Georges Sagnac derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, which features the AREA.Look, YOU cannot arbitrarily define what is Coriolis Effect and what is Sagnac Effect. That has been decided long before YOU came on the scene!
Regarding the Proof for the Existence of a Luminiferous Ether Using a Rotating Inteferometer Experiment by Georges Sagnac (http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-08.pdf)
Abstract: This is English translation of Georges Sagnac’s second paper, which presents his “rotating interferometer experiment” where
the phenomenon known as the Sagnac effect manifests itself. This paper was originally published, in French, as: Sur la preuve de la realite de l’ether lumineux par l’experience de l’interferographe tournant. Note de G. Sagnac, presentee par E. Bouty. Comptes rendus, 1913, tome 157, pages 1410 –1413. Translated from the French in 2008 by William Lonc, Canada. The Editor of The Abraham Zelmanov Journal thanks William Lonc for this effort, and also Ioannis Haranas, Canada, for assistance.
Special thanks go to the National Library of France and Nadege Danet in person for the permission to reproduce the originally Sagnac paper in English.
The definition of the Sagnac effect is applied to a closed loop (either circular or a uniform path).No! Whatever YOU CLAIM, Michelson derived the Sagnac effect formula!
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
Thus, from a mathematical point of view, Michelson did not derive the Sagnac effect formula at all, since he compared two open segments, and not two loops.
The definition of the Sagnac effect.No! The Coriolis effect is completely different and is not related to area in the slightest! (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e4eb6b9a1018b1ffbdf7bdf9883a8b4e8bd7f8fb)
Using the correct definition, we recover not only the error-free formula, but also the precise velocity addition terms.
For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.
For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.No! The Sagnac loop can be any shape at all! And, of course, you would analyse any straight edged loop one edge at a time! Whyever NOT?
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.No! The Sagnac loop can be any shape at all! And, of course, you would analyse any straight edged loop one edge at a time! Whyever NOT?
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:So?
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.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
Conspiracy of Light, The Michelson-Gale Experiment (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html)And those 2's should be 4's because even Michelson didn't initially get it quite right and it was corrected by Silberstein:
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:Fig.1:where: Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
A = the area of the circular path
R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
f = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
l = wavelength of the light
The experiment remained in abeyance for several years, until Silberstein published a paper in 1921 on the theory of light propagation in rotating systems. In this article, Silberstein discusses Michelson's proposed experiment and through calculations of his own demonstrated that the time difference expected in such an experiment would be double what Michelson suggested.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After taking all these factors into account, the expected fringe shift becomes:(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MandG4.jpg)
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, a physicist on the same level with Einstein and Michelson, partially inspired and supported the Michelson-Gale experiment.No! Dr. Ludwik Silberstein did not "prove that the real cause of the phenomenon measured by Georges Sagnac was the CORIOLIS FORCE EFFECT."
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.
<< Let's ignore all that for the moment - I simply do not have the time! >>
He proved that the real cause of the phenomenon measured by Georges Sagnac was the CORIOLIS FORCE EFFECT.
Siberstein [798, 799] suggested an explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of effect of the Sagnac forces on the counterpropagating waves. . . . . The areas of the triangles are different."So Dr Silberstein certainly does not "derive the Coriolis effect" and on the contrary, he shows that its effect is "certainly be too small to be measured directly."
Now, while "the areas of the triangles are different" Dr Siberstein had previously shown "Thus, even for a ≈ 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
Siberstein [798, 799] suggested an explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of effect of the Sagnac forces on the counterpropagating waves. . . . . The areas of the triangles are different."So Dr Silberstein certainly does not "derive the Coriolis effect" and on the contrary, he shows that its effect is "certainly be too small to be measured directly."
Now, while "the areas of the triangles are different" Dr Siberstein had previously shown "Thus, even for a ≈ 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdfExcuse me but is it described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces"? Silberstein explicitly neglects the "effect of the Coriolis forces"!
The formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, peer reviewed in the IOP article, and described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces" is this:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
Here is the Maraner-Zendri formula:No, they did not "derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula" but they did "derive the Sagnac Effect formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation".
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ov40a15kkr8uogv/General%20relativistic%20Sagnac%20formula%20revised%2C%20Maraner%2C%20Zendri%20-%20eqn%20%2817%29.png?dl=1)
What Maraner and Zendri did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation, and NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT.
They used the SAME derivation as did Michelson based on a comparison of two sides, AND NOT THE TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac error, a huge error on their part.Nope, that's just your incorrect interpretation.
For the uninformed RE: here is the correct definition of the Sagnac effect.You mean the one that goes on to say:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
2.7 The Sagnac Effect (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm)
This phenomenon applies to any closed loop, not necessarily circular. For example, suppose a beam of light is split by a half-silvered mirror into two beams, and those beams are directed in a square path around a set of mirrors in opposite directions as shown below.(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image003.gif)Just as in the case of the circular loop, if the apparatus is unaccelerated, the two beams will travel equal distances around the loop, and arrive at the detector simultaneously and in phase. However, if the entire device (including source and detector) is rotating, the beam traveling around the loop in the direction of rotation will have farther to go than the beam traveling counter to the direction of rotation, because during the period of travel the mirrors and detector will all move (slightly) toward the counter-rotating beam and away from the co-rotating beam. Consequently the beams will reach the detector at slightly different times, and slightly out of phase, producing optical interference "fringes" that can be observed and measured.
THE SAGNAC EFFECT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN AREA, only the CORIOLIS EFFECT is proportional to an area.No, you have never shown that "THE SAGNAC EFFECT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN AREA" and the CORIOLIS EFFECT is quite unrelated to an area.
The rotational and the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT formulas were derived for the first time in 1904 by A. Michelson, and they feature AN AREA:So YOU say, but I'd believe Sagnac and Michelson before you any day!
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdfAnd I hope that YOU read the first paper and found this:
Georges Sagnac derived THE SAME FORMULA, featuring an area, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
The original papers published by G. Sagnac (The Luminiferous Ether is Detected as a Wind Effect Relative to the Ether Using a Uniformly Rotating Interferometer):
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-07.pdf
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-08.pdf
In 1913, Georges Sagnac measured ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the true Sagnac effect (proportional to the linear velocity and radius of rotation).No Georges Sagnac did NOT measure the Coriolis effect!
Here is the shape of the interferometer used by Sagnac:You did read the abstract?
Please read:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023972214666
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103091.pdf
Coriolis Force and Sagnac Effect
Because of acting of gravity-like Coriolis force the trajectories of co- and anti-rotating photons have different radii in the rotating reference frame, while in the case of the equal radius the effective gravitational potentials for the photons have to be different.
Abstract
We consider the optical Sagnac effect, when the fictitious gravitational field simulates the reflections from the mirrors. It is shown that no contradiction exists between the conclusions of the laboratory and rotated observers. Because of acting of gravity-like Coriolis force the trajectories of
co- and anti-rotating photons have different radii in the rotating reference frame, while in the case of the equal radius the effective gravitational potentials for the photons have to be different.
That is why Sagnac had to use the formula which features the area and the angular velocity: he only measured the CORIOLIS EFFECT.So, no! Sagnac had to use the formula which features the area and the angular velocity and he did measure the Sagnac effect.
. . . .No, it is NOT "precise proof". I have the utmost respect for Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova but I doubt you interpreted what they wrote correctly! Read this:
Here is the precise proof, peer-reviewed in an IOP article.
THIS IS AN IOP ARTICLE, one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published.
Siberstein [798, 799] suggested an explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of effect of the Sagnac forces on the counterpropagating waves. . . . . The areas of the triangles are different."So Dr Silberstein certainly does not "derive the Coriolis effect" and on the contrary, he shows that its effect is "certainly be too small to be measured directly."
Now, while "the areas of the triangles are different" Dr Siberstein had previously shown "Thus, even for a ≈ 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
Where is it "described by the author as the 'effect of the Coriolis forces' "? Silberstein showed that the Coriolis forces had negligible effect!
The formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, peer reviewed in the IOP article, and described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces" is this:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
Siberstein [798, 799] suggested an explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of effect of the Sagnac forces on the counterpropagating waves. . . . . The areas of the triangles are different."
Now, while "the areas of the triangles are different" Dr Siberstein had previously shown "Thus, even for a ≈ 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
<< I do not have the time to wade through all of this especially as much is simply repeated and the rest has been posted and answered before! >>No, it certainly has not been "proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science." because it is wrong!
My SAGNAC EFFECT formula proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science.
Let us now compare the two derivations, using two loops (Sagnac effect):No, let's not bother with your so-called "Coriolis effect" because it is nothing like any real Coriolis effect!
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)Look your so-called "Sagnac phase components" are NOT "phase components" but are "time delay components".
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):But it should NOT be "Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh" because his formula was for a Phase Conjugate Gyro!
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:
No, this is NOT the "CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA"!
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)/c2And that is the Sagnac effect NOT Coriolis! As I noted above, you got half the signs incorrect in your so-called Sagnac time-delay formula!
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
This is how the correct Sagnac formula is derived: we have single continuous clockwise path, and a single continuous counterclockwise path.
If we desire the Coriolis effect, we simply substract as follows:
dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))
Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)
l = l1 = l2
2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2
2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2
R1 - R2 = h
2lhΩ/c2
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.No it is NOT the "CORIOLIS EFFECT formula"! This is the formula for the Coriolis acceleration: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/db5d8685439b1ae8431d4e55444028acf1c79c5a)
There are no "negative times", a concept most laughable.That is exactly what I said, had you bothered to read it. But your signs do give "negative times" for some of the components!
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):Look your so-called "Sagnac phase components" are NOT "phase components" but are "time delay components".
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Just look at the dimensions - they are all (length)/(velocity) which is the travel time along each segment.
And travel times cannot possibly be negative, so please correct your signs! You need to remove the negative signs between the terms
I do not have the time to go through all your working to correct it.
The Coriolis effect is a physical effect upon the light beams: it is proportional to the area of the interferometer. It is a comparison of two sides.Sure, but your expression, "4AΩ/c^2 . . . . derived by G. Sagnac" and almost everybody else except YOU is NOT the Coriolis effect!
This is the formula derived by G. Sagnac: 4AΩ/c^2.
THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.
UNDERSTANDING THE CORIOLIS FORCE (https://phys420.phas.ubc.ca/p420_12/tony/Coriolis_Force/Home.html)And:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ewpmymcf1cqvu8k/Coriolis%20Force%20Expression%20and%20Explanation.png?dl=1)
The Michelson-Gale Experiment by Doug Marett (2010) (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html)It's funny how everybody seems to agree that the "4AΩ/c^2 . . . . derived by G. Sagnac" is the Sagnac effect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:Fig.1:where: Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg
A = the area of the circular path
R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
f = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
l = wavelength of the light
Each time transit has a DEFINITE DIRECTION.But you end up with negative times! Which you then subtract again and
Opposite directions have opposite signs.
Let us go back to the original derivation of the Sagnac effect.Let's not!
The continuous clockwise loop has a positive sign +Agreed.
The continuous counterclockwise loop has a negative sign -
That is, if we want to find out the difference in travel times (opposite directions) we must substract them.No. There is a single "beam" is travelling around the "A > D > C > B > A path" and the transit times in every segment must be added.
For an interferometer which is now located AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF ROTATION, the situation is a bit more complicated, but the same principle applies.
(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.
Let us remember that now we are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES for each arm, and DIFFERENT LENGTHS of each arm, a situation a bit more complex than the previous case analyzed here.
We need to designate the TWO LOOPS, as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
. . . . . . .
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.
So, for the first loop, the clockwise path, the A > D > C > B > A path, we have to deal with beams which are traveling IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS,
that is, in order to find out the total time travel we need to substract the time differences, just like we did the first time: in effect we are adding two transit times, one of which is traveling in a opposite direction to the first, hence the opposite signs.No. The loop does not consist of two different paths. It is a single loop through the "A > D > C > B > A path" in that order.
We substracted the time differences the first time around for the interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometric center.
Now, we have a loop consisting of two different paths, which travel in opposite directions.
Therefore, to get the TOTAL TIME DIFFERENCE FOR THE CLOCKWISE PATH, we substract the time differences: again, in effect we are adding the transit times, but since one of them has an opposite direction, it will have a different sign than the first transit time, just like in the first example of the Sagnac interferometer.
Very simple, and at the same time we are dealing with a LOOP, as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.That is the crux of the problem.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)
Only someone who has nothing left to say, and is pretty desperate, can make a statement such as this:Yes, they can be the same! The two different latitudes could be equally spaced either side of the equator.
Can't you see that if l1 = l2 AND v1 = v2 you would end up with zero transit time around that loop - impossible?
Which you then subtract again and so if V1 has the magnitude as V2 and if L1 has the magnitude as L2
You total transit time comes out as zero, which cannot be correct.
For a Sagnac interferometer which is located AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF ROTATION, v1 and v2 can NEVER be the same, since l1 and l2 are located on different latitudes.
And for V1 = V2 ≠ 0 and L1 = L2 ≠ 0 your expression will give a non-zero answer but the Sagnac delay should be zero for that case.
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
The Michelson-Gale Experiment by Doug Marett (2010) (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html)It's funny how everybody seems to agree that the "4AΩ/c^2 . . . . derived by G. Sagnac" is the Sagnac effect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:Fig.1:where: Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
A = the area of the circular path
R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
Φ = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
l = wavelength of the light
This is the formula derived by G. Sagnac: 4AΩ/c^2.Sure, but your expression, "4AΩ/c^2 . . . . derived by G. Sagnac" is NOT the Coriolis effect as everybody else seems to know!
THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.
UNDERSTANDING THE CORIOLIS FORCE (https://phys420.phas.ubc.ca/p420_12/tony/Coriolis_Force/Home.html)And:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ewpmymcf1cqvu8k/Coriolis%20Force%20Expression%20and%20Explanation.png?dl=1)
It can easily be seen to be incorrect by simply centring the loop over the equator when: V1 = V2 = V and L1 = L2 = L.
In that situation there should obviously be no Sagnac delay, but your expression gives a delay of: 4(V L)/c2 .
Quote from: sandokhanhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/260796097_Light_Transmission_and_the_Sagnac_Effect_on_the_Rotating_EarthAgreed, but that is around the whole equator of the rotating earth and is quite irrelevant to your loop.
"Kelly [25] also noted that measurements using the GPS reveal that a light signal takes 414 nanoseconds longer to circumnavigate the Earth eastward at the equator than in the westward direction around the same path. This is as predicted by GPS equations (11) and (12)."
Your tricks don't work with me.That is nothing like your loop. That is a loop around the equator and so has the centre of rotation right in the centre of the loop.
v1 and v2 cannot, EVER, be the same, since l1 and l2 are located on different latitudes: the situation where you'd have the interferometer located right on the equator is a special case of my formula which, again, provides the correct answer.It can easily be seen to be incorrect by simply centring the loop over the equator when: V1 = V2 = V and L1 = L2 = L.
In that situation there should obviously be no Sagnac delay, but your expression gives a delay of: 4(V L)/c2 .
But there is a Sagnac delay, right on the equator!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260796097_Light_Transmission_and_the_Sagnac_Effect_on_the_Rotating_Earth
The Michelson-Gale Experiment by Doug Marett (2010) (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html)It's funny how everybody else seems to agree that the "4AΩ/c2 . . . . derived by G. Sagnac" is the Sagnac effect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:Fig.1:where: Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
A = the area of the circular path
R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
Φ = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
λ = wavelength of the light
I took some time to quote these monkeys.Trying to reply to a whole novel succinctly is a bit hard so I delete most of the oft-repeated fiction.
Turns out there is a 20,000 word limit. >:(
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)
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)
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)
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:If that is the "CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA" please explain why all of Michelson, Sagnac, Silberstein, Paolo Maranez and Jean-Pierre Zendri all disagree with your expression!
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
As such, your analysis is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, and not at all the SAGNAC EFFECT.Incorrect! Go and read up on the Coriolis acceleration and it's nothing like what you claim!
Let's put your word to the test.We have done that repeatedly.
The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.No, I can, quite easily. That is why I have the c+v or c-v terms.
And what do I have?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:Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.
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)
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):Again, this makes no sense.
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:I have to ask, "Do you even read your own references or take note of their titles? "
Δt = 4AΩ/c^2
Here is a very direct proof:
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams
http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula features an AREA.
The SAGNAC EFFECT formula, on the other hand, does not deal with areas, only with velocities.
In Bilger et al [1], Anderson et al [2], and in Michelson and Gale assisted by Pearson [3], Sagnac effect on the circuital laser/light beams on the spinning Earth has been studied.
The formula for Sagnac effect on the spinning Earth for circuital opposing beams of light first calculated by Silberstein [4] and used in the explanation of the Michelson–Gale experiment was:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tbm1766re3qkigw/Spinning%20Earth%20and%20its%20Coriolis%20effect%20on%20the%20circuital%20light%20beams%20-%20%28Sagnac%20equation%29.png?dl=1)
You have been reported for SPAMMING this forum.No, it is not! This is the Coriolis force in Hajra's equation (2). Read what he writes in the intro.
Your 'argument' has been debunked before:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200962#msg2200962
The Coriolis force is exactly as SANKAR HAJRA shows in (2) and that is not the expression that Michelson, Sagnac and Silberstein derived!
But it is the VERY SAME EXPRESSION.
Again, here is the final formula derived by S. Hajra:Yes, S. Hajra calls it the Coriolis effect but:
EQUATION 12:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
He even SPECIFIES that it is the VERY SAME equation derived by both Sagnac and Silberstein.
Take a look at the title of the section 4, mentioned on page 3 of 5:
Sagnac effect? No, it is Coriolis effect
In the calculation, Silberstein has assumed a relative spinning motion between ether and Earth at and near its surface and has reached the well-known formula of Sagnac effect for the circuital opposing light beams on the surface of the spinning Earth as given above.
YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED FOR SPAM AGAIN!I am under no obligation to accept your "proofs" and have every right to reply, thank you.
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:It is the Sagnac effect formula. You not liking that wont change it.
At this point, in a normal debate, the discussion is over.Yes, you have been refuted.
One direction has c+v. The other has c-v. Notice how they have a different sign? One is -, one is +.Yes, that is the velocity, the part where direction is important.
That is the VELOCITY, not the direction of the LIGHT BEAM.
The first shill has been confined to the AR.But you are the one who is repeatedly trolling, stalling and spamming.
The second shill can no longer use trolling, stalling, spamming to escape the final conclusion: my formula is correct.
This formula does not include the area at all, and is proportional to the VELOCITY of the light beams (and thus is proportional to the RADIUS of rotation).Not quite. It is the velocity, not of the light beams, but of the source/detector relative to the conveyor.
Two different formulas, featuring two different physical descriptions.
This means that the formulas must be describing TWO DIFFERENT PHYSICAL PHENOMENA.
In order to derive this formula, you compared two sides, not two loops, as required by the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT.No, that would be what you have repeatedly done.
When you have the centre of the interferometer aligned with the centre of rotation, you don't change sign with direction. Instead you just add up the times.No, completely true.
Completely wrong.
THEY SUBSTRACT THE TIMES.For the 2 different counterpropogating beams, not for the same beam.
Opposite directions, therefore WE SUBSTRACT THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME TRAVEL.No, 2 different beams which produce an interference pattern, so we find the difference in time taken for the beams. We don't find a difference in time taken for a single beam to traverse the different arms as that corresponds to nothing in reality.
So, for the first loop, the clockwise path, the A > D > C > B > A path, we have to deal with beams which are traveling IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, that is, in order to find out the total time travel we need to substract the time differencesAgain, THIS MAKES NO SENSE!
I was able, for the first time in history, to derive the corresponding SECOND formula for the Michelson-Gale experiment.And have you considered that that the reason for that is because you have made a massive mistake? A mistake which has been pointed out to you countless times, which you have repeatedly ignored?
A fibre optic conveyor, while similar to a Sagnac interferometer, is not one. Its formula is not that for the Sagnac effect.
It remains a pile of refuted garbage.
This is why your derivation amounts to nothing more than pure bovine excrement.
We are left now with jackblack's trolling.How about you stop with the insults and instead try to deal with the issues raised?
I now ask the admin and the mods: how would you deal with something like this, where a user REFUSES to accept reality and scientific references which obviously negate his statement?This is a site built upon the rejection of accepted science.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:A similar (identical) quote can be found in the following posts:
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.
How is this a debate?You are correct, it isn't debate. It is trolling.
A fibre optic conveyor, while similar to a Sagnac interferometer, is not one. Its formula is not that for the Sagnac effect.
You are continuously trolling this forum.Projecting and repeating the same spam wont help you.
The results confirmed that the interference phase shift is indifferent to the position of the rotation axis relative to the interferometer area principal axis.Do you know what that means?
By having refused to accept a peer-reviewed paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal, you are thereby trolling this forum.
You are barking up the wrong tree.Again, projection wont help you.
My formula coincides exactly with the formula derived by Professor Yeh.No, it is nothing like it.
This precise context has been described right here in the very paper posted today:No, it hasn't.
https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf (pages 5-6)
The authors of that paper have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.No, they didn't.
You either accept these published results or you don't.
If you do not want to accept them, you have two basic choices: write to the journals and let them know of your learned opinion, or leave this forum.
If you continue on this path here, it will be assumed that you are trolling this forum.
Go ahead and write to those journals, let them know of your opinion, and then come back here in several months.
Otherwise, you presence here will be taken as trolling this forum.
You are having an emotional breakdown and this is not the place to cure it.
In such a distressed state, you are not thinking clearly at all.
Also note that Professor Yeh's formula contains only a single length and a single velocity, not the 2 you have.
(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)
This is pure trolling on your part.
You have just stated that Professor Yeh's formula contains "only a single length and a single velocity".
But there are TWO LENGTHS, AND THUS TWO VELOCITIES in the formula.
Clearly spelled out in front of you.
You are having an emotional breakdown and this is not the place to cure it.Again, projecting will not help you.
But there are TWO LENGTHS, AND THUS TWO VELOCITIES in the formula.My bad, I thought you were referring to their work on the FOC, not PCMs, which are no relevance to our discussion.
Can everyone see what is going here?I'm sure most people can.
Of course the paper referenced by you does not mention the CORIOLIS EFFECT, since Dr. Eyal Schwartz does not understand the issues involved regarding the fact that the SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature an area.Then like you said:
You either accept these published results or you don't.
If you do not want to accept them, you have two basic choices: write to the journals and let them know of your learned opinion, or leave this forum.
If you continue on this path here, it will be assumed that you are trolling this forum.
Go ahead and write to those journals, let them know of your opinion, and then come back here in several months.
Otherwise, you presence here will be taken as trolling this forum.
You are trolling, yet again, this forum.
You are not addressing the main issues here.
You derived a formula, namely this one:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
But this is 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
The final formula is this:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
Very simple, yet you are trolling on a daily basis, failing to understand this very easy to understand point.
At this point in time, there is nothing to discuss here, nothing about the SAGNAC EFFECT: I have just proven that your formula is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation.
You are not addressing the main issues here.No, I have addressed it quite explicitly.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you forgotten the definition of linear velocity?No, have you?
Both Professor Yeh and myself have derived the SAME FORMULA.No, you don't. You have a different formula, and like I said, it is a different interferometer. As such it is irrelevant.
You are trying to deflect attention from your utter failure to explain this very simple pointsYou mean like your failure to explain what your time difference between the arms is meant to represent?
Here is the mother of all SAGNAC EFFECT references:And have you bothered reading it?
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf
See how easy it is to defeat you?Well it seems to be completley impossible for you.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
FINALLY, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FORMULA YOU DERIVED IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.No, I haven't.
BUT NOT THE SAGNAC EFFECT.Ignoring reality wont help you.
If you have a loop which is not concentric with the centre of rotation (such as in Yeh's paper), then you CANNOT just use the radius.That is a fairly simple statement to understand.
WHAT ?!
Now, I am going to celebrate my total victory here.Perhaps you should try achieving a small victory first.
The formula I derived is the Sagnac effect formula.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
Not only has jackblack admitted that his formuia is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, but now he is desperately trying to deny his statements.It doesn't work like that. You lying about what I did wont magically change reality to match your fantasy.
But it doesn't work like that.
It can't be, since you admitted minutes ago that the formula you derived is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.Again, I did no such thing. Can you read English? I said that they (i.e. the authors of the paper you are appealing to) said it was. I did not say that I said it was that.
The shift, for a rotating ring itnterferometer is proportional to the area, not the linear velocity.Again, if you want to appeal to scientific literature, you have already lost. I have already provided a paper which shows that it is proportional to the area.
For the SAGNAC EFFECT there is no area.
https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf
There is no area in the interferometer used by Professor Yeh: just a segment connecting two mirrors.Sure, just "a segment" which is wound into a loop which encloses an area.
The use of a phase-conjugate mirror has permitted new breakthroughs in the experimental science of the Sagnac effect.No it hasn't.
It can't be, since you admitted minutes ago that the formula you derived is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.I did not say that I said it was that.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity, but for a simple rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors it is based upon the area and angular velocity.
But again, it uses a PCM, and thus is irrelavent to the discussion.
The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity
The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity
Today it has been jackblack's worst disaster to date, his worst day performance ever.Again, projecting wont help. How many times must this be said?
How could you write something like this:My bad, I left out a factor of 2. The radius time the length is 2 times the area, not the area.
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1+R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(A1+A2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(A1+ A2)Ω/c2
You multiplied the RADIUS by the LENGTH: there is no area in Professor Yeh's interferometer.
The LENGTH is the length of the segment connecting two mirrors.No it isn't.
The RADIUS is the RADIUS of rotation.
(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)Now, I might not be a genius, but I can read fairly well.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity
Of course, as was obvious to Michelson and Einstein all along, this measurement [which was performed in as near to vacuum as possible) does not discriminate between relativity and a perfectly un-dragged ether, so it is a rather trivial confirmation of special relativity. However, it is also possible to perform such a measurement in a medium with an index of refraction differing from 1. Indeed many ordinary Sagnac devices using fiber optic lines and therefore actually involve the Fizeau effect as well as the Sagnac effect, because they run light in opposite directions through a rotating medium with an index of refraction differing significantly from 1. In order to account for the results in this kind of device, an etherist needs to invoke, at the very least, Fresnel's partial dragging hypothesis (whereas he needs to deny any dragging at all to account for the full shift measured in vacuum). This makes the device a somewhat less trivial confirmation of special relativity, because the Fizeau effect is not trivial. This is seldom mentioned in discussions of the Sagnac effect, perhaps justifiably, because the "pure" Sagnac effect consists of the path dependence of the optical path length with respect to a rotating system, as distinct from the Fizeau effect of light propagating in a moving medium. Nevertheless, both of these effects are present in many real Sagnac devices."Another fun part of trying to explain this effect away as partial aether drag is that as the shift is dependent upon the refractive index of the medium, and that varies with wavelength, you need different types of aether for each wavelength of light which is dragged differently by the medium.
Of course, as was obvious to Michelson and Einstein all along, this measurement [which was performed in as near to vacuum as possible) does not discriminate between relativity and a perfectly un-dragged ether, so it is a rather trivial confirmation of special relativity. However, it is also possible to perform such a measurement in a medium with an index of refraction differing from 1. Indeed many ordinary Sagnac devices using fiber optic lines and therefore actually involve the Fizeau effect as well as the Sagnac effect, because they run light in opposite directions through a rotating medium with an index of refraction differing significantly from 1. In order to account for the results in this kind of device, an etherist needs to invoke, at the very least, Fresnel's partial dragging hypothesis (whereas he needs to deny any dragging at all to account for the full shift measured in vacuum). This makes the device a somewhat less trivial confirmation of special relativity, because the Fizeau effect is not trivial. This is seldom mentioned in discussions of the Sagnac effect, perhaps justifiably, because the "pure" Sagnac effect consists of the path dependence of the optical path length with respect to a rotating system, as distinct from the Fizeau effect of light propagating in a moving medium. Nevertheless, both of these effects are present in many real Sagnac devices."Another fun part of trying to explain this effect away as partial aether drag is that as the shift is dependent upon the refractive index of the medium, and that varies with wavelength, you need different types of aether for each wavelength of light which is dragged differently by the medium.
This is going to be groundhog day with a twist for you.You mean you will just be repeating the same spam?
After what happened to you yesterday, nobody here will ever care about anything you write, the fisking, the constant trolling, the desperate attempts to satisfy the cognitive dissonance.Like I have repeatedly told you, projecting will not help. You are describing yourself here, not me.
You seem to be the last one to understand these very obvious things.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:Like I said, if you want to play semantics, go ahead. If you want to pretend it is the Coriolis effect formula, go ahead. That will not change the fact that the shift expected for a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors is given by dt=4*A*w/c^2.
The SAGNAC EFFECT does not have an area incorporated into the formula.But it does. You even provided the proof.
Here is the proof:
https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf
THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:Stop lying.
Professor Wang multiplies the radius by the angular velocityFor yet another different system.
The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.As has been explained to you plenty of times, it is a non-relativistic effect. You do not need relativity to invoke it.
And it gets even worse for you, just like I promised.As I told you before, it isn't an experiment.
PAGE 5
This experiment
You have just proven that you have no knowledge whatsoever about the SAGNAC EFFECT.You mean you have proven you will just search for whatever you think ill support you and post it without any concern for what it actually indicates, just like all the other references you have posted which do not support you at all and instead refute you.
https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-6-8-401
stash... is your message supposed to be a joke?No
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.
Suggested experiments include:
1. A Michelson-Morley test on the moon, where there is no atmosphere. It would be interesting to determine whether the result is different from that on Earth.
2. A Sagnac test on the moon would show if the light travelled relative to fixed space, and ignored the movement of the moon.
3. Both of those tests repeated in space off a satellite or rocket.
4. A repeat of the Pegram tests would confirm the conclusion concerning electromagnetism"
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity
unlike STR
Here are your fake STR experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7149
One of the best.
I told you that you do not understand the Sagnac effect.Yes, you have told me that repeatedly.
My references are always the very best.The main issue isn't your references, it is how you lie about and repeatedly claim that they back up your formula when they do no such thing.
The authors present TWO FORMULAS FOR THE SAGNAC EFFECT.So you admit that you were blatantly lying when you falsely claimed that the Sagnac effect does not feature an area?
One has an area, the other one does not.
This is the entire point of the paper and of this discussion.No. The entire point of this discussion is the Sagnac shift for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside its centre.
Then, the authors derive A SECOND FORMULA for the Sagnac effect, which DOES NOT feature an area:Yes, almost as if there are 2 different ways to obtain this shift that is called a Sagnac shift.
This formula does not include the area at all, and is proportional to the VELOCITY of the light beams (and thus is proportional to the RADIUS of rotation).Stop lying.
Here are your admissions that I am right:Again, STOP LYING!
This means that they describe the same situation.No, that doesn't.
Start dealing with a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors.Stop lying.
Of course.
For your information, PCMs
Professor Ruyong Wang is the greatest expert in the world on FOC and PCMs.I don't care about your pathetic appeals to authority.
Why don't you write to Professor Wang and let him know of your opinion?And why don't you write to the countless papers that have been provided by me and you which state quite clearly that the Sagnac effect for a rotating ring interferometer is based upon the Area of the interferometer, including those backed up by experimental results and tell them they are wrong and see what they say?
Read the paper. You will learn plenty of things from it, aside from the ether vs relativity debate.
Since you are so stubborn, let me take care right now of your special relativity.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
But you did admit that it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.Again, STOP LYING!
stash, stop playing the concerned user.
Everyone remembers the BS you tried to pull on your readers:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983
Once you try this kind of trolling, no one will ever take you seriously.
You are trying the same thing here.
You claimed that STR is true.
You then complained about the paper I referenced.
Fine.
That is why I took care of business with the GALAEV ETHER DRIFT experiments.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
You are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty.Again, projecting will not save you.
Here is what you said yesterday, in full view:Again, do you understand English?
It is saying
here is what you did:Where you attack the formula I derive, and claim that that is you admitting that the formula for the Sagnac effect is given by: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)
See how easy it is to defeat you?As I said, it seems impossible for you to defeat me. All you seem to be able to do is just repeatedly spam nonsense.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
You cannot use semantics to save face.Considering you are blatantly lying about what I said, I think I can, although I don't need to save face, as it is still quite clear that you are lying even in your posts.
My derivation is in full view right here:And I have pointed out exactly why it is wrong, which you ignored.
MY FORMULA!
By now we all know what your formula
Whose alt are you?
I have just this one user.
You do?
And yet appear here acting as jackblack's appointed lawyer?
If you don't like it, then by all means go ahead and post your formula a few more times.
Again, you are committing an act of what could be interpreted as rudeness: have I ever told you how you should write your messages?
Just take a look at the trolling perpetrated by your friends, whom you are defending.
Imagine if YOU had a formula, beautifully derived, which coincides exactly with the formula published in the Journal of Optics Letters by one of the top physicists in the world.
And someone else would make trolling requests and avoid to acknowledge that the formula is actually correct.
No other forum would alllow jackblack's despicable trolling as it is allowed right here.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
Has any known physicist ever agreed that your derivation is correct? Or someone with a PhD in Physics?
Yes.
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
Proof:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams
Claiming that you formula can be derived from his paper is not the same, that's not what I'm asking.
If you are in possession of such an important scientific breakthrough, why hide it here at the FES forums where barely anyone can see it?
I am very modest.
By now we all know what your formulaNo, everyone here knows what your formula is.
It seems that your client (since you are acting here as his lawyer) does not. Both of you are trolling this forum.
I have answered each and every question possible: no one else would show such courtesy on any other forum.Stop lying. You have repeatedly avoided the questions. This is consistently your behaviour.
See how easy it is to utterly defeat you?Again, you have defeated no one.
The derivation is FLAWLESS.Except for the massive flaw you are repeatedly ignoring and refusing to answer a very simple question on.
stash, you are trolling this forum, while at the same time you preach to others about high moral standards.
Just like you did here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983
You tried to claim that Toronto was under water.
You took that as far as you could, while claiming all the while that you are "concerned".
Just like you are doing now.
Your gig is over.
You can only do this ONCE, now you've blown your cover already.
If you don't like Dr. Agathangelidis' paper, there is nothing else I can do for you on the subject.
I then demolished your STR hypothesis using the GALAEV ether drift experiments.
Very easy.
The folks over at the scienceforums will say anything to fool their readers, the fact that you play along says quite a lot.
They had no answers to provide once I clearly showed them that there were two formulas for the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Here is the final ingredient: STOKES' THEOREM.
This alone PROVES that there are TWO FORMULAS for the interferometer: one is proportional to the AREA, the other one is proportional to the velocity.
According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives
Δt = 4vL/c2
producing the same value as the earlier expression for the interferometer. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.
We conclude that the later expression
Δt = 4vL/c2
is the correct interpretation.
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159
"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."
Professor Ruyong Wang has proven the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/translational/linear motion:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf
For each interferometer there will ALWAYS be two formulas: one is proportional to the area (CORIOLIS EFFECT), the other one is proportional to the velocity (SAGNAC EFFECT).
Here is another reference which clearly spells this out:
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/137225/7/07_chapter_02.pdf
Chapter 2.8 (page 44 of the paper, page 25 of the pdf document)
One should note that though the area enclosed by light contour is zero, the Sagnac phase shift is still non-zero and the length of the light contour determines the Sagnac phase shift formula.
Sagnac phase shift depends on the lengths and speed of the moving fibre and these are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area determining the SD, as customarily quoted (say, in Ref. [12])- because they observed Sagnac effect even when their FOC has zero-area.
The LSE (thought) and FOC (laboratory) experiment prove beyond doubt that Sagnac formula has nothing to do with the area enclosed by the light contour.
Therefore, here we have the final proof that there are ALWAYS two formulas to be derived for an interferometer: one formula features the area, the other one is proportional to the length of the path and the velocity of the light beams.
Stokes' theorem proves that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for the light beam interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other is proportional to the length/velocity.No where near as simple as you make it.
Here is the proof, using line integrals, that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for the light interferometer: one features an area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.But not necessarily a simple one.
Your questions have been answered already, not once but multiple times.No, it hasn't. You have repeatedly avoided it, likely because you know it will show you are lying to everyone.
Of course it is my addition: I specified this fact right there in my previous message.No, you didn't.
Also, if you are going to blatantly forge formulae, at least make sure you get the font and alignment right.
Your alternation to include Rx and xL is quite obvious.
Of course it is my addition: I specified this fact right there in my previous message.
This factor of proportionality (R/L) was proven, for the first time, for the LISA Space Antenna:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230
(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)
You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.It is yet to be answered in this thread.
Your question was answered a long time ago:
You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.It is yet to be answered in this thread.
Your question was answered a long time ago:
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.It is yet to be answered in this thread.
Your question was answered a long time ago:
As for the specific location, within this thread, where your question was answered, here it is:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.msg2198273#msg2198273
THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.
Here is the precise proof, peer-reviewed in an IOP article.
THIS IS AN IOP ARTICLE, one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published.
(https://image.ibb.co/eqXahp/sil4.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/bX3aXp/sil2.jpg)
Here is reference #27:
(https://image.ibb.co/eCKok9/sil3.jpg)
So it has been answered already, hasn't it?No, it hasn't.
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.
You are wasting your time.Yes, it does seem that you have no interest in addressing the issue and trying to have a debate.
You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.Like I said before, if you want to call it that, go ahead, that doesn't mean it isn't the Sagnac formula nor that it doesn't describe the actual shift.
You haven't done your homework.
G. Malykin's treatise has over 300 references, and yet, it missed one of the most important ones, a paper published by Dr. Silberstein in 1922.
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
This paper explains the issue raised by Malykin, but evidently missed by him.
Why is this SO IMPORTANT?
From Malykin's paper, section 5.5, Sagnac Effect and Coriolis Forces
The author of Ref. [27] thought that the effect of Coriolis forces
on counterpropagating waves in a three-mirror ring interferometer
accounted for the optical path of a wave travelling
in the direction of rotation in the form of a triangle with
somewhat convex sides; a wave spreading in the opposite
direction had an optical path in the form of a triangle with
somewhat concave sides. For this reason, the triangles had
different areas. Hence, the relative time delay between the
counterpropagating waves, the additional travel time of each
wave dependent on the Sagnac effect being proportional to
the closed contour area [35].
After a little while, however, A Lunn [70] showed that the
triangles are actually equal in area even though their contours
for counterpropagating waves are not quite coincident during
rotation (the contribution of the deflection of each counterpropagating
light beam caused by the Coriolis forces to a
change of the contour area is totally compensated for by the
contribution from the altered angle of incidence on the next
mirror). It is easiest to demonstrate the equality of contour
areas for counterpropagating waves in a fixed frame of
reference where Coriolis forces are lacking. In such a case,
only rotations of reflecting mirrors at given moments need to
be taken into consideration as was done by M Laue [69].
However, Dr. Silberstein answered Lunn's paper in 1922, and showed that Lunn's explanation was incomplete.
Malykin MISSED this most important reference.
But not me.
Had Malykin read the 1922 reference, he could not have dismissed Silberstein's papers.
Question: did Malykin actually know of the 1922 publication by Silberstein, but chose not to include it on his list of references?