I'm sure the manufactures of laser gyroscopes and their customers will be fascinated to learn that the instruments don't work as advertised.I wonder how many unexplained plane crashes have caused by these gyroscopes believing Sandokhan.
Has anyone told them?
/sarc
The presence of Coriolis is not a default to a stationary earth, by any means.
You are not paying attention.
A ring laser gyroscope is equipped to detect BOTH the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.
If it detects ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, and NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (it has detected the ether drift, but not the rotation of the Earth).
If it detects the SAGNAC EFFECT, which is 21,000 times greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT in the MGX, then and only then you can claim that the Earth would be rotating around its own axis.
Since 1913, each and every interferometer, including the ring laser gyroscopes, have detected ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.
It uses its detection of rotation of earth on its axis
You can only detect the rotation of the earth using the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Michelson and Gale, each manufacturer of the ring laser gyroscopes, claim they are using the SAGNAC EFFECT, and they are not.
The formula put forward/published is the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation.
Can you understand this much?
Much of this you are not understanding. Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG)/fiber optic gyroscopes (FOG) embedded in Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) in every commercial airliner on the planet uses its detection of rotation of earth on its axis and as a byproduct can calculate the subset that is the Coriolis effect.
Do you understand basic physics?
ring laser gyroscopes still work in all inertia guidance systems they are used in.Yes, but I have seen how you derived that and I do not accept it.
Sure they work.
Here is the formula published by the manufacturers of RLGs (same formula used for the MGX experiment):
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)
However, this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
You cannot detect the rotation of the Earth with this formula at all.
What you need is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
Two very different formulas.
2. Let us now try to find out what aspect the same problem assumes from the standpoint of the theory of relativity, the specialAnd ends up the same result, without any aether dragging coefficient: ε = 4ῶ_{n} σ/(c λ) where the symbols have the same significance as before.
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.
2.7 The Sagnac Effect (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm)Just note, "where A = πR^{2} is the area enclosed by the loop".(http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)where A = πR^{2} is the area enclosed by the loop. The corresponding phase difference for light of frequency n radians/second (in the rest frame of the center of rotation) is simply Df = nDt, and since n = 2πc/l, the phase difference can be written as (8πAcw/l)/(c^{2} – v^{2}).
Summarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.
"It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases."
Right.
The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.Yes!
Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?
The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.So you say.
The next term is O(wr/c)^{2}.Yes!
Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?
The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.Yes, and so the effect of the off-centre rotation is "MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM" for the example chosen.
What you have just done, here in front of all of the readers, is to prove that your messages belong to the complete nonsense section.I'll let you believe all that if it makes you happy.
You do not even understand the meaning of the symbol O().Quote from: sandokhanI understand that perfectly well, thank you.
There is no such thing as general relativity:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. IntroductionThe resolution is quite impressive.
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 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).
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich 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.
This is the paper you put forth in front of the readers:Sure and what's wrong with that, especially as his end result agrees with E. J. Post, MathPages, Ludwik Silberstein and most others I've seen.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1643.pdf General relativistic Sagnac formula revised Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri
From the abstract:
We derive the necessary modification and demonstrate it through a detailed analysis of the square Sagnac interferometer rotating about its symmetry axis in Minkowski space-time.
There is no such thing as Minkowski space-time continuum. As such, the computation of the correction terms (the time shift) is wrong.According to you!
In 2007, R. Sungenis and R. Bennett published a 1147 page treatise, Galileo Was Wrong. They included copious amounts of information which was very well presented, having outdone any previous work on the subject.
Yet, on page 745 they state:
The Sagnac time difference is (for the Michelson-Gale experiment):
Δt = 4Aω (sinφ)/c^{2}
As such, they practically stated to their readers that Galileo was right.
For the MGX, the figures for the area of the path, latitude (41deg. 46'), wavelength of the light, speed of light, and the expected fringe shifts are well known.
Expected fringe shift: 0.2364
Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005
Then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be easily computed.
By having made the outrageous claim that the above formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, Albert Michelson put an end to any debate on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism.
Modern day ring laser interferometers also feature the same formula, while the physicists running the experiment are claiming that it is the Sagnac formula.
That is why the author of the video finds himself facing the same conundrum.
Sungenis and Bennett, each geocentrist, the author of the video, CANNOT claim that it is the ether which is rotating above the surface of the Earth, since THEY ACCEPT that the formula published by Michelson is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula (exactly as Sungenis and Bennett did on page 745 of their treatise).
Encasing one arm of the interferometer in lead will result in Hammar's experiment, which then will have the heliocentrists claim that there is no ether entrapment.
Few scientists, especially including all of the geocentrists, understand that the MGX put an end in 1925 to any debate on heliocentrism vs. geocentrism.
If the heliocentrists are told that the formula published by Michelson is wrong, as a last attempt to provide any kind of an explanation for the MGX, all they have to do is respond: "show us the correct formula then", "go ahead and derive the right formula". They do this because they know that if Einstein, Lorentz, Michelson, Pauli, Langevin, Post were not able to derive the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, no one else will.
Unless the geocentrists come up with the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, there isn't any debate at all: the heliocentrists win hands down, since they claim that the formula published by Michelson is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula which measures rotation.
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.Yes!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.No, he does not! Here read again exactly what he wrote and not what you read into it:
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).Agreed, "effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ".
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:No! It is not the Coriolis effect.
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
Sungenis is christian apologetic and Bennet is speculative fiction writer. Good to know from who sandokhan gets his information.While Robert Sungenis is a strong Geocentrist but he is very much against the very idea of a Flat Earth.
The formula used in laser optics is the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation; however, the counterpropagating beams of light in an interferometers is a SAGNAC EFFECT experiment.No, you are the one who does not understand. The 2 effects are the same.
The author of the video does not understand that such an experiment, where an arm of the interferometer was encased in lead, has already been done a long time ago:
A laser ring gyroscope is fully equipped to register/record TWO TYPES OF ROTATIONAL MOTIONS: either the ether drift rotationAs the aether doesn't exist, it is completely incapable of doing so.
has registered ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.As that is all there is to detect, as that Coriolis effect is the Sagnac effect.
The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.No it doesn't. There is no phase difference for the clockwise path. Just a time taken.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):Again, these should be times, there is no negative here. You need to add the 2 times.
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
-l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
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=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}(c + v_{1}-c + v_{1})/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})+l_{2}(c - v_{2}-c - v_{2})/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
=2*l_{1}v_{1}/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})-2*l_{2}v_{2}/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
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=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}(c + v_{1}-c + v_{1})/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})+l_{2}(c - v_{2}-c - v_{2})/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
=2*l_{1}v_{1}/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})-2*l_{2}v_{2}/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
The RE are dodging the very definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT.No, that would be you, repeatedly.
The SAGNAC EFFECT is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotationNotice the key part? ROTATION!
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:Notice how there is nothing in there to do with rotation?
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
A stationary loop does not reveal the SAGNAC EFFECT.I know. It provides a baseless to start with.
The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.Yes, and as we are dealing with times, i.e. the time taken for the light to propagate, the sign will be positive.
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:No, that would be you, where you also have the opposite sign for the same direction.
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:That isn't adding. That is subtracting. Do you know the difference?
l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
I am going to explain the entire phenomenon using even more detailsYou mean spam with even more nonsense.
I am going to explain the entire phenomenon using even more details, so that everyone here will understand, once and for all, the correct description of the SAGNAC EFFECT.We understand perfectly, thank you, but I'm afraid that your derivation of the "CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA" is obviously incorrect.
The RE standard for the Sagnac effect:We are not dealing with "TWO LOOPS". Mathpages simply draws the light paths separate for clarity.
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Can everyone understand the mechanism?
Opposite directions, therefore WE SUBSTRACT THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME TRAVEL.
Moreover, we are dealing with TWO LOOPS.
Can everyone understand that the differences in time travel have to be subtracted?
The experimental possibilities with regard to the optical effects of the rotation of the Earth lie in another direction, to wit in the phase retardation in an optical circuit (i.e., closed light path) as in the well-known laboratory experiment of Sagnac with a small spinning interferometer as our system S.And he proceeds to derive the Sagnac effect!
The corresponding formula used by Sagnac and before him by Michelson (Phil. Mag. vol. 2, 1904, p. 716-719) who actually proposed but never carried
out a terrestrial experiment of the kind here aimed at, can be most simply deduced in the following way.
Sagnac phase component for the clockwise path: 2πR(1/(c - v))What on earth are those expressions? You call them "phase components" but the dimensions are of time delays.
Sagnac phase component for the counterclockwise path: -2πR(1/(c + v))
This is the correct way to derive the Sagnac formula:So what is wrong with the Mathpages derivation? Leading to (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif).
The continuous clockwise loop has a positive sign +Sure, you have (c - v) and (c + v) but both are still positive time delays that you are subtracting.
The continuous counterclockwise loop has a negative sign -
Good.
That is, if we want to find out the difference in travel times (opposite directions) we must substract them.
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.Why TWO LOOPS? It is simply light propagated in two directions around the one loop.
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)
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.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:No you need the total time around the clockwise path, (A > D > C > B > A) so you must add the time delay in each leg.
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.
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.
We substracted the time differences the first time around for the interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometric center.You are igoring the time delays in the "vertical, or north south, segments" but that is probably acceptable as they should be the same if they follow meridians.
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.
Very simple, and at the same time we are dealing with a LOOP, as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
-l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:
l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:But your making that second term in each negative is quite incorrect.
l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:
l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:No, it cannot be correct.
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
By contrast, what Michelson did is to remove the SIGN from each loop, in effect nullifying the very definition of the Sagnac effect: he compared two different sides, not the two loops, thus he obtained the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.Nope! Sagnac, Michelson, Silberstein and Mathpages all got it right and derived the Sagnac effect but you made a simple mistake and ended with an impossible result.
The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT are two very different phenomena, one is a physical effect while the other one is an electromagnetic effect: two different phenomena require two different formulas.Agreed!
A beautiful and striking generalization of the Sagnac effect formula:Where is the term for rotation in your formula?
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
Everything you want to know about the universe in just one formula: the most important formula in physics, by far.
The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351
Do you understand the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT?Yes. Do you?
You are trolling the upper forums.No it is not and Grigorii B. Malykin, Vera I. Pozdnyakova do not ever claim that he does.
And before going on I must stress that all through Dr Silberstein is deriving nothing other than the Sagnac effect, though he presents fringes not time - either is OK.
It is a well known fact of science that Dr. Silberstein derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.Perfectly well, thank you!
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.No, Dr. Silberstein derives the curved light paths without reference to or even mentioning the Coriolis effect though it is, in effect, the Coriolis effect.
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.
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.
Here is another reference, explicitly deriving the CORIOLIS EFFECT, same formula as that published by Dr. Silberstein:I'm perfectly aware of that paper but I'll not go into it now.
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams (http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071)
It can easily be seen to be incorrect by simply centring the loop over the equatorSure it's a joke, ON YOU! YOU claimed that "The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics" but it doesn't work!
Is this supposed to be a joke?
The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351
If you now have equal radii and equal velocities, the old Sagnac formula comes into play at once.Really? Your "Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics" needs an exception in the first trial!
https://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)."
On page 298 there are two DIFFERENT derivations, a fact quite obvious for anyone but yourself.Which in no way makes them different things. You can have many derivations for the same thing.
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=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}(c + v_{1}-c + v_{1})/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})+l_{2}(c - v_{2}-c - v_{2})/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
=2*l_{1}v_{1}/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})-2*l_{2}v_{2}/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
For a stationary loop there is no difference in transit times.I know. Why do you need to keep repeating this?
NO SAGNAC EFFECT AT ALL.Yes, that is correct. Your formula is not the Sagnac effect at all.
Sagnac effect = the rotation of the interferometer
The nearest result from Professor Yeh seems to be:
By contrast the formula derived by me and proven to be correct by Professor Yeh is this:
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
My analysis is correct, as also proven by Professor Yeh.
A beautiful and striking generalization of the Sagnac effect formula:Obviously your diagram came from the Conspiracy of light, Michelson-Gale Interferometer Simulator (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/Michelson-Gale.htm).
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
Everything you want to know about the universe in just one formula: the most important formula in physics, by far.
My formula is totally up to date.Did you seriously think that we didn't know the difference between the two?
"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 experiment performed by Professor Yeh, one of the top experts in the world in laser optics, which confirms the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT formula:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
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
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=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}/(c - v_{1})-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})+l_{2}/(c + v_{2})-l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
=l_{1}(c + v_{1}-c + v_{1})/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})+l_{2}(c - v_{2}-c - v_{2})/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
=2*l_{1}v_{1}/(c^{2} - v_{1}^{2})-2*l_{2}v_{2}/(c^{2} - v_{2}^{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
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:
l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
It is nigh time to welcome both rabinoz and jackblack as flat earth believers.No. It is nigh time for you to start addressing the issues raised, rather than repeatedly ignoring them and spouting the same refuted nonsense.
The SAGNAC EFFECT can detect LINEAR/UNIFORM/TRANSLATIONAL MOTION as well.No it can't.
Sagnac effect = the rotation of the interferometer
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'.
If you can't do the derivation correctly for a stationary loopNo I didn't.
But you just stated the opposite:
so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)Technically correct. That is because it completely ignoring 2 of the arms. This would only be the case when arm 2 and arm 4 have a length of 0.
It can't be.
Now, you have TWO OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, while you assign the SAME SIGNYes, because they are times taken.
What in effect you are saying is this:No, that is what you have.
A > D > C combined with A > B.
NO LOOP AT ALL.
Sagnac effect while in uniform/translational/linear motion is a proven fact.No it isn't.
Can everyone understand that the differences in time travel have to be substracted?No, we need to find the difference in travel time.
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 differencesNo we don't.
A nice simple example, consider a single arc, where the light merely propagates along it, back and forth, so the area of the "loop" would be 0.
This means going around the loop is the same in each direction.
This means it will produce NO sagnac effect.
And this remains true regardless of where this "loop" is placed.
Now lets try 2 arcs, one at R1 and one at R2, where the sections connecting the 2 arcs are along the radii.
What this means is that going between them is the same for both directions.
In each one you have it going to the inner arc along a radii, and going to the outer arc along a radii, so the path length and time taken will be equal for those sections.
The only thing giving rise to a difference will be the sections along the arc.
and that is only for his Phase Conjugate Mirror fibre optic gyroscope so is totally irrelevant here!YOU claim that:
And I notice in your latest post that you again show that you don't know the difference between a normal Sagnac Loop and Dr. P. Yeh's Phase Conjugate Mirror fibre optic gyroscope!
BOTH THE PHASE-CONJUGATE MIRROR AND THE REGULAR MIRRORS LEAD TO THE VERY SAME RESULTS; ONE,.Sure the PCM Fibre OPtic Gyroscope both measure rotation but only YOU seem to claim that the expressions for delay are the same!
Optical phase conjugation: principles, techniques, and applications Guang S. He (http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~cvijayan/opc-review.pdf)
You mean I also have to explain the physics of the phase-conjugate mirror to you?No you do not! You have to answer the above.
Let us see just how easy it is to catch jackblack lying:You mean lets see how easy it is to lie and pretend I am lying.
So, you are admitting that in the case of rotation the only thing giving rise to a difference will be the arms l1 and l2.In that particular case, where it is an annular sector, not a rectangular loop.
Yet, you are asking for a stationary loop which is not the SAGNAC EFFECT.Again, I am asking for it as a baseline.
Sure, for the case being discussed here we have rotation (MGX).Sure but only relative "uniform/translational/linear motion" never yet any measured absolute "uniform/translational/linear motion".
Sagnac effect while in uniform/translational/linear motion is a proven fact.
Professor Ruyong Wang, in two well-designed experiments showed unambiguously that an identical Sagnac effect appearing in uniform radial motion occurs in linear inertial motion.Yes, but all those are just segments of the fibre and a Wang himself says.
He tested the travel-time difference between two counter-propagating light beams in uniformly moving fiber.
The travel-time difference was found to be:
Δt = 2vΔL/c^2
where ΔL is the length of the fiber segment moving with the source and detector at a v, whether the segment was moving uniformly or circularly.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)As I said, the "difference of two counterpropagating light beams" in a loop of fibre.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)
"For a circular path of radius R, the difference between the different time intervals can also be represented as Δt = 2vl/c^2, where v = ΩR is the speed of the circular motion and l = 2πR is the circumference of the circle.
The travel-time difference of two counterpropagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform.
In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c^2."None of this is measuring absolute "uniform/translational/linear motion".
<< There's no point in repeating the same old. >>
He does describe a test in the conclusion but says it "can be repeated and the one-way Sagnac experiment can be conducted using the PCM".7. CONCLUSIONSThe phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment can be repeated and the one-way Sagnac experiment can be conducted using the PCM. We can expect that the phase shift is φ = 4πvL/cλ in the one-way Sagnac experiment with path length L and speed v, even with an increasingly larger radius of the rotation.
Based on these and the experimental fact of the generalized Sagnac effect, it is very important to examine whether there is the same phase shift for the test of the one-way speed of light and the phase-conjugate first-order experiment in a system moving uniformly in a straight line. The sensitivities of these experiments are very high.
My formula is totally up to date.
My formula is totally up to date.
This is not about formula. You are out of date with most of your sources. And if you quote some contemporary ones they don't support your ideas and sometimes contradict with your earlier and outdated sources. You just quote them for... I don't know for what reasons.
Let us see just how easy it is to catch jackblack lying:
A nice simple example, consider a single arc, where the light merely propagates along it, back and forth, so the area of the "loop" would be 0.
This means going around the loop is the same in each direction.
This means it will produce NO sagnac effect.
And this remains true regardless of where this "loop" is placed.
Now lets try 2 arcs, one at R1 and one at R2, where the sections connecting the 2 arcs are along the radii.
What this means is that going between them is the same for both directions.
In each one you have it going to the inner arc along a radii, and going to the outer arc along a radii, so the path length and time taken will be equal for those sections.
The only thing giving rise to a difference will be the sections along the arc.
So, you are admitting that in the case of rotation the only thing giving rise to a difference will be the arms l1 and l2.
Exactly what I said repeatedly.
Yet, you are asking for a stationary loop which is not the SAGNAC EFFECT.
You are trolling the upper forums.
To find the total travel time we need to add up the individual travel times. There are no time differences here.
Certainly there are time differences, different transit times, since we are dealing with two arms which feature different velocities and different lengths.
YOU STILL DO NOT HAVE TWO LOOPS, which is the SAGNAC EFFECT DEFINITION.
I win.
To assign a negative time you would be saying that the light is travelling backwards in time as it propagates along the loop.
You don't have a loop and there is no negative time.
You simply do not understand the SAGNAC EFFECT.
The RE standard for the Sagnac effect:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel the same inertial distance at the same speed, so they will arrive at the end point simultaneously. This is illustrated in the left-hand figure below.
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image001.gif)
If the interferometer is being rotated, both pulses begin with an initial separation of 2piR from the end point, so the difference between the travel times is:
(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
Opposite directions, therefore WE SUBSTRACT THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME TRAVEL.
Moreover, we are dealing with TWO LOOPS.
Can everyone understand that the differences in time travel have to be substracted?
This is the correct way to derive the Sagnac formula:
Sagnac phase component for the clockwise path:
2πR(1/(c - v))
Sagnac phase component for the counterclockwise path:
-2πR(1/(c + v))
The continuous clockwise loop has a positive sign +
The continuous counterclockwise loop has a negative sign -
Good.
That is, if we want to find out the difference in travel times (opposite directions) we must substract them.
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
l_{1} is the upper arm.
l_{2} 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
-l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:
l_{2}/(c - v_{2})
-l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:
l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1})
TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.
If we change the sign of the second term/phase component to +, that is:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1})
l_{2}/(c + v_{2})
then, we no longer have a LOOP, and moreover we are using the wrong sign for the direction of the second transit time; each transit time has a different direction, hence we must use opposite signs to correctly designate them in our analysis.
Let us remember the very defintion of the Sagnac effect: two loops are required to properly derive the formula.
Now, to obtain the final answer, WE SUBSTRACT THE TOTAL TIME DIFFERENCES FOR EACH PATH, since we are dealing with a counterclockwise path and a clockwise path, if we want the time phase, we need to substract the total time differences for each LOOP. Each loop has a different direction, as such it must have a different sign assigned to it.
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):
{l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})} - (-){l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1})} = {l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})} + {l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1})}
Rearranging terms:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1}) + {l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})} =
2(v_{1}l_{1} + v_{2}l_{2})/c^{2}
Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ_{2} - φ_{1}) = 4π(R_{1}L_{1} + R_{2}L_{2})Ω/λc = 4π(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R_{1}L_{1} + R_{2}L_{2})Ω/c^{2} = 2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
A stationary loop does not involve the Sagnac effect. For the Sagnac effect only arms l1 and l2 come into play, as simple as this. Only the arms involved in the rotation analysis are used, and the Sagnac effect has nothing to do with a stationary interferometer. You are trolling the upper forums, desperately trying to avoid the final conclusion: I am right, you are wrong.
The analysis for the Sagnac effect is completely different than for a stationary interferometer, yet this very simple fact seems to escape your attention.
According to your "reasoning" if the loop is stationary, it takes no time for the light to travel arm 1 and arm 3 as the light magically moves backwards in arm 3.
We are not concerned here AT ALL with the stationary case: my analysis only applies to the rotational case. In the SAGNAC EFFECT, only arms l1 and l2 come into play to provide the time differences: we are now rotating the interferometer. What you are stating to your readers is that you do not understand the workings of the Sagnac effect.
With my derivation you have 2 light paths, one path goes around A>D>C>B>A, with each component adding time taken (but with the vertical arms ignored).
The other path goes A>B>C>D>A.
This produces the 2 times provided:
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c - v2)
You are lying through your teeth jack, and that is not nice.
What is you have is this:
Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A
YOU ARE DISREGARDING THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT IN FULL VIEW.
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
You are comparing two sides, NOT TWO LOOPS.
You admitted that those beams have opposite directions.
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 you have opposite directions, you must use different signs.
A humongous error on your part.
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.
This is meant to be a time difference, so it amounts to one path of light, with a time of:
l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2)
and a second path with a time of:
l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2)
THOSE ARE NOT TWO LOOPS, BUT TWO SEGMENTS.
I am not comparing two segments at all, you are.
The correct way is to compare two loops.
The definition of the Sagnac effect involves two loops.
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 +
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):
{l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})} - (-){l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1})} = {l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})} + {l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1})}
Rearranging terms:
l_{1}/(c - v_{1}) - l_{1}/(c + v_{1}) + {l_{2}/(c - v_{2}) - l_{2}/(c + v_{2})} =
2(v_{1}l_{1} + v_{2}l_{2})/c^{2}
Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:
φ = -2(φ_{2} - φ_{1}) = 4π(R_{1}L_{1} + R_{2}L_{2})Ω/λc = 4π(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R_{1}L_{1} + R_{2}L_{2})Ω/c^{2} = 2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
My formula is in complete agreement with the formula published by Professor Yeh in the Journal of Optics Letters.
Your formula is in complete agreement with the published CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams
http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The final formula is this:
4AΩsinΦ/c^2
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.
Is Gauss' Easter formula a lie?
If not, then I am not lying about history.
According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics, the ones in question here, the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.
So far, no lies on my part.Except basically every statement you have made int he thread.
My global SAGNAC FORMULA is totally proven by the fact that Professor Yeh's formula was published in one of the best journals in the world.Except for one minor detail. Prof Pochi Yeh's Sagnac delay is for a device with a Phase Conjugate Mirror and yours isn't!
The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanationsLuckily the abstract is in English.
Abstract: Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
The fact that yet these scientists have to come to their senses and realize that the fact that terrestrial gravity cannot be a force of attraction, is something else, it is their responsibility as true scientists to explore the consequences and direct conclusions of their findings which obviously contradict Newton's law of gravitation.Those "scientists have . . come to their senses"! It's you that needs to wake u.
The US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division, thus confirms my formula.No it does not confirm your formula! Your's is simply an incorrect formula for the Sagnac delay in a passive loop.
There is nothing else to discuss here.Oh yes there is! Read the OP again.
Bob Knodel is a famous (?) Youtube flat earther who tried an experiment to prove the earth was fixed - non rotating. He obtained a UD$20,000 laser ring gyroscope, an extremely accurate device, to show that the earth was not spinning. The gyroscope registered a 15 degree per hour drift.There is no mention of the Sagnac effect!
Does this prove a rotating earth? Or like Bob Knodel said, did it measure the "heavenly energies"?
If the gyroscope did measure a 15 degree per hour rotating earth, can this be possible still with a flat earth and local sun-moon circling system?
EMCORE-OrionTM EN-1000 Micro Inertial Navigation System (MINAV) (http://emcore.com/products/emcore-orion-en1000-micro-inertial-navigation-system-minav/)Who cares whether these devices use the Sagnac effect or the Fred ;D effect?
The EMCORE-OrionTM EN-1000 high-precision Micro Inertial Navigation System (MINAV) is developed primarily for applications where navigation aids such as GPS are unavailable or denied.
The EMCORE-OrionTM MINAV is a state-of-the-art, fiber optic gyro-based Inertial Navigation System incorporating EMCORE’s proprietary integrated optics devices to enhance performance, providing standalone aircraft grade navigator performance in 1/3 the size of competing systems. . . . . In a GPS denied environment the EN-1000 MINAV will gyrocompass to approximately 1 milliradian.
You derived a formula which has NO LOOPS, and is a comparison of TWO SEGMENTS.No, I derived a formula which has 2 counter-propagating beams of light travelling around a loop, focusing on the two segments you have been focusing on, deriving the difference in time required for the beams to travel.
Except for one minor detail. Prof Pochi Yeh's Sagnac delay is for a device with a Phase Conjugate Mirror and yours isn't!Oh, yes there is! I can inform everyone of your errors!
My formula has the LOOPS, and the CORRECT SIGNS.
And there is nothing that you can do about it.
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:For Professor Yeh's phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyroscope:
2(V_{1}L_{1} + V_{2}L_{2})/c^{2}
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 [2]. In this article, Silberstein discusses Michelson's proposed experiment and through calculations of his own demonstrated that the time difference expected in such an experiment would be double what Michelson suggested.But what I find so telling is that you claim everyone else, including those that deny relativity, is wrong and that only you are right.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After taking all these factors into account, the expected fringe shift becomes:(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MandG4.jpg)
That is incorrect and has nothing to do with, "According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics."
Are you actually saying that the RE equations of orbital mechanics DO NOT predict that the vernal equinox for the year 325 AD fell on March 21?
You have 23 hours to modify your statement.
Otherwise, you are claiming that you are a flat earth believer.
If you made an error, and now you realize that actually those equations MUST PREDICT that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD, then you have a huge problem.
Not only does Gauss' Easter formula directly contradict this statement, but also you have to deal with another fact.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1935048#msg1935048
Bob Knodel is a famous (?) Youtube flat earther who tried an experiment to prove the earth was fixed - non rotating. He obtained a UD$20,000 laser ring gyroscope, an extremely accurate device, to show that the earth was not spinning. The gyroscope registered a 15 degree per hour drift.So this post on Quora.com might be of interest: What is the reaction of flat Earthers to the documentary "Behind the Curve"? (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-reaction-of-flat-Earthers-to-the-documentary-Behind-the-Curve) It might indicate what others outside this little place think.
Does this prove a rotating earth? Or like Bob Knodel said, did it measure the "heavenly energies"?
If the gyroscope did measure a 15 degree per hour rotating earth, can this be possible still with a flat earth and local sun-moon circling system?
when Jeran Campanella (of jeranism) tried to prove lack of curvature over a body of water by shining light through large panels with holes cut in them. Wouldn’t you know it, his test proved curvature, and as the cameras were rolling, all he could say was “Interesting”. Later he denied the results.
Flat Earth: Rob Skiba Proves Globe by Sly Sparkane | Rob Skiba Proves Globe - DEBUNKED byRob Skiba | Flat Earth: Rob Skiba Proves Globe b by Sly Sparkane |
That is incorrect and has nothing to do with, "According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics."
Are you actually saying that the RE equations of orbital mechanics DO NOT predict that the vernal equinox for the year 325 AD fell on March 21?
You have 23 hours to modify your statement.
Otherwise, you are claiming that you are a flat earth believer.
If you made an error, and now you realize that actually those equations MUST PREDICT that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD, then you have a huge problem.
Not only does Gauss' Easter formula directly contradict this statement, but also you have to deal with another fact.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1935048#msg1935048
Has the ROMU Ring laser facility that precisely measures Earth’s rotation convinced any Flat Earthers that the theory is wrong? If not, why not? (https://www.quora.com/Has-the-ROMU-Ring-laser-facility-that-precisely-measures-Earth-s-rotation-convinced-any-Flat-Earthers-that-the-theory-is-wrong-If-not-why-not)
Answer #3:
No. In a recent documentary some flat earthers spent $20.000 to buy a super-accurate gyroscope, and discovered that in fact, the measurement they got proved that the earth was rotating, exactly as much as the heliocentric model says.
Their reaction? That they had try to some other way to prove that the earth doesn’t rotate, because that way didn’t work.
No arguments can convince them, because flat earthery is not a science, it’s a mental problem.
My real question with this, which really challenges my beliefs about FEers, were they actually stupid enough to think it wouldn't happen?They probably, saw all those "toy" mechanical gyroscopes supposedly proving a stationary Earth so thought they would prove it once and for all.
I had always assumed these guys new their claims were BS and were just conning people (and that dishonesty is plainly visible in some videos).
Was he hoping the gyroscope wasn't accurate enough to measure the drift, or did he actually believe his nonsense of Earth allegedly not rotating?
but still doesn't answer the question as to why sando is so adamant taht the earth is stationary floating in aether?
Wasn't the MM experiment done because they didn't know space was actually mostly empty space (scepti's 2cents not necessary)?
so what's the deal?!
what does MM have to do with flatness?
Re: The Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment « Reply #3 on: February 24, 2019, 08:52:22 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79758.msg2149739#msg2149739)'Nuff said but when did that stop me ;)?
Have you ever seen me address the fact that the fringe shifts recorded by Michelson and Gale had significant periodic variations? Certainly not.
Why?
Because the RE would then claim that those variations were due to any number of causes (temperature); what matters is that virtually of all of the FE/GE have accepted Michelson's claim that the formula published by him is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which it is not.
Once the claim regarding the SAGNAC EFFECT is accepted, there is nothing else that the FE/GE can do: they have to accept that the average readings of the fringe shifts do indeed satisfy the formula published by Michelson.
You cannot invoke the e/m device at the edge of the Earth: you are forgetting the HAMMAR EXPERIMENT; an arm of the interferometer was encased in lead and no fringe shifts at all were recorded. Then, the RE claimed that there is no aether displacement as well.
Always remember that the MGX and the HX work in tandem.
Aberration of Light (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light)
Aberration is historically significant because of its role in the development of the theories of light, electromagnetism and, ultimately, the theory of special relativity. It was first observed in the late 1600s by astronomers searching for stellar parallax in order to confirm the heliocentric model of the Solar System.
However, it was not understood at the time to be a different phenomenon. In 1727, James Bradley provided a classical explanation for it in terms of the finite speed of light relative to the motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, which he used to make one of the earliest measurements of the speed of light.
However, Bradley's theory was incompatible with 19th century theories of light, and aberration became a major motivation for the aether drag theories of Augustin Fresnel (in 1818) and G. G. Stokes (in 1845), and for Hendrik Lorentz's aether theory of electromagnetism in 1892.
More gobblygook.So you want the short version to
Still doesnt answer the question.
but still doesn't answer the question as to why sando is so adamant that the earth is stationary floating in aether?Nothing!
Wasn't the MM experiment done because they didn't know space was actually mostly empty space (scepti's 2cents not necessary)?
so what's the deal?!
what does MM have to do with flatness?
Re: The Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment « Reply #3 on: February 24, 2019, 08:52:22 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79758.msg2149739#msg2149739)So as far as sandokhan, Flat Earth Sultan and Flat Earth Scientist is concerned, accepting that the laser ring gyroscope does measure the earth's rotation kills the idea of a flat stationary earth stone dead.
Once the claim regarding the SAGNAC EFFECT is accepted, there is nothing else that the FE/GE can do: they have to accept that the average readings of the fringe shifts do indeed satisfy the formula published by Michelson.
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:Hey you're back.
For the FE who do not believe in aether theory, this data can be used immediately to claim that the Earth is stationary.No it can't.
This is the main reason why Michelson inserted this observation data on page 6He stuck it there because that is where it fits.
Aether theory = flat earth theory (pressure gravityAether does not mean flat Earth, not does it mean pressure gravity, nor does FE mean pressure gravity, nor does pressure gravity mean FE.
Thanks
Sando!
Wheres the sando answer?
Come on.
Exactly the point of my previous message: the RE now have to deal with the fact that a few of the readings DO INDEED prove that the Earth is stationary.Then you clearly do not understand English.
So, as far as the MGX goes, if the FE do not want to get involved in very long debates, all they have to do is point out that the MGX registered several readings with no rotation at all.You mean all they have to do is lie through their teeth by completely ignoring loads of results.
eventually the FE will need my formula to claim victory.You mean to lie some more, embarrass themselves and pretend to have victory.
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:And how do you work out that 0.230 fringes is "NO ROTATION OF THE EARTH AT ALL".
(https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf (page 145, page 6 of the pdf document)
For the FE who do not believe in aether theory, this data can be used immediately to claim that the Earth is stationary.
This is because there were fringe shift observations which showed NO CHANGE IN THE LIGHT'S VELOCITY, which proves that the interferometer is STATIONARY, and is not subject to any kind of a rotational motion.
There would be no need to enter into further discussions regarding the Coriolis effect, the Sagnac effect, or aether theory.
The fringe shifts show directly NO ROTATION OF THE EARTH AT ALL.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"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:Quote1. IntroductionThe resolution is quite impressive.
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.QuoteThe 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:QuoteEarth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich 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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:You really can't get any more relevant data? Why do you insist working with 100 years old data and theories when there are more up to date data available. To show how outdated you are?
Conference between #TheRealGlobebusters #TEAMYAHAWASHI #FlatEarth Behind The Curve Star Bob Knodel of Globebusters EXPOSED... 2019 NETFLIX The Limitless Channel |
This is this official trailer:We have people trying to disprove RE by buying an extremely sensitive gyroscope saying it should move 15 degrees every hour if the Earth is a globe—so giddy to prove once and for all it’s flat.
They see it move 15 degrees every hour and instead of maybe, just maybe, the Earth is round, they say, “oh.....gee.....I don’t know what’s going on.....perhaps some effect we don’t know about and we will create out of thin dome air.”
I would like a link to that experiment, thanks.
Bob Knodel & His Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment by FlatEarth.ws |
Bob Knodel of globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST and getting THE BOOT Beyond Flat Earth! by Awake Souls |
High-Accuracy Ring Laser Gyroscopes: Earth Rotation Rate and Relativistic Effects by N Beverini et al (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf)Of course that one in Italy is hardly the thing you might take home.
Abstract. The Gross Ring G is a square ring laser gyroscope, built as a monolithic Zerodur structure with 4 m length on all sides. It has demonstrated that a large ring laser provides a sensitivity high enough to measure the rotational rate of the Earth with a high precision of ∆Ω_{E} < 10^{-8}.
That Laser Gyroscope, costing $20,000, that got Bob Knodel into so much bother was just a little "portable" one.
But, as Crocodile Dundee might have said:
That's not a Laser Gyroscope,
(http://210.65.127.128/ENG/upload/G_Product_Catelog_Images_635659156686535390.jpg)
this is a Laser Gyroscope!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjiqauifuu9ktf3/GINGERino%20apparatus%20in%20the%20underground%20__Gran%20Sasso%20INFN%20laboratories.jpg?dl=1)
That GINGERino ring laser gyro has sides of 3.6 m and can measure rotation with a precision of 2 parts in 10^{6} and later ones can achieve 1 part in 10^{8}.
Have a look atQuoteHigh-Accuracy Ring Laser Gyroscopes: Earth Rotation Rate and Relativistic Effects by N Beverini et al (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf)Of course that one in Italy is hardly the thing you might take home.
Abstract. The Gross Ring G is a square ring laser gyroscope, built as a monolithic Zerodur structure with 4 m length on all sides. It has demonstrated that a large ring laser provides a sensitivity high enough to measure the rotational rate of the Earth with a high precision of ∆Ω_{E} < 10^{-8}.
FECore apparently has some series leaks in their midst. There are a couple of videos on Youtube discussing Bob Knodel, FECore, and Globebusters. In these descriptions for these videos the channel has these links. They’re email chains and Skype histories that show their attempts to find a way to explain why their gyro shows a drift...not related to earths rotation that is.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/543661178858111006/550393458117050395/bobdemise.jpg
https://pastebin.com/tYT0H0XE
On Bob’s channel, Globebuster, Bob had said that they put their FOG in a Helmholtz coil and it showed no drift at all and it “effectively shutdown” the gyro. From the info in those links it appears the wasn’t completely honest about that. Additionally, for some reason both of Globebusters channels on Youtube have removed all their content. I have no idea why.
Does anyone have any information about the ring laser gyroscope tests mentioned in "Behind the Curve" other than the trivial amount shown?Other than their own emails and Skype histories already linked, I don't think you'll find much more. They've even cleaned out their Youtube channels. FECore has a website and a Youtube channel but there isn't much more there.
I was concerned about a potential error (way back in the second post of this thread) which I don't think anyone here has yet brought up, so I'm looking for any other info about the experiment itself.
Thanks!
So no one has yet addressed the issue that a single axis RLG or FOG as shown in stills during Behind the Curve could not possibly measure a rotation of 15 deg/hr?Apparently not but that's Bob Knodel's problem.
So no one has yet addressed the issue that a single axis RLG or FOG as shown in stills during Behind the Curve could not possibly measure a rotation of 15 deg/hr?
So no one has yet addressed the issue that a single axis RLG or FOG as shown in stills during Behind the Curve could not possibly measure a rotation of 15 deg/hr?While it can be used to either directly measure with the appropriate angle or indirectly measure with math, reading some of the conversation they are using a 3-axis gyro.
Can someone call/write to Bob Knodel and let him know that the mystery has been solved?Contact him yourself! You'd have much more in common with Bob Knodel that anyone else here.
BK recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift rotating above the surface of the Earth.In the meantime you could brush of Bob Knodel's ideas on aether, Airy's failure and Einstein etc, etc in this:
Here is the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula/frequency for a SQUARE RING LASER GYROSCOPE:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2153966#msg2153966
4L(v_{1} + v_{2})/c^{2}
For the same interferometer, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is:
4Aω/c^{2}
Here is the comparison between the SAGNAC EFFECT frequency and the CORIOLIS EFFECT frequency for the ring laser gyroscope located at Gran Sasso, Italy (GINGERino experiment):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2154991#msg2154991
The SAGNAC EFFECT frequency is larger by a factor of 2,616,666.666 times than the CORIOLIS EFFECT frequency.
Ring Laser Gyro, Sagnac, Aether & the Motionless Earth GLOBEBUSTERS by God's Flat Earth |
I thought Bob said that the 15 degrees per hour was after correcting for latitude.
But, if you tipped the gyro up to point its sensitive axis toward the north pole, wouldn't it read the 15 degrees per hour regardless of your location?
I thought Bob said that the 15 degrees per hour was after correcting for latitude.
But, if you tipped the gyro up to point its sensitive axis toward the north pole, wouldn't it read the 15 degrees per hour regardless of your location?
What is the rationale for "correcting for latitude" on a flat earth?
And presumably doesn't rotate at all on the equator.
But there is a Sagnac delay, right on the line of the equator:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260796097_Light_Transmission_and_the_Sagnac_Effect_on_the_Rotating_Earth
"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)."
The Sagnac effect is caused by ether drift.Fascinating!
Someone has to communicate these facts to BK, otherwise he won't understand the readings of the RLG.Agreed.
According to Professor K.U. Schreiber (Technical University of Munich): "At the equator, however, the light beam wouldn't even notice that the Earth is turning."
However, the experiment carried out right on the line of the equator says otherwise.
So, it depends on the equipment used.
Here is what pilots have to say:
http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=902
By definition, a mechanical gyro's axis of rotation is moved by the CORIOLIS FORCE.
By Michelson's definition, the time phase difference of a RLG is caused by the SAGNAC EFFECT.
And yet physicists are using the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula to describe the SAGNAC EFFECT:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338054/measuring-earth-rotation-rate-about-its-axis-with-gyroscopes
Can someone call/write to Bob Knodel and let him know that the mystery has been solved?Pretty sure he already knows it has been solved. He has measured the rotation of Earth, confirming that it rotates, and that he is not level with the axis of rotation, i.e. Earth is round.
Here is the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula/frequency for a SQUARE RING LASER GYROSCOPE:You repeating the same nonsense won't magically make it true.
This is the Coriolis effect formula:Which is the exact same thing as the Sagnac effect formula.
dt = 4ωA/c^2
This is an accepted fact of science.
And presumably doesn't rotate at all on the equator.The Sagnac delay is proportional the dot product of the area of the Sagnac loop and axis of rotation.
But there is a Sagnac delay, right on the line of the equator:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260796097_Light_Transmission_and_the_Sagnac_Effect_on_the_Rotating_Earth
"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)."
Let's put your word to the test.Fine, lets put my word to the test.
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:And you seem to just read what you want and ignore the rest.
When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves.
Abstract
Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
Here's the abstract from the "highest level of science" paper Sando just cited:QuoteAbstract
Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
[irrelevant nonsense removed]
Once you mention the word AREA you are dealing with the CORIOLIS EFFECT.Incorrect! Every expression for the Sagnac effect has the loop area either explicitly or implicitly.
Every expression for the Sagnac effect has the loop area either explicitly or implicitly.Forget it! I'm not interested in your repeatedly posting your totally incorrect Sagnac formula.
There is no area whatsoever involved in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.
<< Make another thread, thank you, Mr Sandokhan! >>
<< Make another thread, thank you, Mr Sandokhan! >>
Your derivation leads to this formula:Yes, the correct formula which is more commonly known as the Sagnac effect formula, as they are one in the same.
dt = 4ωA/c^2
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Trolling the upper forums won't help you anymore.You are the one trolling here, and it has never helped you.
<< If you want to discuss the details of the Sagnac effect make your own thread! >>Trolling the upper forums won't help you anymore.
<< If you want to discuss the details of the Sagnac effect make your own thread! >>Stop spamming this thread! It's about "Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope" not Sandokhan theories on the Sagnac effect.
The US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division, is using my formula.Stop lying.
<< If you want to discuss the details of the Sagnac effect make your own thread! >>Stop spamming this thread! It's about "Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope" not Sandokhan theories on the Sagnac effect.
BK's RLG registered a 15 degree per hour drift.That's his words and the words of others of the Globebusters YouTube site.
The RE on youtube are mocking his experiment, saying all the while "I told you so".The most vicious attacks come from other flat earthers, especially his own Globebusters group. Take a look at:
Someone has to inform BK that he recorded the Coriolis effect of the ether drift, and that his RLG did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT.Well, it looks like you are the someone! No flat earther would take any notice of me on YouTube ::). I'm not exactly flavour-of-month ::).
[more garbage preaching]Like I said, if all you want to do is preach, do it in the believers only section.
BK registered the Coriolis effect of the ether drift. This is a basic fact which all RE and FE on youtube must understand.No.
By the way, do you know who wrote this, "Standard fiber-optic gyros are Sagnac interferometers that are inherently insensitive to reciprocal phase changes and sensitive to nonreciprocal phase changes"?
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?
ROTATION (SAGNAC EFFECT) is a nonreciprocal phase change, which produces a net phase shift.Answer the question! Do you know who wrote this, "Standard fiber-optic gyros are Sagnac interferometers that are inherently insensitive to reciprocal phase changes and sensitive to nonreciprocal phase changes"?
A nonreciprocal phase shift, in an interferometer, is due to the Sagnac effect ( the phase shift produced by the Sagnac effect is nonreciprocal).
Someone has to inform BK that he recorded the Coriolis effect of the ether drift, and that his RLG did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT.Well, it looks like you are the someone! No flat earther would take any notice of me on YouTube ::). I'm not exactly flavour-of-month ::).
This means that the Sagnac effect remains proportional to the area and angular velocity
Well, it looks like you are the someone! No flat earther would take any notice of me on YouTubeGo and do it yourself! I've no interest in resurrecting Bob Knodel or Globebusters! It's not my problem.
My comments on two different youtube videos, relating to the BK experiment, were deleted within half an hour.
So, if someone here wants to contact BK, or even awakesouls, that would be great.
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.Good, I don't need one. You do.
Oh, you mean Appendix 5.1 where I, McMichael and Pochi Yeh says:This means that the Sagnac effect remains proportional to the area and angular velocity
This means that the Sagnac effect remains proportional to the area and angular velocity
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.
SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA
(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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro
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)
NO AREA INVOLVED IN THIS SAGNAC EXPERIMENT.
Standard fiber-optic gyros are Sagnac interferometers that are inherently insensitive to reciprocal phase changes and sensitive to nonreciprocal phase changes.So we know that Standard fiber-optic gyros are Sagnac interferometers as we always said they were.
The phase difference measured by the interference at detector D,Now 4π(R_{1}L_{1} + R_{2}L_{2})Ω/λc = 2(A_{1}n_{1} + A_{2}n_{2})Ω/λc and that looks like the Sagnac phase shift is proportion to (an area) x (an angular velocity)!
φ = -2(φn_{r2} - φn_{r1}) = 4π(R_{1}L_{1} + R_{2}L_{2})Ω/λc, (3)
Laser gyros employ the sagnac effect to detect rotation of the gyro.
Laser gyros employ the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for a SAGNAC interferometer.
The test detected a rotation.
The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula detects a physical modification of the path of the light beams: for rotation you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
It is the rotating earth that is the cause of the observed coriolis effect.
Two possible causes for the CORIOLIS EFFECT: either the Earth rotates around its own axis OR the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth.
To discern which is which, you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
If the earth was stationary, a real force would have to be applied to objects with mass for them to describe the observed curved paths. How does the ether apply this force?
Galaev ether drift experiments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791
Allais effect, the path of the rotating pendulum is drastically modified by ether waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
You tried this nonsense before.You mean you have tried to escape these facts by spouting a bunch of nonsense?
I'm awkwardly aware that I'm deviating from the topic of Bob Knodel and laser gyros here. After dinner I might start a new threadI have one in the "planning stage" entitled "On the Coriolis Acceleration and the Sagnac Delay".
I have one in the "planning stage" entitled "On the Coriolis Acceleration and the Sagnac Delay".
The first post is intended to be just the definitions and simple derivations, then wait and see.
Bob Knodel is a famous (?) Youtube flat earther who tried an experiment to prove the earth was fixed - non rotating. He obtained a UD$20,000 laser ring gyroscope, an extremely accurate device, to show that the earth was not spinning. The gyroscope registered a 15 degree per hour drift.Yes, that means that Earth IS rotating..15 degrees per 1 hour drift.....
Does this prove a rotating earth? Or like Bob Knodel said, did it measure the "heavenly energies"?
Yes, that means that Earth IS rotating..15 degrees per 1 hour drift.....