caused by the motion of the stars and not of earth then binary stars would show a large selective shift as the components rotated about each other.
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
Dr. William H. Cantrell explains:
The Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering Petr Beckmann proposed that the outdated term "aether" could be replaced with the more modern term "gravity." Clearly, a gravitational field would have characteristics very similar to a partially entrained aether. Both would cause the bending of light rays. Gravity would be strongest near the surface of the planet where the partially entrained aether was most dense. Light would still behave in the same manner, if the speed of light is constant with respect to the source of the dominant gravitational field. This would square with all of the known experimental data because in nearly every case, the observer has always been tied to the Earth-bound frame of reference—so we substitute the word "gravity" for the word "aether." Obviously gravity exists and we know that, although gravity is "emitted" by the Earth, it does not rotate with it. So this is a very plausible replacement for a partially entrained aether.
The double-star evidence is often used to discount alternative theories such as this one. Consider a binary star system revolving around its common center of mass, located a considerable distance from Earth. According to Beckmann’s theory, each star emits light at a velocity of c with respect to the source of its own gravitational field. Given the proper orientation in the ecliptic with respect to the center of mass, the velocity of light initially emitted is c + v from one star and c – v from the other (assuming a tangential velocity of revolution, v, for both stars). As each star revolves about the other, their roles will reverse as will the sinusoidal ± v light speed component from each. Although small at first, if any difference in velocity were to remain in effect over the years or centuries it would take for the two sources of starlight to reach the Earth, the slower light from one star (at a given point in their revolution) would never catch up with faster light from the other star, even if given a slight head start due to fortuitous positioning. This would cause peculiar visual effects on Earth that astronomers simply do not observe—unusual Doppler shifts and other anomalies.
But there is more to Beckmann’s theory. The gravitational fields of the two stars will, of course, merge into one combined field at a suitable distance from their common center of mass, and the light from the two stars will transition to a common value of c. This, however, is not the end of the story. As the starlight traverses the heavens, it will speed up and slow down so as to always propagate at the speed of light with respect to whatever source of gravitational field it encounters. Upon entering our solar system, the starlight will transition to a heliocentric frame of reference, and upon encountering the Earth’s gravitational field, it will adjust once again to speed c with respect to our own reference frame. This is definitely heresy—the two sources of starlight will indeed travel with two different speeds initially, before stabilizing at a common velocity. And this velocity will change as the starlight enters our own solar system, and change yet again as it enters the gravitational pull of the Earth. The speed of transition will, of course, be gradual as one gravitational field yields to another more dominant field in its local neighborhood. This is an intriguing "make-sense" theory, not only because it replaces the partially entrained aether theory described earlier, but because it also squares with the Pioneer 10 and 11 deep-space radio data (and probably with the Venus radar data from the 1960s).
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman
Arago showed that a light beam (pointed toward or away from Earth's supposed orbit) had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass.
It always showed the Earth at rest in the ether.
Then, Fresnel came up with the experiment that bears his name.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2054512#msg2054512 (Fresnel formula hoax)
Then, Fizeau.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2053484#msg2053484 (Fizeau experiment hoax)
However, Hoek put an end to the debate regarding the stellar aberration.
Mascart did the same thing.
Hoek and Mascart experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136
Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450
"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.
To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."
Mascart Experiment
E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214
Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work
Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle. Polarizers are filters containing long-chain polymer molecules that are oriented in one specific position. As such, the incident light vibrating in the same plane as the polymer molecules is the only light absorbed, while light vibrating at right angles to the plane is passed through the polarizer. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving.
-
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
Stop bringing up irrelevant BS.
You still need to provide a formula, with an explanation of how long it takes for light to propagate around a loop.
If you can't figure out something as simple as that, you shouldn't be discussing anything else.
Now can you answer the simple question:
How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?
For completeness, and to avoid confusion, we will have l1 for arm1, l2 for arm 2, l3 for arm 3 and l4 for arm 4.
-
Not only that, if stellar aberration were caused by the motion of the stars and not of earth then binary stars would show a large selective shift as the components rotated about each other.
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
Dr. William H. Cantrell explains:
The Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering Petr Beckmann proposed that the outdated term "aether" could be replaced with the more modern term "gravity."
I'll consider what you write more seriously when you take this seriously.
A Dissident View of Relativity Theory IE Editorial, Issue 59
No doubt the average citizen assumes that relativity theory is vital to our modern society. In truth it has almost no role to play, except in a few narrow branches of science. For example, the Apollo program to land a man on the moon was a complete success as a result of the physics of Sir Isaac Newton—relativity theory did not play a role.
Maybe I'm not an "average citizen" but I've been long aware of that and often written that the Newtonian laws are extremely accurate within almost all the solar system.
It would seem that either you haven't done your homework on this one or don't accept your own references.
If you don't accept your own references why should I?
Clearly, a gravitational field would have characteristics very similar to a partially entrained aether. Both would cause the bending of light rays.
It takes an immense gravitational field to bend light.
Please explain in detail how "the bending of light rays" might cause stellar aberration, an effect due to a transverse velocity?
Then have you even calculated how much stellar aberration might be caused by gravitation?.
This is important because the aberration is independent of the star's distance, size or velocity and is about ±20.5 seconds of arc.
Not only that but it varies sinusoidally over a year.
If the earth were stationary why would stellar aberration have an annual period?
Gravity would be strongest near the surface of the planet where the partially entrained aether was most dense. Light would still behave in the same manner, if the speed of light is constant with respect to the source of the dominant gravitational field.
Only if you accept the ballistic theory of light.
Does anybody accept that now? In any case stellar aberration is observed in all stars, not just binary stars.
This would square with all of the known experimental data because in nearly every case, the observer has always been tied to the Earth-bound frame of reference—so we substitute the word "gravity" for the word "aether." Obviously gravity exists and we know that, although gravity is "emitted" by the Earth, it does not rotate with it. So this is a very plausible replacement for a partially entrained aether.
The double-star evidence is often used to discount alternative theories such as this one. Consider a binary star system revolving around its common center of mass, located a considerable distance from Earth. According to Beckmann’s theory, each star emits light at a velocity of c with respect to the source of its own gravitational field. Given the proper orientation in the ecliptic with respect to the center of mass, the velocity of light initially emitted is c + v from one star and c – v from the other (assuming a tangential velocity of revolution, v, for both stars). As each star revolves about the other, their roles will reverse as will the sinusoidal ± v light speed component from each.
Your hypothesis falls flat because binary stars do not exhibit any effects due to the velocity of the component stars.
Although small at first, if any difference in velocity were to remain in effect over the years or centuries it would take for the two sources of starlight to reach the Earth, the slower light from one star (at a given point in their revolution) would never catch up with faster light from the other star, even if given a slight head start due to fortuitous positioning. This would cause peculiar visual effects on Earth that astronomers simply do not observe—unusual Doppler shifts and other anomalies.
Sure, your hypothesis might "cause peculiar visual effects on Earth that astronomers simply do not observe" debunking it.
But doppler (red/blue) shifts are observed for binary stars.
-
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman
I do wish that you'd note that.
Arago showed that a light beam (pointed toward or away from Earth's supposed orbit) had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass.
It always showed the Earth at rest in the ether.
Or that there is no aether!
Then, Fresnel came up with the experiment that bears his name.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2054512#msg2054512 (Fresnel formula hoax)
Or that there is no aether!
You might read François Arago: A 19th Century French Humanist and Pioneer in Astrophysics By James Lequeux, p103.
Then, Fizeau.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2053484#msg2053484 (Fizeau experiment hoax)
Or that there is no aether! See above book.
However, Hoek put an end to the debate regarding the stellar aberration.
Mascart did the same thing.
Hoek and Mascart experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136
Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450
"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.
To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."
Or that there is no aether!
Mascart Experiment
E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214
Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work
<< We know about polarizers >> Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving.
Not necessarily! It could also indicate that there is no aether!
Look, Sandokhan, It's a total waste space to post experiment after experiment to show that there is no motion through the aether.
You simply refuse to accept that there is another option and that is no Luminiferous aether.
And the result of all these experiments taken together with stellar aberration admits of no other interpretation.
-
How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?
You are trolling the upper forums.
We are debating here the Sagnac effect, which involves ROTATION.
Here is the reference most used by the RE:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel the same inertial distance at the same speed, so they will arrive at the end point simultaneously.
Wikipedia:
In other words, when the interferometer is at rest with respect to the earth, the light travels at a constant speed. However, when the interferometer system is spun, one beam of light will slow with respect to the other beam of light. This arrangement is also called a Sagnac interferometer.
The Sagnac interferometer is a ROTATING interferometer, not a stationary one.
-
Your hypothesis falls flat because binary stars do not exhibit any effects due to the velocity of the component stars.
What ?!
Dr. Tom van Flandern:
B.S. Mathematics, Xavier University
Yale University, scholarship sponsored by the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO)
PhD Astronomy, Yale University
Chief of the Research Branch, U.S. Naval Observatory
Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office
"DeSitter noted that stellar aberration was the same for both components of distant binary stars, even though the relative velocity of each with respect to the observer was quite different. Therefore velocity in some special frame (we might now say velocity in the local gravity field relative to the distant gravity field) rather than relative velocity between source and observer determines aberration. Both of these experiments were blows to SR’s contention that all motion was relative."
Binary pulsars involve faster than light gravitational speeds.
https://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
How do binary pulsars anticipate each other’s future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow?
Indeed, the orbit of binary pulsar P5R1913+16 is observed to slowly decay at a rate close to that predicted by GR from the emission of gravitational radiation.
We could have seen the essence of this result at the outset. Binary pulsars decay as they radiate away angular momentum, presumably in the form of gravitational radiation. However, a finite speed of propagation of gravitational force must add angular momentum to orbits. This is because the retarded position of any source of gravity must lie in the same direction relative to its true position as the tangential motion of the target body. Therefore, any delay in gravity will always pull the target in a direction that will increase its instantaneous orbital speed - the opposite of the effect of gravitational radiation.
In a binary pulsar, where both masses are comparable, both stars may emit gravitational radiation. But each would do so as a consequence of its acceleration induced by the other, not as a consequence of its own gravity. Moreover, as we noted earlier, gravitational waves in the sense of gravitational radiation cause orbiting bodies to lose angular momentum; whereas gravitational aberration that must accompany any finite speed of propagation of gravity from a source to a target would cause orbits to gain angular momentum.
-
Or that there is no aether!
Let's put your word to the test.
RUDERFER EXPERIMENT
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 1960, Martin Ruderfer performed one of the most fascinating and fantastic experiments of the 20th century, and proved the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether theory, using the spinning Mossbauer effect.
Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.
Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'.
Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. Why is there no
requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit
time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely
canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.
Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.
A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.
Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/06/eLISA_Orbit.jpg?width=960)
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."
"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!
In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."
Conclusions:
The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.
Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:
(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)
The original arm length for LISA: 5,000,000 km (L)
Earth - Sun radius: 150,000,000 km (R)
ORBITAL SAGNAC/ROTATIONAL SAGNAC =~ R/L = 30
(https://image.ibb.co/iSbPJn/lis1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/b2YMyn/lis2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cStX4S/lis3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)
This fact is true for each and every satellite orbiting above the surface of the Earth, especially the GPS satellites.
This immediately proves the existence of ether: the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled, the orbital Sagnac effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites.
This is the main reason why relativists are abandoning Einstein's STR in favor of MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).
-
So sorry to take so long, but there are more things to do than put quote miners in their rightful place.
Being a notorious liar (JackBlack) is perfectly consistent with being an ardent follower of one another notorious liar (Einstein).
No, Mr Cikljamas, neither JackBlack nor Einstein is another notorious liar.
That would be you for failing to investigate the Dayton Miller experiment in enough detail etc, etc.
And you keep your head perpetually buried in the sand to hide from all the more recent evidence, though Bradley, the MMX and MGPX should be enough. (https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/businessman-burying-his-head-in-the-sand-picture-id175212000?k=6&m=175212000&s=612x612&w=0&h=o8H8NKegTFQ6aDeFG2lQMQPuLs6pmMNtTYUI5T4UUhw=)
Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
—?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887
Yes, "and the result decidedly negative" and "if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity."
And NO luminiferous aether and a constant velocity of light fit that perfectly well, which might be why Michelson accept Einstein's relativity.
Should i remind you once again to this example of human dishonesty :
No, but you will still falsely accuse Einstein!
There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)
No, because there was no "example of human dishonesty".
It was no more than a deficiency in the way Dayton Miller processed his data and there was a plethora of data before and after Dayton Miller that showed a null result!
Read, learn and inwardly digest: An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result, Thomas J. Roberts (https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0608/0608238v2.pdf)
And cease labelling all these scientists as liars!
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”
I'll not comment on the quote from ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT because I cannot find where and when he said it.
LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And why should we believe Lincoln Barnett? He said "Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another."
That is a blatant lie!
The reality is that Michelson detected no motion of the Earth using the speed of two light beams against one another - and that is quite different.
And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (ALBERT A. MICHELSON), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”
Once again you use deceptively edited quotes to bolster your deception! Let's look at all of what Albert A. Michelson wrote:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/co1uxxb11clle9f/Michelson%27s%20quote%20from%20Einstein%27s%20Pathway%20to%20the%20Special%20Theory%20of%20Relativity.png?dl=1)
From: Einstein's Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity, by Galena Weinstein, pp 102,103 (https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Pathway-Special-Theory-Relativity/dp/1443874345)
Please explain why you excised the vital little bits:
"of the phenomena of aberration which has been hitherto been accepted, and" then "through the ether the latter remaining at rest".
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)
“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple; worm ignorant people take for a king…its exponents are brilliant men, but they are metaphysics rather than scientists.” Nikola Tesla
So you try to use Nikola Tesla to prop up your pathetic model! Look what he wrote:NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second
But this is not all. The whole`solar system is urged towards the remote constellation Hercules at a speed which some estimate at some twenty miles per second.
How do like them apples?
Because of the resolution limits, the Sagnac experiment could never have hoped to detect the rotation of the earth, anymore than the MM experiment could have detected the rotation of its own apparatus.
What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary motion.
True but then along came Michelson, Gale and Pearson and performed a similar measurement with a much larger apparatus and achieved far higher resolution.
They show that the earth did rotate.
But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades.
That is total unadulterated rubbish! Michelson, himself, was a relativist and look at: The Propagation of Light in Rotating Systems L. Silberstein (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf)
An open-loop Sagnac effect (dt= 2A?/c2) is today well established for the paths of electromagnetic signals around the planet: employing the GPS satellite relay system, delays have been measured by clocks on the order of fractions of microseconds in the W-E transmission with respect to the E-W transmission.
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
Why?
Because an open-loop Sagnac effect can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
I said enough about stellar aberration in my previous post.
-
This means the maximum aberration you should ever get is atan(v/c).
Now, your own references indicate that you get an aberration of ~20 arc seconds.
The tan of 20 arc seconds gives us 0.00009696273=v/c.
That means v=0.00009696273*c=~0.00009696273*300000000=29088.8209577 m/s=~29 km/s.
Happy now?
So you have stellar aberration giving a minimum velocity of roughly 29 km/s, and MM giving a maximum velocity of less than 5 km/s.
This is an impossibility. 29 km/s is not less than 5 km/s.
This means the aether model is wrong.
(As a side note, this is also one way to calculate the distance to the sun. Assuming Earth orbits the sun, with a period matching the year, in a roughly circular orbit, then with the velocity obtained from stellar aberration we can calculate the circumference of Earth's orbit and thus the radius (distance to the sun).)
1. STELLAR ABERRATION - REVERSE ENGINEERING - THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST :
It was chiefly therefore Curiosity that tempted me (being then at Kew, where the Instrument was fixed) to prepare for observing the Star on December 17th, when having adjusted the Instrument as usual, I perceived that it passed a little more Southerly this Day than when it was observed before. James Bradley, 1727
Bradley’s interpretation, based on the Newtonian corpuscular concept of light, accounted quite well for the basic phenomenon of stellar aberration, but it requires us to believe that the velocity of light is remarkably constant from all sources in all circumstances. Indeed, commenting on the concordance between the speed of light inferred from aberration and from Roemer’s method based on the Sun’s light reflected from Jupiter’s moons, Bradley wrote :
These different Methods of finding the Velocity of Light thus agreeing, we may reasonably conclude, not only that these Phaenomena are owing to the Causes to which they have been ascribed; but also, that Light is propagated (in the same Medium) with the same Velocity after it hath been reflected as before; for this will be the Consequence, if we allow that the Light of the Sun is propagated with the same Velocity, before it is reflected, as the Light of the fixt Stars. And I imagine this will scarce be questioned, if it can be made appear that the Velocity of the Light of all the fixt Stars is equal, and that their Light moves or is propagated through equal Spaces in equal Times, at all Distances from them: both which points (as I apprehend) are sufficiently proved from the apparent alteration of the Declination of Stars of different Lustre; for that is not sensibly different in such Stars as seem near together, though they appear of very different Magnitudes. And whatever their Situations are, I find the same Velocity of Light from my Observations of small Stars of the fifth or sixth, as from those of the second and third Magnitude, which in all Probability are placed at very different Distances from us.
Now, let's see what "concordance" (between the speed of light inferred from aberration and from Roemer’s method based on the Sun’s light reflected from Jupiter’s moons) are we talking about here :
As i have proven in my reply #138 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2121710#msg2121710 :
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNcpf2CL/OLE-ROEMER-1.jpg)
Ole Roemer's estimation for the speed of light (133 672 km/s) is in accordance with 88 223 522 km (the distance to the sun according to Ole Roemer's contemporaries Wendelin (1635) and Horrocks (1639) : 14000 earth's radii).
This estimation (88 000 000 km) for the distance to the sun delivers 18 km/s for the alleged speed of the earth.
However, if this alleged earth's orbital speed were true and 133 000 km/s (Roemer's estimation for the speed of light) were also true, then these two numbers (earth's orbital speed (18km/s) and Roemer's speed of light (133 000 km/s)) wouldn't match Bradley's 20,6'' stellar aberration.
So, what we have to do now (after Bradley discovered 20,6'' stellar aberration) in order to achieve (artificially produce) above mentioned alleged "concordance" (between the speed of light inferred from aberration and from Roemer’s method based on the Sun’s light reflected from Jupiter’s moons)?
First solution :
If we want to preserve Wendelin's and Horrocks estimation for the distance to the sun (88 000 000 km) then in order to achieve concordance between earth's orbital speed and the speed of light (so to preserve Bradley's 20,6'' aberration), we have to increase the value for the speed of light from 133 000 km/s to 180 000 km/s, but it means that we have to decrease Roemers 11 minutes for almost full 3 minutes (instead of 660 sec, we would have to say that Roemer was off for 171 seconds), which is too much.
Second solution :
If we accept Cassini's estimation (138 880 000 km), then we have to increase Roemer's estimation for the speed of light more than twice (from 133 672 km/s to 270 650 km/s), but in this case we will have to decrease Roemer's 11 minutes for 24 seconds less than in the first case, and that sounds somewhat better.
If (in a due time) it turns out that the speed of light is greater we will simply accommodate it by widening earth's orbit and decreasing Roemer's 11 minutes to a greater extent or the other way around : we will narrowing earth's orbit and decrease Roemer's 11 minutes to a lesser extent.
So, for example :
If it turned out that the speed of light is 250 000 km/s then earth's orbital speed would be 25 km/s (the distance to the sun would be 125 500 000 km), and Roemer's time would be 502 seconds.
If it turned out that the speed of light is 300 000 km/s then earth's orbital speed will be 30 km/s (the distance to the sun would be 150 000 000 km), and Roemer's time would be 500 seconds.
30 000 m / 300 000 000 m = 0,0001 (ctg) = 0,005729 * 3600 = 20,6''
25 000 m / 250 000 000 m = 0,0001 (ctg) = 0,005729 * 3600 = 20,6''
etc...
REVERSE ENGINEERING AT IT'S BEST !!!
Now, it's time to recall the following excerpt from Gerrard Hickson's book "Kings dethroned" :
"The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s (SEE THE DIAGRAM BELOW) 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.”
It is so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it....." ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE IN MIND THAT IN THE 17th CENTURY OLE ROEMER HAD NOT CONCEIVED THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LIGHT TOOK NEARLY 8 1/2 MINUTES TO TRAVEL FROM THE SUN TO THE EARTH, SINCE THE TRUTH IS THAT HE CONCEIVED THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LIGHT TOOK FULL 11 MINUTES TO TRAVEL FROM THE SUN TO THE EARTH!!!
THE QUESTION : WHO WAS THE FIRST ONE WHO DETERMINED THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN?
THE ANSWER : THE SAME GUY WHO FIRST MEASURED THE EXACT SPEED OF LIGHT!!!
FOR WHOM THE BELLS RING???
(https://i.postimg.cc/YqbXPvnY/THE-DISTANCE-TO-THE-SUN-NEWCOMB-XXX.jpg)
2. The speed of the Earth / the speed of light = the angle of stellar aberration / the size of a radian,
where a radian is the angle in a circle / 2 π = 360 * 3600 / 6.28318531 = 206264.806, or
the speed of the Earth / the speed of light = the angle in seconds of arc / 206264.806
Using the 20 arc-seconds observed by Bradley (the total change in stellar positions was 40 arc-seconds, but half of that is when the star goes one way, when we are on one side of our orbit, and half is when the star goes the other way, when we are on the other side of our orbit) in this equation, we find that the orbital velocity of the Earth is approximately one ten-thousandth of the speed of light. Given our present knowledge of the speed of light (186,400 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), the Earth's orbital velocity is hence measured as 18 1/2 miles or 30 kilometers per second.
If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable
extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we
have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the
picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even
Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux
took for granted.
If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican
truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash
with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with
the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
The other way around, when holding on to their galactic
conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5
stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by
the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around
the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed
would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would
become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-
Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the
earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio
changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does
not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment,
paraded and promoted as a truth.
3. Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
(https://i.postimg.cc/59qmpTX8/airys-failure-1.jpg)
Bradley analysis – dashed lines above : The middle telescope is tilted to see
the aberrated starlight. When light moves through the telescope from A to D
the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D . This determines the aberration
angle of tilt , arc tan( BD/AD).
Airy analysis – solid lines above: With water added (left telescope), the light
travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c.
So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and
the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ). Nice theory, but fails to
predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE
in the tilting required!
The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the
‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of
air.
Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model,
where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection
occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in
space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.
GC ALFA analysis : There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is
motionless. The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B,
but there’s no sideways motion. So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s
test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.
4.
As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:
“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)
So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.
He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.
So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.
Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.
This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!
Conversely, geocentrism needs only one, the rotation, since if the star field is rotating around a fixed
Earth we would expect to see a near 100% ether drift against the Earth, which is precisely what the 1925
MGX showed. But since there is no revolution of the Earth in the geocentric system, this answers why the
1887 MMX did not produce anywhere near a 30km/sec ether drift. The facts speak for themselves. On a
purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain
both MMX and MGX!
5.
Because of the resolution limits, the Sagnac experiment could never have hoped to detect the rotation of the earth, anymore than the MM experiment could have detected the rotation of its own apparatus.
What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary
motion.
But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades.
An open-loop Sagnac effect (dt= 2A?/c2) is today well established for the paths of electromagnetic signals around the planet: employing the GPS satellite relay system, delays have been measured by clocks on the order of fractions of microseconds in the W-E transmission with respect to the E-W transmission.
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
Why?
Because an open-loop Sagnac effect can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
Case closed!
-
Let's put your word to the test.
Or we ignore absolute everything you say until you admit you were completely wrong regarding the Sagnac effect or you can back up your claims on it?
Remember, you are currently at the step of showing you understand how to figure out how long it takes light to propagate around a stationary loop.
Can you do that?
Until you do, anything else you say is just a pathetic distraction to avoid your complete failure.
-
1. STELLAR ABERRATION - REVERSE ENGINEERING - THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST :
It seems that is all you are capable of doing, distorting science.
Stop just providing a bunch of quote. Provide a rational argument yourself.
Your own reference agreed with the aberration I provided, which shows that Earth must be moving very quickly.
Again: Stellar aberration shows conclusively that if any aether exists Earth must be moving at a very high speed w.r.t. the aether. ~30 km/s.
MMX shows that if any aether exists Earth must be moving very slowly or not at all w.r.t. the aether, probably less than some speed, certainly less than some other. One of them is 5 km/s, and that is just based upon those old experiments.
But regardless, we have a contradiction here.
Earth can't be moving at 30 km/s while not even moving at 5 km/s.
It is a complete contradiction and a massive paradox anyone hoping to claim aether is real needs to deal with.
Until you deal with this paradox, honestly, by actually dealing with it, any other claim of yours regarding aether is just another lie. This is because this paradox and your constant refusal to respond to it shows that you know the aether model is garbage and thus any claim based upon the aether model is garbage.
Now either deal with it, or admit you are completely wrong and stop talking about the aether.
-
1. STELLAR ABERRATION - REVERSE ENGINEERING - THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST :
It seems that is all you are capable of doing, distorting science.
Stop just providing a bunch of quote. Provide a rational argument yourself.
Your own reference agreed with the aberration I provided, which shows that Earth must be moving very quickly.
Again: Stellar aberration shows conclusively that if any aether exists Earth must be moving at a very high speed w.r.t. the aether. ~30 km/s.
MMX shows that if any aether exists Earth must be moving very slowly or not at all w.r.t. the aether, probably less than some speed, certainly less than some other. One of them is 5 km/s, and that is just based upon those old experiments.
But regardless, we have a contradiction here.
Earth can't be moving at 30 km/s while not even moving at 5 km/s.
It is a complete contradiction and a massive paradox anyone hoping to claim aether is real needs to deal with.
Until you deal with this paradox, honestly, by actually dealing with it, any other claim of yours regarding aether is just another lie. This is because this paradox and your constant refusal to respond to it shows that you know the aether model is garbage and thus any claim based upon the aether model is garbage.
Now either deal with it, or admit you are completely wrong and stop talking about the aether.
1. You are an utter idiot!
2. You've got no idea what causes stellar aberration.
3. I have proven (on the basis of real massive paradox (see number 2), not artificial one (like yours)) in my previous post that heliocentric explanation for stellar aberration is totally refuted since the total change in stellar positions is 40 arc-seconds, half of that is when the star goes one way, when we are allegedly on one side of our orbit, and half is when the star goes the other way, when we are allegedly on the other side of our orbit. However, when holding on to your galactic conjectures, you are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way, so, in March when we were to moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.
4. MMX shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth.
5. Airy's failure shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth, also.
6. MGPX proved beyond reasonable doubt that the aether rotates once per day around the motionless earth.
7. Sagnac experiment proved that aether exists.
8. An open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.
9. An open-loop Sagnac effect principally can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth, however since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead such principally possible (but practically refuted) interpretation, an open-loop Sagnac effect must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
10. I have cited you Miller and Michelson so that you can't claim any more that they didn't measure any fringe shifts while conducting their experiments. It is almost irrelevant whether they detected any aether drift since their experiments were designed for measuring relative motion between earth and aether due to earth's alleged orbital motion, however since they were persistently reading aether drift (though much slower than expected), such results of their experiments (as well as many other interferometer experiments) additionally corroborate an existence of aether.
11. How come you haven't commented what has been revealed in number 1 - EXCLUSIVE PROOF OF A REVERSE ENGINEERING AND MASSIVE MANIPULATION AND FABRICATION WITH ASTRONOMICAL DATA (see my previous post)???
12. An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :
I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.
Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.
H. Thirring in 1918 and 1922 suggested that Einstein's theory of gravitation or GR should be taken to indicate that the spontaneous orientation of gyroscopes and the phenomenon of atmospheric wind could be treated as if the earth were stationary (not rotating) and 'the distant stars' were moving around it at a speed high enough (>>c) to generate strong gravitational effects (fictional centrifugal and Coriolis forces).
"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921
"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.
"[W]e have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
"[Redshifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology
"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time
"If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations" - Paul Davies in Nature
"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it[...] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis in Scientific American
"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006
"[Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - Lawrence Krauss, 2009
"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck, 2011
"[R]ed shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
"If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it" - Joseph Silk in The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe
"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - Jonathan Katz in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe
"To date, there has been no general way of determining [that] we live at a typical position in the Universe" - Chris Clarkson et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008
Over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013. While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe. However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.
Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:
"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun?—?the plane of the earth around the sun?—?the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
13. The fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).
Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).
Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).
Adolf Bakersaid "Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be at rest' ... it was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space".
Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).
As "preposterous" as the measurements of *Arago*, *Trouton* and *Noble*, *Airy*, *Thorndyke* and *Kennedy*, *Theodore de Coudres* and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
Giancoli put it this way : "But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe".
That of course is unacceptable to anyone who has decided that the earth is a very ordinary second class planet speeding through some insignificant backwater of the universe. Another ad hoc was required to save the theory from the evidence.
ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT admitted 150 years ago :
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”
Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist HENDRIK LORENTZ (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"
His great contemporary HENRI POINCARE confessed:
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."
LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.
“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.” - NICOLAS COPERNICUS
-
Clearly the earth rotates relative to the sun.
-
1. You are an utter idiot!
Good job showing you have no argument and need to result to baseless insults.
3. I have proven (on the basis of real massive paradox (see number 2)
Your paradox relies upon the existence of aether (and baselessly asserted properties of it). This paradox shows aether can't exist, rendering your paradox infantile garbage.
Until you can show how to resolve the paradox of Earth needing to move and be stationary, you have nothing.
Trying to bring up other pathetic distractions wont help your case.
Insulting me just shows you have no case.
I know you were hoping I would be too ignorant to understand aberration and you could thus pretend the argument from aberration is false. But I showed that wasn't the case.
So now you are left with no option out other than pathetic insults and distractions.
Deal with the paradox or admit aether is BS before moving on.
-
1. You are an utter idiot!
But cikljamas is smarter than every astronomer since Tycho Brahe and most scientists from and including Galileo ;D.
2. You've got no idea what causes stellar aberration.
Incorrect! I have a very good idea what causes stellar aberration.
By the way, as far as I know Bradley never attempted to estimate the velocity of light:- James Bradley determined that light must travel 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit - he did not determine the velocity of light.
3. I have proven (on the basis of real massive paradox (see number 2), not artificial one (like yours)) in my previous post that heliocentric explanation for stellar aberration is totally refuted since the total change in stellar positions is 40 arc-seconds, half of that is when the star goes one way, when we are allegedly on one side of our orbit, and half is when the star goes the other way, when we are allegedly on the other side of our orbit. However, when holding on to your galactic conjectures, you are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way, so, in March when we were to moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.
No, we "are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration" because there is no "steady 20”.5 stellar aberration"!
And from what I can see this is just another of your strawmen arguments! Stellar aberration varies from -20”.5 to +20”.5.
So no, you have NOT "proven in your previous post that heliocentric explanation for stellar aberration is totally refuted".
"The aberration of starlight, according to post-Copernican doctrine, " DO NOT "depend" SIMPLY "on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light."
The aberration of starlight depends on the change in direction of the earth's orbital velocity and not on any absolute velocity.
If the earth were directed towards, for example, Orion at one time it will be directed 180° away from Orion six months later.
And it is this change in velocity that causes stellar aberration.
There would be no possible way to determine any "aberration" due to any constant velocity of the earth.
Have you forgotten this? | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Aberration3.svg/578px-Aberration3.svg.png) | | <<-- As pictured on the left:
Stars at the ecliptic poles (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_pole) appear to move in circles,
stars exactly in the ecliptic plane move in lines, and stars at intermediate angles move in ellipses.
Shown here are the apparent motions of stars with the ecliptic latitudes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_latitude) corresponding to these cases, and with ecliptic longitude (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_longitude) of 270°.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Aberrationseasons.svg)
The direction of aberration of a star at the northern ecliptic pole differs at different times of the year
|
Stellar aberration is not a constant angle but varies with an annual period.
Absolute uniform linear motion cannot be measured but changing motion, such as orbital or rotational motion can be measured.
So, Mr Cikljamas, you have no case.
LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And why should we believe Lincoln Barnett?
He said "Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another."
That is a blatant lie!
The reality is that Michelson detected no motion of the Earth using . . . . . . . . . - and that is quite different.
And Lincoln Barnett is wrong!
Stellar aberration, especially when binary stars are are considered, provides ample that the earth orbits the sun at about 30 km/s.
And the MGP experiment, especially when considered with recent similar but far higher precision measurements verify the earth's rotation.
See: "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser" is installed in Italy and is able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.
See First Results of GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.02874.pdf)
And note that it starts with:1. Introduction
Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG) are, at present, the most precise sensors of absolute angular velocity for an Earth based apparatus. They are based on the Sagnac effect arising from a rigidly rotating ring laser cavity.
The resolution is quite impressive. The Gross Ring ”G” at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of 3 × 10−9 (about 15 × 10−14 rad/s with 4 hours integration time).
That paper did not give the rotation rate, just the stability etc.
But this paper does: Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa (https://agenda.infn.it/getFile.py/access?contribId=140&sessionId=5&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=10512)
And the result is: Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is ;) guess what ;) a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours - the GINGER result is more precise than that.
The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser proves that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec.
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.
Stop ignoring all the evidence, old and more recent, that refutes your claims!
-
1. You are an utter idiot!
But cikljamas is smarter than every astronomer since Tycho Brahe and most scientists from and including Galileo ;D.
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/James_Nickel.pdf
“I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one. . . . Humans are caught—in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too—in a net of good and evil. . . . There is no other story. A man, after he has brushed off the dust and chips of his life, will have left only the hard, clean questions: Was it good or was it evil? Have I done well—or ill?”
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden
In his later years —to his credit— Albert confessed his sins.
In 1948 he wrote :
“In the course of my long life I have received from my fellow-men far more recognition than I deserve, and I confess that my sense of shame has always outweighed my pleasure therein."
-
1. You are an utter idiot!
But cikljamas is smarter than every astronomer since Tycho Brahe and most scientists from and including Galileo ;D.
<< Ignored until you deal with Bradley's Stellar Aberration properly! >>
The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.
But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.
I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion. (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/)
You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration!
Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.
-
You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration!
Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.
James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruđer Bošković (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! 111 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. Bošković even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.
Who was Ruđer Bošković : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html
In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of
Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As
already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger
aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and
irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying
the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric
theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled
instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican
paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already
performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment
demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to
be confidently expected. Actually the most careful
measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope
with water as for one filled with air.
SO, BOŠKOVIĆ PROPOSED THIS METHOD OF VERIFICATION IN THE YEAR 1760. (LONG BEFORE ARAGO, FIZEAU, FRESNEL, HOEK, AND AIRY CAME TO THE SCENE) DURING HIS VISITATION TO LONDON.
WHY IS THIS HYSTORICAL FACT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE TODAY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PURPOSE OF AIRY'S FAILURE EXPERIMENT IS
TOTALLY DECEPTIVE. ALL MODERN ASTRONOMICAL TEXT-BOOKS CLAIM THAT AIRY'S FAILURE EXPERIMENT WAS DESIGNED TO
VERIFY IF AETHER IS COMPLETELY DRAGGED WITH THE EARTH. HOWEVER, SUCH HYPOTHESIS WAS PUT
FORWARD ONLY 85 YEARS LATER (AFTER BOŠKOVIĆ' VISITATION TO LONDON in 1760.) by George Stokes (1845) who assumed that the aether is completely dragged within and in the vicinity of matter, partially dragged at larger distances, and stays at rest in free space!!!
In 1810, François Arago realised that variations in the refractive index of a substance predicted by the corpuscular theory would provide a useful method for measuring the velocity of light. Arago attempted to measure the extent to which corpuscles of light would be refracted by a glass prism at the front of a telescope. He expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction due to the variety of different velocities of the stars and the motion of the earth at different times of the day and year. Contrary to this expectation he found that there was no difference in refraction between stars, between times of day or between seasons. All Arago observed was ordinary stellar aberration.
Then came Fizeau.
"But the outcome was quite different than what Fizeau expected. The speed of light was not a sum of the velocity of the light added to the velocity of the Earth. Rather, the only effect on the speed of light Fizeau found was that which was induced by the water’s refractive index. This was quite a dilemma. On the one hand, it showed that light was affected by a medium (i.e., water), but on the other hand, the light was not being affected by the medium of ether, that is, its speed was not increased or decreased as it went through the ether."
Then Hoek.
"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.
To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."
SO, THE EXPERIMENTS THAT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY FIZEAU AND HOEK ADDITIONALLY PROVED THAT LIGHT PROPAGATES 1/3 SLOWER WHEN MOVING THROUGH WATER. IF THAT IS THE FACT, THEN WE CAN EVEN FORGET ALL DISPUTES REGARDING AETHER THEORY, SINCE WE ARE SOLELY INTERESTED NOW TO ESTABLISH WHETHER GEORGE B. AIRY IS GOING TO TIP HIS TELESCOPE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE (SO TO STILL BE ABLE TO SEE GAMMA DRACONIS AFTER TIPPING HIS TELESCOPE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE), OR NOT? IF HE WOULD HAVE TO TIP HIS TELESCOPE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE THEN IT WOULD BE PROVEN THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING THROUGH SPACE IN IT'S ORBIT AROUND THE SUN, IF NOT THEN THE EARTH IS AT REST, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AETHER EXISTS OR NOT. WHY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AETHER EXISTS OR NOT? BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY SCIENTIFICALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT THAT LIGHT TRAVELS THROUGH WATER AT 2/3 OF IT'S VELOCITY THROUGH AIR.
In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-
sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”),
which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years,
it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's
quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :
”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that
the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter
explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of
the two suppositions is the right one?”
In short, the convinced Copernican Bošković
proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a
water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric
theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked
stick, Airy made a straight hit.” His experiment was powerless to
show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only
apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot
bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the
contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.
Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.
-
[pathetic distractions removed]
I notice that no where in there do you address the massive paradox you have to deal with, nor did you admit the ather model was wrong.
Again, if the aether model of light propagation is true then stellar aberration demands a speed of Earth w.r.t. the aether of roughly 30 km/s, while the MM experiment demands it must be less than 5 km/s.
This is a direct contradiction.
Both statements cannot be true at once.
Now quit with the pathetic distractions and instead deal with this massive paradox.
-
You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration!
Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.
James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruđer Bošković (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! 111 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. Bošković even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.
Who was Ruđer Bošković : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html
I could not care less who Ruđer Bošković was. I don't doubt he's all you say he is but we do not rely on just the results of James Bradley or George Airy but on all the more recent data on stellar aberration.
I meant what I said in:The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.
But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.
I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion. (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/)
You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration!
Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.
-
[pathetic distractions removed]
[pathetic distractions removed]
No, you are wrong.
Stop lying.
-
Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :
-
Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon: EIFFEL TOWER PROOF, odiupicku (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=oYDky2EoHd4&t=631s)
No! That is quite irrelevant to the topic! If you want to discuss lunar missions make a new thread!
Most of that video is just baseless conjecture from someone who seems to have no idea about physics or perspective and where is this "earth's rotation from the moon"?
And Martin D Metdubbelss had the same opinion as I do!
4 hours ago
the pic on 5:55 is probably not a genuine NASA picture ;)
In the meantime, I won't waste my time until you give the NASA source of this "photo".(https://www.dropbox.com/s/17ypci7z2g53fs5/Earth%20from%20Moon%20%234.jpg?dl=1)
And here is a link to a high-resolution version: The Lunar Registry, Moon Rover and Earth (Photo) (https://lunarregistry.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Moon-Rover-and-Earth-Photo.png) and I refuse to respond any further to that video in this thread.
I meant what I said in:The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.
But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.
I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion. (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/)
You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration!
Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.
Look, Mr Cikljamas, stick to the one topic and sort that out first.
-
Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zftvSb9/ROVER-PICTURE.jpg)
EDIT : I read that article a week ago, however, i explained why their arguments boil down to nothing in my previous posts. They are challenging dr Sungenis (his geocentric explanation for "stellar aberration"), and i don't think dr Sungenis took appropriate approach to this problem. The appropriate approach is this :
1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.
-
<< Totally irrelevant to the current topic, which seems be the earth's motion and even irrelevant to "The distortion of science ". >>
Have you totally lost the ability to read? Remember this?No! That is quite irrelevant to the topic! If you want to discuss lunar missions make a new thread!
Most of that video is just baseless conjecture from someone who seems to have no idea about physics or perspective and where is this "earth's rotation from the moon"?
And Martin D Metdubbelss had the same opinion as I do!
4 hours ago
the pic on 5:55 is probably not a genuine NASA picture ;)
In the meantime, I won't waste my time until you give the NASA source of this "photo".(https://www.dropbox.com/s/17ypci7z2g53fs5/Earth%20from%20Moon%20%234.jpg?dl=1)
And here is a link to a high-resolution version: The Lunar Registry, Moon Rover and Earth (Photo) (https://lunarregistry.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Moon-Rover-and-Earth-Photo.png) and I refuse to respond any further to that video in this thread.
Look, Mr Cikljamas, stick to the one topic and sort that out first.
If you want a thread on lunar missions start a new one!
-
I read that article a week ago, however, i explained why their arguments boil down to nothing in my previous posts. They are challenging dr Sungenis (his geocentric explanation for "stellar aberration"), and i don't think dr Sungenis took appropriate approach to this problem. The appropriate approach is this :
1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
Airy's failure experiment was no more a failure than the MGX, both returned a NULL result in detecting earth's motion through the luminiferous aether. Though even there the expected results depended on what aether theory was subscribed to.
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
No it isn't necessary at all. How many times does that have be hammered home?
Stellar aberration and stellar parallax are not affected by any uniform motion of the solar system.
Stellar aberration depends on the changing velocity and stellar parallax depends the changing position of the earth as it orbits the sun.
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.
I do not agree.
Your "geocentric parallax" would show no "stellar aberration" for Polaris but in reality Polaris has the same a magnitude aberration as any other star.
Unless you can prove otherwise your "geocentric parallax" would seem be zero for stars near the celestial poles and a maximum at the equator.
But this is not observed.
My explanations are too simplistic, so I've added this:
Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/)
. . . . . . .
Sungenis thinks that the eccentricity of the form of stellar aberration (varying between a circle at one extreme and a straight line at the other) depends on where on Earth the observation is made:
| | If one observes the stars at a 45º celestial latitude, he will see each of the stars form ellipses over a year’s period. The eccentricity of the ellipse will increase the greater one’s distance from the North Pole. If one observes from the equatorial plane, one will see the stars form an acute hyperbola or even a horizontal line (GWW1, 11th ed., p. 150f.) |
This is a grotesque misunderstanding of the phenomenon. In fact, the form of the aberration is a circle for stars at the ecliptic pole, a straight line for stars on the ecliptic plane and an ellipse for stars lying between, where the eccentricity of the ellipse depends on the latitude of the star in ecliptic co-ordinates. The form of the aberration is independent of where on Earth the observation is made – this is a fundamental blunder on Sungenis’s part. And where he gets the idea that any of these motions form a hyperbola is anyone’s guess – that’s wrong too.
By the way some have tried to suggest that "relativity" means that a geocentric stationary earth is as equivalent to a heliocentric one.
But this is "Mach's pinciple" and not "General Relativity" and Einstein realised NE had to discard that.
Also I asked you for the official NASA source of your earth, Lunar Rover, moon photo.
If it does not come soon I might have an unpleasant little gift for you.
-
Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :
ROVER-PICTURE (https://i.postimg.cc/8zftvSb9/ROVER-PICTURE.jpg)
Your picture should be labelled: "Composite ROVER-PICTURE from Apollo 15 and Earth from Apollo 16"!
Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? :( :( :( (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78676.0).
I am not accusing you of faking any evidence only of using a photo without checking its provenance and I accept that you used it in good faith.
But please if you are going to attack NASA so viciously you must be sure of your evidence.
From what I can see the photo is a composite made by someone "in the media" to "look good" - that's what they do.
But you are an idiot if you think you could ever catch NASA out on simple things that you stick in your videos.
All I saw was guesswork and conjecture from someone who does not understand the issues involved.
For example, the LM is criticised for not "looking good" and most people think "good" for a flying machine is sleek and streamlined.
But the LM was never designed to fly in the atmosphere but in a near vacuum where the is no air resistance!
Then people say that it doesn't look strong enough and it wasn't strong enough for use in earth's gravity - it was designed for 1/6g.
It was, however, drop tested, etc because it had to withstand the launch stresses.
As it was there was a great problem getting the LM mass down so any unnecessary piece was removed - but some don't have the common sense to understand these things.
But NASA, the lunar missions and space travel are near enough to irrelevant to the main issue of geocentric vs heliocentric universe.
-
Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :
I notice rather than provide any solution to the paradox you try yet another distraction.
Again, stellar aberration shows Earth is moving at roughly 30 km/s relative to the aether. MM shows it isn't. How is this solved in the aether model?
-
Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zftvSb9/ROVER-PICTURE.jpg)
EDIT : I read that article a week ago, however, i explained why their arguments boil down to nothing in my previous posts. They are challenging dr Sungenis (his geocentric explanation for "stellar aberration"), and i don't think dr Sungenis took appropriate approach to this problem. The appropriate approach is this :
1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.
Rather than presenting a rather dubious mish mash of moon YouTube fakery how about you give us some of your evidence. It’s too easy to mess around with video and produce all sorts of fake nonsense.
How about you present some of your hard evidence to support your beliefs of a flat earth that we can examine in detail.
-
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.
Rather than presenting a rather dubious mish mash of moon YouTube fakery how about you give us some of your evidence. It’s too easy to mess around with video and produce all sorts of fake nonsense.
How about you present some of your hard evidence to support your beliefs of a flat earth that we can examine in detail.
Possibly I shamed cikljamas so much with proof that part of his video was based on a composite photo that he won't show his face for a while.
Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :
ROVER-PICTURE (https://i.postimg.cc/8zftvSb9/ROVER-PICTURE.jpg)
Your picture should be labelled: "Composite ROVER-PICTURE from Apollo 15 and Earth from Apollo 16"!
Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? :( :( :( (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78676.0).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But NASA, the lunar missions and space travel are near enough to irrelevant to the main issue of geocentric vs heliocentric universe.
Not only that but his claim in the following is easily refuted:3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.
There is hope for cikljamas though. He used to be a flat-earther but convinced himself that there really is curvature so.
-
1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.
I know it was addressed to Rab, but it has some implications for our discussion as well.
1 - Airy's failure. The purpose has been variously stated as many things, including testing if Earth was stationary with the aether moving or the aether stationary with Earth moving, or as a more general test of the aether model. But in reality is is nothing more than testing Klinkerfues idea that stellar aberration should change. It relies upon contradictory properties of the aether.
The real important part is stellar aberration itself.
2 - Irrelevant nonsense, only applicable if aether was real. Under relativity it doesn't matter if the sun is the centre of the universe or not. All that matters is that Earth orbits the sun.
3 - Geocentric parallax makes no sense other than between 2 points on Earth, what I think you mean is a claimed real motion of the stars, which is pure insanity. You are suggesting all the stars are in on a massive conspiracy to make it look like Earth orbits the sun, by themselves moving to the positions they would be expected to be viewed in if Earth orbited the sun.
Unless you can provide a rational justification for this isane idea the result remains the same, the phenomenon of stellar aberration shows that Earth orbits the sun at a speed of roughly 30 km/s, and if any aether exists, it must be moving relative to the Earth at roughly 30 km/s.
-
Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :
I know how about you present some evidence that supports your beliefs. I think that’s a much better idea than all this Moon nonsense.
-
Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :
I know how about you present some evidence that supports your beliefs. I think that’s a much better idea than all this Moon nonsense.
You mean, something like this :
Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment was not the only one that was
of concern to Einstein, however. In fact, since Einstein was well aware
of previous experiments with the same results, he probably would have
expected a negative result from Michelson-Morley. We suspect this to be
the case since interviews with Einstein show that he was more concerned
with the results of experiments performed about 10-50 years earlier.
Robert Shankland’s interview with Einstein reveals the details:
Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had
been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of
moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical
aberration, especially Airy’s observations with a water-filled
telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Why would the “Fizeau experiment” and “especially Airy’s
observations with a water-filled telescope,” cause such consternation in
the mind of Einstein? Very simply, Armand Fizeau and George Biddell
Airy’s experiments are two of the foremost evidences of a motionless
Earth ever produced by man. Einstein’s contemporary, Hendrik
Lorentz , stated quite succinctly that these experiments put unbridled fear
into the science establishment. In remarking on those same experiments
Lorentz wrote this astounding admission: “Briefly, everything occurs as
if the Earth were at rest...”
Eventually, it would take the full force of Relativity theory and its attendant
Lorentzian-derived “transformation equations” to make even an attempt at
explaining the amazing results of Fizeau, Airy and various stellar aberration
experiments.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was merely a desperate effort, using more
sophisticated equipment, to overturn Fizeau and Airy’s findings, but as
noted above, it failed to do so.
Einstein’s biographer probably didn’t even know this history
when he wrote that, after the Michelson-Morley experiment, men were
faced with the possibility of “scuttling the whole Copernican theory.”
Unlike Einstein, most such biographers have fixated on the cart but were
rather oblivious to the horse. All in all, we can say this much for
Einstein: although his theories were certainly fantastic to the point of
absurdity, at least he was smart enough to know from whence his
opposition came. In the battle for the cosmos, the unexpected results of
the Fizeau and Airy experiments had already put modern science on trial,
but since they both produced anti-Copernican results, the clarion call to
the courtroom was not being trumpeted to the rest of the world. For the
rest of his career Einstein would do everything in his power to stop it
from sounding. As van der Kamp has stated: “Yes, I think I understand
the sentiment motivating him. If we cannot prove what we a priori
‘know’ to be true [a moving Earth], then we have to find a reason why
such a proof eludes us .” And thus was born the theory of Relativity.
All claims that the Earth is moving based on stellar aberration are presumptuous,
since from Airy’s experiment it has been proven that the necessity of tilting
a telescope to catch all of a star’s light is due to a fixed Earth in a moving star system,
not a moving Earth in a fixed star system.
Interestingly enough, the type of experiment Airy performed was suggested more than a
century earlier in 1766 by Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711-1787), a Jesuit
astronomer, and again by Fresnel in 1818, which may have been the source of Airy’s
idea. In 1746 Boškovic published a study on the elliptical orbits of the planets based
on the Copernican system (De Determinanda Orbita Planeta ope catoptrica, Rome
1749). He published a second edition in 1785 ( Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et
Astronomiam, Bassan, 1785). Perhaps if Boškovic had had the good fortune to
perform an Airy-type experiment, he might have thought twice about adopting the
Copernican system.
When one reads Einstein’s works there appears to be no
ostensible concern that these experiments could “scuttle the whole
Copernican theory,” nevertheless, there is an undercurrent in his writings
that he is indeed cognizant of such implications yet does his best not to
alarm the world.
Relativity theory, by its very nature, is especially susceptible to
anti-Copemican interpretations, since for everything that Relativity
claims for itself in the way of a moving Earth in a fixed universe can
easily be “relativized” for a fixed Earth in a rotating universe. In fact,
stellar aberration was indeed a major concern of Einstein’s for that very
reason, since Relativity theory, in principle, demands equal viability for
both of the aforementioned perspectives. 492 Einstein’s concern was
justified. As we will see, Airy’s experiment threw a wrench into the
reciprocity of Relativity, for it demonstrated that it really does make a
difference whether the Earth is moving or at rest in regards to how light
from a star travels through a telescope mounted on the Earth.
Consequently, Einstein could not “relativize” the results of Airy’s
experiment, since stellar aberration provided a distinstion he could not
readily overcome. Consequently, Einstein would be forced to resort to
the ad hoc “field transformation” equations of Henrick Lorentz to answer
Airy’s results; and although others didn’t voice their opinions too loudly
for fear of being ostracized, everyone knew that Einstein’s efforts were
just mathematical fudge factors. There was one inescapable fact that
Airy’s telescope was revealing: barring any mathematical fudging, Earth
was standing still and the stars were revolving around it, not vice-versa.
-
Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment
Again, all MM does is help show that aether is BS.
Remember the paradox you are yet to solve?
You have Earth moving w.r.t. the aether, but at rest w.r.t. the aether.
An impossibility.
-
Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment
Again, all MM does is help show that aether is BS.
Remember the paradox you are yet to solve?
You have Earth moving w.r.t. the aether, but at rest w.r.t. the aether.
An impossibility.
Which part you didn't understand? Once again, just for you :
The Michelson-Morley experiment was not the only one that was
of concern to Einstein, however. In fact, since Einstein was well aware
of previous experiments with the same results, he probably would have
expected a negative result from Michelson-Morley. We suspect this to be
the case since interviews with Einstein show that he was more concerned
with the results of experiments performed about 10-50 years earlier.
Robert Shankland’s interview with Einstein reveals the details:
Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had
been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of
moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical
aberration, especially Airy’s observations with a water-filled
telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Why would the “Fizeau experiment” and “especially Airy’s
observations with a water-filled telescope,” cause such consternation in
the mind of Einstein? Very simply, Armand Fizeau and George Biddell
Airy’s experiments are two of the foremost evidences of a motionless
Earth ever produced by man. Einstein’s contemporary, Hendrik
Lorentz , stated quite succinctly that these experiments put unbridled fear
into the science establishment. In remarking on those same experiments
Lorentz wrote this astounding admission: “Briefly, everything occurs as
if the Earth were at rest...”
Eventually, it would take the full force of Relativity theory and its attendant
Lorentzian-derived “transformation equations” to make even an attempt at
explaining the amazing results of Fizeau, Airy and various stellar aberration
experiments.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was merely a desperate effort, using more
sophisticated equipment, to overturn Fizeau and Airy’s findings, but as
noted above, it failed to do so.
Einstein’s biographer probably didn’t even know this history
when he wrote that, after the Michelson-Morley experiment, men were
faced with the possibility of “scuttling the whole Copernican theory.”
Unlike Einstein, most such biographers have fixated on the cart but were
rather oblivious to the horse. All in all, we can say this much for
Einstein: although his theories were certainly fantastic to the point of
absurdity, at least he was smart enough to know from whence his
opposition came. In the battle for the cosmos, the unexpected results of
the Fizeau and Airy experiments had already put modern science on trial,
but since they both produced anti-Copernican results, the clarion call to
the courtroom was not being trumpeted to the rest of the world. For the
rest of his career Einstein would do everything in his power to stop it
from sounding. As van der Kamp has stated: “Yes, I think I understand
the sentiment motivating him. If we cannot prove what we a priori
‘know’ to be true [a moving Earth], then we have to find a reason why
such a proof eludes us .” And thus was born the theory of Relativity.
All claims that the Earth is moving based on stellar aberration are presumptuous,
since from Airy’s experiment it has been proven that the necessity of tilting
a telescope to catch all of a star’s light is due to a fixed Earth in a moving star system,
not a moving Earth in a fixed star system.
Interestingly enough, the type of experiment Airy performed was suggested more than a
century earlier in 1766 by Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711-1787), a Jesuit
astronomer, and again by Fresnel in 1818, which may have been the source of Airy’s
idea. In 1746 Boškovic published a study on the elliptical orbits of the planets based
on the Copernican system (De Determinanda Orbita Planeta ope catoptrica, Rome
1749). He published a second edition in 1785 ( Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et
Astronomiam, Bassan, 1785). Perhaps if Boškovic had had the good fortune to
perform an Airy-type experiment, he might have thought twice about adopting the
Copernican system.
When one reads Einstein’s works there appears to be no
ostensible concern that these experiments could “scuttle the whole
Copernican theory,” nevertheless, there is an undercurrent in his writings
that he is indeed cognizant of such implications yet does his best not to
alarm the world.
Relativity theory, by its very nature, is especially susceptible to
anti-Copemican interpretations, since for everything that Relativity
claims for itself in the way of a moving Earth in a fixed universe can
easily be “relativized” for a fixed Earth in a rotating universe. In fact,
stellar aberration was indeed a major concern of Einstein’s for that very
reason, since Relativity theory, in principle, demands equal viability for
both of the aforementioned perspectives. 492 Einstein’s concern was
justified. As we will see, Airy’s experiment threw a wrench into the
reciprocity of Relativity, for it demonstrated that it really does make a
difference whether the Earth is moving or at rest in regards to how light
from a star travels through a telescope mounted on the Earth.
Consequently, Einstein could not “relativize” the results of Airy’s
experiment, since stellar aberration provided a distinstion he could not
readily overcome. Consequently, Einstein would be forced to resort to
the ad hoc “field transformation” equations of Henrick Lorentz to answer
Airy’s results; and although others didn’t voice their opinions too loudly
for fear of being ostracized, everyone knew that Einstein’s efforts were
just mathematical fudge factors. There was one inescapable fact that
Airy’s telescope was revealing: barring any mathematical fudging, Earth
was standing still and the stars were revolving around it, not vice-versa.
ON TOP OF THAT :
Enter Augustin Jean Fresnel (1788-1827). Fresnel worked with
Arago on various occasions, and it was left to Fresnel, the more famous
of the two, to explain Arago ’s results by retaining the moving Earth
model. Both Arago and Fresnel were advocates of the wave theory of
light, and Arago asked Fresnel if it would be possible to explain the
results of his starlight experiment by the wave theory. Fresnel came up
with an ingenious answer and explained it to Arago in a letter dated...
He postulated that there was no effect on the incidence of
starlight because the ether through which it traveled was being
“dragged,” at least partially, by the glass of the telescope. Because ether
was understood to penetrate all substances, Fresnel hypothesized that
there was a certain amount of ether trapped within the glass, and this
amount of ether would be denser than, and independent from, the ether in
the surrounding air. The key to understanding this theory is that Fresnel
held that the ether outside the glass was immobile. As the glass moved
with the Earth’s assumed movement and against the immobile ether
outside, the glass would “drag” its trapped ether with it. Thus Fresnel
conveniently concluded that Arago couldn’t detect any difference in the
speed of light because the glass in his experiment was dragging the ether
just enough in the opposite direction to the Earth’s movement so as to
mask the Earth’s speed of 30 km/sec through the immobile ether.
To understand the rationalization of Fresnel’s “drag” to explain
Arago’s results, let’s use an example. We have two telescopes, one
hollow and one filled with glass. Both telescopes are viewing the same
star. Will each telescope measure the same aberration (bending) of the
starlight? One would think that, since light bends appreciably more in
glass, that the glass telescope should show considerably more bending of
the starlight compared to the hollow telescope, just as when we put a
pencil in a glass of water and notice the pencil appear to bend in the
water. (We would notice the same bending if we put half of the pencil in
a glass cube). But as we will see shortly, all such telescopic views of
stars will show no more bending of starlight in the glass telescope than in
the hollow telescope. There is something about the incidence of starlight
received on the Earth that causes this strange phenomenon. As we will
see, the natural and least complicated answer for this phenomenon is that
Earth is not moving, and since the stars, although moving, are so very far
away, the angle of incidence of their light will be virtually the same on
one side of the Earth as on the other, that is, it will always be straight
overhead and thus cause no refraction or diffraction through our air
telescope as opposed to our glass telescopes.
Once again, how did Fresnel explain this phenomenon using the
model of an Earth moving at least 30km/sec around the sun and against
the incidence of starlight? As noted above, he claimed that the glass
telescope had a certain amount of ether contained within it that was
denser than the ether outside. When the starlight enters the glass
telescope, the extra ether, by using the Earth’s movement, had the ability
to “drag” the starlight sufficiently enough away from the immobile ether
in the air to make the light within the glass appear to equal the speed of
the starlight in the hollow telescope. Incidentally, glass could perform
this feat, according to Fresnel, because the light entering it was
understood as a wave, whereas if light were composed of particles,
Fresnel’s theory would not work.
By this clever manipulation of something he couldn’t even detect
(i.e., the ether) and a nature of light he hadn’t even proven (i.e.,
exclusively waves), Fresnel helped science avoid having to entertain a
non-moving Earth as the most likely answer to Arago’s puzzling
findings. Obviously, to those of honest persuasion, Fresnel’s explanation
appears to be a little too convenient, especially since he arrived at his
solution without any physical experimentation; rather, he merely
postulated various assumptions just so he and Arago could escape the
geocentric implications that were haunting them and the rest of the
science community. As one heliocentrist seeking to soften the blow
states:
It is possible generally to prove how Fresnel’s theory entails
that not a single optical observation will enable us to decide
whether the direction in which one sees a star has been changed
by aberration. By means of aberration we can hence not decide
whether the Earth is moving or rather the star: only that one of
the two must be moving with respect to the other can be
established. Fresnel’s theory is hence a step in the direction of
the theory of relativity .
Although “Relativity” theory would eventually be called to make
an unprecedented rescue for Copemicanism, as this saga progresses we
will see that it, too, offers no satisfactory escape from Arago or the other
stellar aberration experiments that would be performed in the coming
years. One problem led to another, and, in light of these intricate
experiments, there would be no peace for those resting on the laurels of
Copernicus and Kepler. Obviously, in order to add some legitimacy to
Fresnel’s hypothesis, another experiment had to be devised.
-
Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :
I know how about you present some evidence that supports your beliefs. I think that’s a much better idea than all this Moon nonsense.
You mean, something like this :
Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment was not the only one that was
of concern to Einstein, however. In fact, since Einstein was well aware
of previous experiments with the same results, he probably would have
expected a negative result from Michelson-Morley. We suspect this to be
the case since interviews with Einstein show that he was more concerned
with the results of experiments performed about 10-50 years earlier.
Robert Shankland’s interview with Einstein reveals the details:
Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had
been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of
moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical
aberration, especially Airy’s observations with a water-filled
telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Why would the “Fizeau experiment” and “especially Airy’s
observations with a water-filled telescope,” cause such consternation in
the mind of Einstein? Very simply, Armand Fizeau and George Biddell
Airy’s experiments are two of the foremost evidences of a motionless
Earth ever produced by man. Einstein’s contemporary, Hendrik
Lorentz , stated quite succinctly that these experiments put unbridled fear
into the science establishment. In remarking on those same experiments
Lorentz wrote this astounding admission: “Briefly, everything occurs as
if the Earth were at rest...”
Eventually, it would take the full force of Relativity theory and its attendant
Lorentzian-derived “transformation equations” to make even an attempt at
explaining the amazing results of Fizeau, Airy and various stellar aberration
experiments.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was merely a desperate effort, using more
sophisticated equipment, to overturn Fizeau and Airy’s findings, but as
noted above, it failed to do so.
Einstein’s biographer probably didn’t even know this history
when he wrote that, after the Michelson-Morley experiment, men were
faced with the possibility of “scuttling the whole Copernican theory.”
Unlike Einstein, most such biographers have fixated on the cart but were
rather oblivious to the horse. All in all, we can say this much for
Einstein: although his theories were certainly fantastic to the point of
absurdity, at least he was smart enough to know from whence his
opposition came. In the battle for the cosmos, the unexpected results of
the Fizeau and Airy experiments had already put modern science on trial,
but since they both produced anti-Copernican results, the clarion call to
the courtroom was not being trumpeted to the rest of the world. For the
rest of his career Einstein would do everything in his power to stop it
from sounding. As van der Kamp has stated: “Yes, I think I understand
the sentiment motivating him. If we cannot prove what we a priori
‘know’ to be true [a moving Earth], then we have to find a reason why
such a proof eludes us .” And thus was born the theory of Relativity.
All claims that the Earth is moving based on stellar aberration are presumptuous,
since from Airy’s experiment it has been proven that the necessity of tilting
a telescope to catch all of a star’s light is due to a fixed Earth in a moving star system,
not a moving Earth in a fixed star system.
Interestingly enough, the type of experiment Airy performed was suggested more than a
century earlier in 1766 by Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711-1787), a Jesuit
astronomer, and again by Fresnel in 1818, which may have been the source of Airy’s
idea. In 1746 Boškovic published a study on the elliptical orbits of the planets based
on the Copernican system (De Determinanda Orbita Planeta ope catoptrica, Rome
1749). He published a second edition in 1785 ( Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et
Astronomiam, Bassan, 1785). Perhaps if Boškovic had had the good fortune to
perform an Airy-type experiment, he might have thought twice about adopting the
Copernican system.
When one reads Einstein’s works there appears to be no
ostensible concern that these experiments could “scuttle the whole
Copernican theory,” nevertheless, there is an undercurrent in his writings
that he is indeed cognizant of such implications yet does his best not to
alarm the world.
Relativity theory, by its very nature, is especially susceptible to
anti-Copemican interpretations, since for everything that Relativity
claims for itself in the way of a moving Earth in a fixed universe can
easily be “relativized” for a fixed Earth in a rotating universe. In fact,
stellar aberration was indeed a major concern of Einstein’s for that very
reason, since Relativity theory, in principle, demands equal viability for
both of the aforementioned perspectives. 492 Einstein’s concern was
justified. As we will see, Airy’s experiment threw a wrench into the
reciprocity of Relativity, for it demonstrated that it really does make a
difference whether the Earth is moving or at rest in regards to how light
from a star travels through a telescope mounted on the Earth.
Consequently, Einstein could not “relativize” the results of Airy’s
experiment, since stellar aberration provided a distinstion he could not
readily overcome. Consequently, Einstein would be forced to resort to
the ad hoc “field transformation” equations of Henrick Lorentz to answer
Airy’s results; and although others didn’t voice their opinions too loudly
for fear of being ostracized, everyone knew that Einstein’s efforts were
just mathematical fudge factors. There was one inescapable fact that
Airy’s telescope was revealing: barring any mathematical fudging, Earth
was standing still and the stars were revolving around it, not vice-versa.
You must be joking!
It would help if you employed the full stop occasionally, though I struggle to understand the point you are attempting to make.
History and the lessons of the last 100 years or so render your arguments null and void. Earth standing still! I think not.
Have you been doing a rip van twinkle? If not try and pay better attention to the lessons of the last 100 years.
Spraying copious amounts of words does not strengthen your argument. Neither does cherry picking. As I have said numerous times quote me one of the scientists you mention who subscribes to the flat earth.
-
Which part you didn't understand?
The part where you are yet to provide a rational solution to the paradox.
Once again, just for you :
Repeating the same BS won't magically make it true.
If you think there is something relevant in there to solving that massive paradox of yours, provide it without all the BS surrounding it.
-
Spraying copious amounts of words does not strengthen your argument. Neither does cherry picking. As I have said numerous times quote me one of the scientists you mention who subscribes to the flat earth.
He accepts Earth is round by claims it is stationary.
He also thinks that if you can show it doesn't orbit it magically means it doesn't rotate either.
-
Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? :( :( :( (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78676.0).
If you want to restore any trace of credibility you ever had you will post that NASA reference number of that Lunar Buggy/Earth "photo".
Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment
Again, all MM does is help show that aether is BS.
Remember the paradox you are yet to solve?
You have Earth moving w.r.t. the aether, but at rest w.r.t. the aether.
An impossibility.
Which part you didn't understand? Once again, just for you :
Which part of stellar aberration didn't you understand? Here try again: The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.
But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.
I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion. (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/)
You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration!
Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.
Now stop presenting more garbage until you've tidied up the mess you've made up till now.
PS There is no luminiferous aether of the kind demanded by early theories on the propagation of light and the earth rotates and orbits the sun.
Refer to Bradley (as above), the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment and the numerous modern versions of it.
-
If you think there is something relevant in there to solving that massive paradox of yours, provide it without all the BS surrounding it.
*1.* Telescope filled with air :
30 000 / 300 000 000 = 0,0001
0,0001 (ctg) = 0,005729577
0,005729577 * 3600 = 20,62''
Telescope filled with water :
40 000 / 300 000 000 = 0,000133333
0,000133333 (ctg) = 0,007639437
0,007639437 * 3600 = 27,5''
*2.* http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2029
*3.* Airy’s Failure, FECORE’s Success
George Biddle Airy was born in 1801. At age 35, he was appointed Astronomer Royal at the national observatory in Greenwich, UK. He had many prestigious positions and created several noteworthy theories during his illustrious life. FECORE’s newest project is a repeat of an observation Airy published in 1871, which was counted as a failure. It has come to be known as “Airy’s Failure.” But it was called at the time The Water Telescope of the Royal Observatory.
That this observation should be called a “failure” is significant. Airy made an accurate observation of a fact of nature. Yet it was dubbed a failure.
FECORE has decided to perform the same test Airy did using modern equipment that can produce more exact measurements. The angle of our instrument will be set by high-precision stepper motors with digitally controlled inputs which are expected to result in more accuracy than the instruments used in 1871.
We believe it’s possible to build two telescopes with equal refraction properties, and then mount them side by side with the line between them being perpendicular to the direction of the movement between earth and the stars. Verification that both scopes have the exact same refraction properties would be simple. When both have only air and are tilted at the exact same angle, then the star will be visible in the same location in both eyepieces at the same instant. Real-time video captured from both scopes is an observation that was not possible in 1871. As we do this test real time video from both telescopes will give visual proof that both scopes were equal.
This dual-scope feature would allow the actual observation data to be not just numbers, but real time video capture to prove the fact. We plan to complete this test within 12 months.
READ MORE : https://fecore.org/airys-failure-fecores-success/
-
Enter Albert Einstein . To save the world from having to
reconnect itself with the Middle Ages, Einstein set his mind to finding an
explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment . Most people don’t
realize, and even less would admit it, but Relativity was created for one
main reason: so that mankind would not be forced to admit that Earth
was standing still in space. As his contemporary, Max von Laue stated:
Thus, a new epoch in physics created a new mechanics... it
began, we might say, with the question as to what effect the
motion of the Earth has on physical processes which take place
on the Earth... we can assign to the dividing line between
epochs a precise date: It was on September 26, 1905, that
Albert Einstein’s investigation entitled “On the
Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion” appeared in the Annalen
der Physik.
In fact, Einstein would be called “a new Copernicus.”
Unbeknownst to the world, however, Einstein’s explanation would not
only require a total revamping of science, it would necessitate the
acceptance of what The Times of London called “an affront to common
sense,” forcing his fellow man to accept principles and postulates that
heretofore would have been considered completely absurd. Einstein
would require men to believe that matter shrunk in length and increased
in mass when it moved, that clocks slowed down, that two people could
age at different rates, that space was curved, that time and space would
meld into one, and many other strange concepts. But in the end, as we
will see unfold before us in a most ironic drama, what Einstein’s Special
Relativity took away with the left hand, his General Relativity restored
ten years later with the right hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8P1jnBDg/AIRY-0.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBrZ0DNm/AIRY-1-A.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2xSgGFn/AIRY-1-B.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDDgJj9V/AIRY-1-C.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhNVZv8z/AIRY-1-D.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGbgLhhZ/AIRY-1-E.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8C8GxNWf/AIRY-1-F.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDBs2jmb/AIRY-1-G.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sx0dmrsX/AIRY-1-H.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/15fZtfrN/AIRY-1-I.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKVymJTj/AIRY-1-J.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZ29KZz0/AIRY-1-K.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y9bJ2H43/AIRY-1-L.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y00ThsYw/AIRY-1-M.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kXqqTgk/AIRY-1-N.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncs6xNn4/AIRY-1-O.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKyD23Lj/AIRY-WATER-FILLED-TELESCOPE.jpg)
In 1843, John C. Adams, and later Urbain Leverrier in 1846, used
Newtonian mechanics to predict the orbit of Neptune. In 1851 Jean
Foucault published his experiments on the pendulum. All of these
events were leaning toward the adoption of the Copernican system, yet
none of them provided any real proof. Since no one, including
Copernicus and Galileo, had ever proved that the Earth was moving, then
as long as there was the possibility of explaining these experiments by
assuming a non-moving Earth, then modern science was at a crossroads.
But the pressure was mounting against the Copernicans, for Hoek
countered Fresnel, and Airy countered Bradley and Fizeau, and Mascart
put the icing on the cake. So now, even though the science community
was silent, geocentrism was the unconquerable foe of the Copernicans.
As van der Kamp observes:
Hence it can be argued that Fresnel’s theory holds for
transparent substances moving through an ether at rest in that
ether. Which is tantamount to saying that Hoek and Airy
(observer and substance both at rest), Fizeau (observer at rest,
substance in motion) and Michelson and Morley, all five of
them have with one accord been vainly striving to show that
the Earth is not at rest.
-
<< Stop posting more fairy stories >>
Answer stellar aberration or run away!
-
*1.* Telescope filled with air :
You have a bunch of numbers. Just what do you think this will prove?
Are you making the same mistake?
*2.*
If you can't explain it yourself, why should I bother checking out your link?
*3.* Airy’s Failure, FECORE’s Success
And once again you go off on a little tangent rant, being completely unable to back up your nonsense.
Spouting loads of nonsense wont help your case.
You need to explain how the aether is moving w.r.t. Earth and stationary w.r.t. Earth at the same time, or find a rational way to explain away the observations of stellar aberration and MM which still use aether.
So far the best you have is that all the stars are in on a conspiracy to make it appear like Earth orbits the sun.
I think I will stick to the simpler idea of aether being a load of crap, especially due to it already needing such ridiculous properties, like being a solid, yet objets being able to pass through it with no resistance.
-
Maybe jane has a mathmatical proof that shows ampunt of words is proportional the veracity of proof.
Either that or chikikikijamamam has a word contest with sando that we are unaware of.
-
The real distortion of science by cickljames is that he knows none of those scientists think the Earth is flat or that the Earth is stationary. Einstein said it was difficult to make a test that showed the rotation, not that the Earth wasn’t moving. There is a massive difference. We can make observations that prove the Earth is moving, but a test in laboratory settings are another thing entirely. The failure to distinguish that and to misrepresent these scientists is indicative of his willful misuse of their life’s work.
-
Maybe jane has a mathmatical proof that shows ampunt of words is proportional the veracity of proof.
Either that or chikikikijamamam has a word contest with sando that we are unaware of.
Let me fix that a mathematical proof that shows that the number of words is inversely proportional to the veracity of proof.
And this paper is not all that long ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, By A. Einstein June 30, 1905 (https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) (AKA "The Theory of Special Relativity").
-
Hahah well this place doesnt really count as a "peer reviewed" place for journals and publishing theories.
-
The real distortion of science by cickljames is that he knows none of those scientists think the Earth is flat or that the Earth is stationary. Einstein said it was difficult to make a test that showed the rotation, not that the Earth wasn’t moving. There is a massive difference. We can make observations that prove the Earth is moving, but a test in laboratory settings are another thing entirely. The failure to distinguish that and to misrepresent these scientists is indicative of his willful misuse of their life’s work.
Indeed, some FEers on this site love to cherry pick from the vine of science, quoting scientists who would never in a million years subscribe to the idea that the earth was flat. A total misappropriation of science.
-
The real distortion of science by cickljames is that he knows none of those scientists think the Earth is flat or that the Earth is stationary. Einstein said it was difficult to make a test that showed the rotation, not that the Earth wasn’t moving. There is a massive difference. We can make observations that prove the Earth is moving, but a test in laboratory settings are another thing entirely. The failure to distinguish that and to misrepresent these scientists is indicative of his willful misuse of their life’s work.
Indeed, some FEers on this site love to cherry pick from the vine of science, quoting scientists who would never in a million years subscribe to the idea that the earth was flat. A total misappropriation of science.
Why do ChickenMess et al ignore all recent work on laser gyros?
Every time modern passenger aircraft initialise their INS they prove that the earth rotates to sufficient precision to determine their latitude accurately enough to check the pilot's entry of Lat/Long.
100% Proof that Earth Spins! Aircraft Laser Gyroscopes, Shnaz Shin.
And a flat-earther, Bob Knodel, "got his hands on" one of these $20,000 ring laser gyroscopes and proved that . . . . watch the video from 3:38 (long version):
| The short version:
EARTH ROTATION DETECTED BY BOB KNODEL, shmick Shmick
| | The long version:
Flat Earthers Jeranism and Bob Debunk Themselves ;D
|
"What we found is when we turned on that gyroscope we were picking up a drift, a 15°/hour drift. ;D"
How does a flat-earther react to evidence like this? "We obviously were not willing to accept that ::), so we started looking for ways to disprove . . . . "
So he tries to shield the gyroscope for the "HEAVENLY ENERGIES" from the "rotation sky" - first in a "zero gauss chamber" then in a "BISMUTH CHAMBER ???".
Interesting?
-
THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK :
Enter Armand Fizeau (1821-1896), the very person whose
experiments Einstein mentions as a major cause for concern and the
impetus for his invention of Relativity theory. Fizeau needed to prove
Fresnel’s “drag” theory so as to have a physical, not merely
theoretical/mathematical, answer for Arago’s results. So horrible were
the implications of Arago’s experiments that counter-experiments such
as the one Fizeau would soon undertake were described as an attempt to
“find the ether” or “discover the nature of the ether” rather than what
was truly at stake - finding out whether the Earth was really moving or
not. Scientists strictly avoided language suggesting that the Earth could
be motionless, for the system of Copernicus, although without a shred of
proof, was the holy grail of the science establishment, and no one dare
trespass its domain. Whereas the nineteenth century experimenters often
camouflaged their worries that Earth could be standing still in space by
referring instead to a “motionless ether,” twentieth century
commentators after Einstein consistently avoided the geocentric
implications of the nineteenth century experiments by turning the issue
into one of “searching in vain for” or “abandoning” the elusive ether
once they found out that the experiments invariably led to the possibility
of a motionless Earth. To get a feeling of this sentiment, the reader need
only recall the words of Edwin Hubble we cited earlier: to Hubble,
finding the Earth in the center of the universe would be “intolerable” and
a “horror” that “must be rejected.”
In The Ethereal Ether, Loyd Swenson summarizes Michelson’s options as: “1. The
Earth passes through the ether without appreciable influence; 2. The length of all bodies
is altered (equally?) by their motion through ether; 3. The Earth in its motion drags with
it the ether even at distances of many thousands of kilometers from its surface” (Austin,
University of Texas, 1972, p. 118, cited in De Lahore Solis, p. 36, parenthetical
“equally” included by Michelson). Van der Kamp remarks: “...this lifelong
agnostic. . .Michelson. . .appears on one issue not in the least agnostic, but as firmly a
fundamentalist Copernican believer. . .There is no place in Michelson’s only partially
agnostic tunnel-vision for possibility Number Four [i.e., that Earth is motionless in
space]. . .Yet. . .a geocentric explanation of the enigmas encountered. . .stares. . .any
open-minded down-to-Earth scientist in the face when he surveys all those abortive
efforts to disqualify it... In Michelson’s heliocentrically preconditioned mind the
obvious corollary, a simple straightforward geocentric hypothesis, did not get a chance
to rear its unwanted head. . .Michelson searched for and found those three helpful ad
hoes, three pretexts able to ward off a disturbing and unwanted perspective” (ibid., pp.
36-37, 42).
Again, as we noted earlier, here was additional evidence, from an
even more sophisticated machine specifically designed to vindicate
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, yet it failed, miserably failed.
Unfortunately, the scientists interpreting Airy, Hoek and Michelson-
Morley simply did not want to consider a motionless Earth as even a
possible solution to these astounding experiments. They “knew” the
Earth revolved around the sun, and thus they set their heart toward
finding other solutions to the problem. As Einstein’s biographer
describes it:
In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had
performed an experiment which confronted scientists with an
appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether,
at that time considered essential, it had yielded a null result,
leaving science with the alternatives of tossing aside the key
which had helped to explain the phenomena of electricity,
magnetism, and light or of deciding that the Earth was not in
fact moving at all. 52]
If they were set on refusing to consider that the Earth was
standing still in space, this left them with two more options to explain its
results. As Clark records it:
The second was that the ether was carried along by the Earth in
its passage through space, a possibility which had already been
ruled out to the satisfaction of the scientific community by a
number of experiments, notably those of the English
astronomer James Bradley. The third solution was that the
ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century
scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light,
electricity, and magnetism, and starting again .
Henri Poincare compared it to a “crisis.”
-
If you want to live in the 1800's try this:
"Jean Bernard Léon Foucault (French: [ʒɑ̃ bɛʁnaʁ leɔ̃ fuko]; 18 September 1819 – 11 February 1868) was a French physicist best known for his demonstration of the Foucault pendulum, a device demonstrating the effect of the Earth's rotation. He also made an early measurement of the speed of light, discovered eddy currents, and is credited with naming the gyroscope."
-
THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK :
I see more pathetic distractions.
Again, the topic we are already discussing in part, the Sagnac effect, shows that Earth is rotating.
Before we move onto anything else you need to either admit the aether model is wrong or provide a rational solution to the paradox of a moving but stationary aether.
Yes, many people back then, and even some today like you and Sandy, were/are desperate to cling to the impossible aether rather than discard it as the garbage that it is.
-
THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK :
No the "DIRECTIONAL GYRO" is not a "SLAM DUNK" in the way you think.
It's simply a "SLAM DUNK" proof that you don't have the slightest understanding of the "DIRECTIONAL GYRO".
But read this again!Every time modern passenger aircraft initialise their INS they prove that the earth rotates to sufficient precision to determine their latitude accurately enough to check the pilot's entry of Lat/Long.
100% Proof that Earth Spins! Aircraft Laser Gyroscopes, Shnaz Shin.
And a flat-earther, Bob Knodel, "got his hands on" one of these $20,000 ring laser gyroscopes and proved that . . . . watch the video from 3:38 (long version):
| The short version:
EARTH ROTATION DETECTED BY BOB KNODEL, shmick Shmick
| | The long version:
Flat Earthers Jeranism and Bob Debunk Themselves ;D
|
"What we found is when we turned on that gyroscope we were picking up a drift, a 15°/hour drift. ;D"
How does a flat-earther react to evidence like this? "We obviously were not willing to accept that ::), so we started looking for ways to disprove . . . . "
So he tries to shield the gyroscope for the "HEAVENLY ENERGIES" from the "rotation sky" - first in a "zero gauss chamber" then in a "BISMUTH CHAMBER ???".
Note that this Bob Knodel, a flat-earth electrical engineer, finds that his expensive gyro measures the earth's rotation at (about) 15°/hour (which he calls "15°/hour drift"):
He states "What we found is when we turned on that gyroscope we were picking up a drift, a 15°/hour drift. ;D"
Then "We obviously were not willing to accept that ::), so we started looking for ways to disprove . . . . "
Like you, Mr Cikljamas, Bob Knodel refuses to consider evidence that goes against his TRUTH.
And I'm waiting for a response to:Answer stellar aberration or run away!
And I'm waiting for a response to:Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? :( :( :( (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78676.0).
Does one have to post deceptive "photos" and ignore all recent evidence to be a Geocentrist?
PS Do you accept the Newtonian Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation?
Because I'm certain that all the old astronomers and scientists you love to quote from certainly did accept them.
-
THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK :
That video is totally useless.
I do wish that the science deniers that make these videos would stop pretending that they know so much more about aircraft instruments that the makers and pilots.
Please read: PILOTFRIEND, FIXED WING FLIGHT TRAINING, Direction/Heading indicator (http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/di.htm)
Here are a few salient points:DG’s are used because they are not effected by magnetic disturbances or have turning errors inherent to the compass. They are susceptible to gyroscopic precession which are errors due to the mechanical friction imposed on the spinning gyroscope.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because the heading indicator has no direction-seeking qualities of its own, it must be set to agree with the magnetic compass. This should be done only on the ground or in straight-and-level, unaccelerated flight when magnetic compass indications are steady and reliable.
The pilot should set the heading indicator by turning the heading indicator reset knob at the bottom of the instrument to set the compass card to the correct magnetic heading.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The pilot of a light aircraft should check the heading indicator against the magnetic compass at least every 15 minutes to assure accuracy. Because the magnetic compass is subject to certain errors , the pilot should ensure that these errors are not transferred to the heading indicator.
errors
Other sources of precession error include unbalanced gyro components and the effect of the earth's rotation. The latter effect depends upon the position of the instrument in relation to the earth, and is not appreciable unless a flight involves considerable change in latitude.
An apparent error frequently results from misuse of the magnetic compass when the directional gyro is set. Unless magnetic deviations are applied, the indicator may appear to drift several degrees after a turn is completed. Another common error results from failure to maintain straight-and-level flight while reading the magnetic compass for the heading to set in the directional gyro. Errors in the magnetic compass induced by attitude changes are thus duplicated in the heading indicator.
The instrument should be checked at least every 15 minutes during flight and reset to the correct heading. An error of no more than 3° in 15 minutes is acceptable for normal operations.
-
THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK :
That video is totally useless.
Isn't that absolutely amazing disclosure?
You have to claim that directional gyros drift (due to the rotational motion of the earth) because that would have to be the case if the earth indeed rotated on it's axis.
However, you can't prove your claim experimentally.
At least, not by using classical (mechanical) directional gyro.
Rob Durham made this video with that exact purpose : TO EXPERIMENTALY VERIFY THE TRUENESS OF A GYRO-DRIFT MYTH :
Maybe you can help me to persuade Wolfie6020 to take up my challenge :
A whole new ballgame - 0 : https://s8.postimg.cc/qxhozoset/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 1 : https://s8.postimg.cc/n6mtldjc5/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_1.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 2 : https://s8.postimg.cc/f14rn9d3p/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_2.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 3 : https://s8.postimg.cc/3os65hrk5/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_3.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 4 : https://s8.postimg.cc/6blgrt7j9/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_4.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 5 : https://s8.postimg.cc/deyunr06d/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_5.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 6 : https://s8.postimg.cc/719rkj5l1/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_6.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 7 : https://s8.postimg.cc/ho863i879/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_7.jpg
A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME - 8 : https://s15.postimg.cc/oh6lj51gb/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALL_GAME_-_8.jpg
Now, let's see how to properly undestand the following qoute of yours :
"The pilot of a light aircraft should check the heading indicator against the magnetic compass at least every 15 minutes to assure accuracy. Because the magnetic compass is subject to certain errors , the pilot should ensure that these errors are not transferred to the heading indicator."
So if magnetic compass is subject to certain errors, then how you can ensure that tese errors are not transferred to the heading indicator?
And if magnetic compass were more accurate heading indicators than directional gyros, what would be the purpose of using directional gyros (as a main instruments for the directional orientation of an aircraft) in the first place?
I asked one guy (you can find our conversation below DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK video) :
If you point (and lock/calibrate) your gyrocompass to the north and then travel 60 degrees to the East (or to the West), how come gyrocompass can still indicate north???
----------------------------------------
Vladimir Novakovic replied :
+odiupicku
If you calibrate the gyro to point to the north, ie the compass hand and the gyro are parallel, then travel 60 degs to the east, then at the destination the compass hand would be 60 degrees counter clockwise offset from the gyro (ie gyro hand would show 60 degrees East), and you would know that you are 60 degrees east of the point you started from
If the Earth was rotating, the compass offset would not be 60 degrees at the destination, as the offset would depend also on the angle the Earth rotated at that particular latitude for the time of the travel, so a complicated (Faucault) calculation would be needed to tell you as how much to the east you've traveled exactly?
-----------------------------------------------------------
In one other reply in croatian language he explained to me when and how drifting can occur :
Vladimir Novakovic
1 year ago
Ja sam isto kupio taj gyro sa videa, od gyroscope.com, i radio sam experimente.
Taj drift se desava ako gyro nije perfektno balansiran, ako jedna strana vuce, onda se on ceo rotira, a precesija nastaje kada pretera. Morao sam da zasrafim par srafova da ga balansiram (jer nije dosao pefrektno balansiran) i onda su precesije prestale. I zalio sam se gyroscope.com sto nije balansiran, i oni mi odgovorili, da im nije ni bio cilj da bude perfektno balansiran... Takodje, trenje na dve tacke od ose moze biti razlicito, platfoma ne idealno horizontalna, itd.
Translation :
I bought that same gyro (heading indicator) at gyroscope.com, and i conducted the same kind of an experiments. The drifting can happen if gyro is not perfectly balanced, then precession can occur. I had to fastened a few screws to balance it (because it hadn't been balanced originally) and then precessions have ceased to occur. I had complained to gyroscope.com for sending me unbalanced gyro, and they replied that it was/is not their intention to deliver to their customers perfectly balanced gyros. Some other reasons can induce precession, as well (for example : if the platform is not perfectly horizontal etc...).
The results of the Sagnac experiment, the MGP experiment and the Brillet and Hall experiment, all indicate that one can effectively measure rotation by optical means, whether the interferometer is rotating or not. Given the required resolution, a rotating interferometer will always be capable of optically measuring its own rate of rotation, as well as that of the revolving frame on which its axis of rotation is inertially at rest. A stationary interferometer can only electromagnetically measure the rate of rotation of the revolving frame on which it is inertially at rest.
No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.
Curiously, many relativists and experimentalists get caught in their ignorance of the Sagnac effect. In 1979, Brillet and Hall reported a null result (absence of frequency shift) with frequency-locked laser beams, one set in a rotating interferometer, and the other kept stationary, and thus concluded in favour of the isotropy of space. However, not only did they observe a 50 Hz signal at precisely the rotation rate of the turntable employed, but also another more troublesome signal, at 17Hz.
Aspden, who has suggested that the null result may well be the inevitable consequence of such frequency-locked laser tests because "the frequency of the lasers will adjust to the reorientation of the apparatus exactly to cancel any effect due to motion through the light-reference frame", commented on the 17Hz frequency shift findings of Brillet and Hall, which had been ignored by them as a "persistent spurious signal":
"Interpreting the 17 Hz signal as the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85*1013 Hz, we find the ratio 1.92*10^-13 and, as this is 0.131 (v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21*10^-6, giving v as 363 m/sec. If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of earth rotation at Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40°N, Boulder has, in fact, an earth rotation speed of 355 m/sec." Apparently, Brillet and Hall were conducting a control on the MGP experiment using the Sagnac effect to detect the earth's speed of rotation and with the required resolution, without knowing it!
More recently still, there have been confirmations of the Sagnac effect for electrons and neutrons. In 1993, Hasselbach and Nicklaus reported a shift of 0.06 fringes using rotating electron beams. The result clearly indicates that atmospheric charges flow faster westward than in the opposite direction. Werner et al confirmed the Sagnac effect with neutron interferometry. With a swiveling apparatus, they showed that if the interferometer rotated in a N-S plane the effect was extinguished, whereas in a W-E plane it was at a maximum.
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.
But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.
1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :
If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity.
2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :
This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.
3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :
This is utter nonsense, and here is why :
A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.
PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)
B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.
PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.
C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).
PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.
ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).
-
Isn't that absolutely amazing disclosure?
Sure. Notice how you are yet to provide any solution to the paradox you need to?
Repeating the same ignorant baseless BS wont magically make it true.
Now then, how is your magic aether stationary w.r.t. Earth and moving w.r.t. Earth?
Until you solve this massive paradox, any mention of aether is just another blatant lie from you.
-
<< Ignored >>
And I'm waiting for a response to:Answer stellar aberration or run away!
And I'm waiting for a response to:Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? :( :( :( (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78676.0).
Does one have to post deceptive "photos" and ignore all recent evidence to be a Geocentrist?
PS Do you accept the Newtonian Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation?
Because I'm certain that all the old astronomers and scientists you love to quote from certainly did accept them.
-
I think it’s now obvious to even the most casual reader that flat earthers distort science to fit their own particular narrow requirements, irrespective of the dictates that science requires; such as repeatable verifiable evidence through experimentation.
Their aim is rather than to seek the truth is to find the more obscure parts of science that with some manipulation can be bent to suit their beliefs. The actual truth of the matter never being an issue.
FE believers constantly quote and cherry pick work of certain scientists from the late 19thC and early 20thC who were advocates of the existance of the aether, which 150 years ago was considered quite mainstream. The fact that none of these scientist, Sagnac, Michelson or Morley believed in a flat earth is never ever mentioned. Time has moved on and new discoveries, along with space flight has shown the aether to have been no more than one of many scientific blind alleys.
They mention the work of Nobel prize winners in an effort to bolster their beliefs, while failing to mention that none of these Nobel prize winners shared their flat earth beliefs. No astronomer, physicist or any scientist of note for that matter has ever come out proclaiming the earth is flat.
No part of science supports the existance of a flat earth. It goes without saying that any ‘science’ used to support FE belief must therefore be distorted science.
-
Einstein’s most famous prediction, E = mc2
Einstein's report card:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jj9J9Kz6gvM/W-nf9qri8sI/AAAAAAABe6k/Be_qLfYCW34N10thgkhrLm1sxr5VvOXOwCLcBGAs/s1600/WWeinstein1.jpg)
6 is rock bottom
1 is top grade
Um, you have that the wrong way round. This is from 1896 and 6 was actually the top grade with 1 being the lowest grade. Can't believe no one thought to check your statement about that.
He passed all those things you say he failed.
Have you no shame?
-
Einstein’s most famous prediction, E = mc2
Einstein's report card:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jj9J9Kz6gvM/W-nf9qri8sI/AAAAAAABe6k/Be_qLfYCW34N10thgkhrLm1sxr5VvOXOwCLcBGAs/s1600/WWeinstein1.jpg)
6 is rock bottom
1 is top grade
Um, you have that the wrong way round. This is from 1896 and 6 was actually the top grade with 1 being the lowest grade. Can't believe no one thought to check your statement about that.
He passed all those things you say he failed.
Have you no shame?
It’s the flat earth way, make things up, tell lies and never answer direct questions.