The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: SpaceCadet on February 15, 2019, 06:41:00 PM

Title: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on February 15, 2019, 06:41:00 PM
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.

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?




Edit: I see someone has already started a thread with the same information.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on February 15, 2019, 11:01:10 PM
Really? Does no one see the glaring error? Not a lot of actual info, so maybe somebody did it correctly and glossed over the details, but otherwise this entire experiment is totally flawed.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 16, 2019, 04:02:01 AM
An experiment is based on very precise formulas.

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.

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:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031383#msg2031383

A laser ring gyroscope is fully equipped to register/record TWO TYPES OF ROTATIONAL MOTIONS: either the ether drift rotation (CORIOLIS EFFECT) or the rotation of the Earth around its own axis (SAGNAC EFFECT). Each and every interferometer, since 1913, including the Michelson-Gale 1925 experiment, has registered ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on February 16, 2019, 04:50:55 AM
Here we go again. Sandy and his hang up on the Sagnac effect while still ignoring the rest of the post.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Unconvinced on February 17, 2019, 12:55:07 AM
I'm sure the manufactures of laser gyroscopes and their customers will be fascinated to learn that the instruments don't work as advertised.

Has anyone told them?

/sarc
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2019, 01:03:14 AM
I'm sure the manufactures of laser gyroscopes and their customers will be fascinated to learn that the instruments don't work as advertised.

Has anyone told them?

/sarc
I wonder how many unexplained plane crashes have caused by these gyroscopes believing Sandokhan.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 01:22:12 AM
Ring laser gyroscopes measure/detect rotation using a Sagnac interferometer.

Here is one of the best threads ever:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50860.0

They are fully equipped to detect both the CORIOLIS EFFECT (a physical effect on the light beams proportional to the area of the interferometer) and the SAGNAC EFFECT (an electromagnetic effect proportional to the radius of the rotation).

However, it is either/or.

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (existence of the ether drift).

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the SAGNAC EFFECT, then the Earth is rotating (no ether drift).

Since 1913, all interferometers, especially the ring laser gyroscopes have detected ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').

FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4AΩsinΦ/c2

FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2


Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72

THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 17, 2019, 01:38:07 AM
The weird thing is you have these ring laser gyroscopes (RLG)/fiber optic gyroscopes (FOG) embedded in Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) in every commercial airliner on the planet. The system factors in earth rotation/coriolis into its calculations as part of many other earthly/atmospheric calculations for flight/navigation. Every one of those planes and flights are unabashedly dependent on the INS. Yet there is still some notion that it's all wrong. I don't see how, even Zetetically, the observation and experience of all of these successfully navigated flights based upon this technology and calculations is somehow...wrong. I't almost like the thousands of flights everyday reliant on this earth rotational assumption work out of sheer luck and happenstance.

And to Sandy's point, "If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (existence of the ether drift).

Not true. Coriolis is a subset, a byproduct of one of two things:

- Earth rotation
- Aether rotation (Stationary earth)

The presence of Coriolis is not a default to a stationary earth, by any means.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 01:52:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 17, 2019, 02:02:58 AM
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.

Not true as you are not paying attention. It uses its detection of rotation of earth on its axis and as a byproduct can calculate the subset that is the coriolis effect.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 02:23:53 AM
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?

Two very different formulas.


If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (existence of the ether drift).

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the SAGNAC EFFECT, then the Earth is rotating (no ether drift).

Since 1913, all interferometers, especially the ring laser gyroscopes have detected ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').

FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4AΩsinΦ/c2

FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2


Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72

THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 17, 2019, 02:51:42 AM
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?

Incorrect. 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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 03:07:50 AM
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? You cannot detect the rotation of the Earth, UNLESS you are measuring the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Then, let's put your word to the test.

Here is the formula published by the manufacturers of the ring laser gyroscopes:

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

The same formula was put forward in 1925 by Michelson and Gale.

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.

For the MGX, the SAGNAC EFFECT is 21,000 times greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 17, 2019, 03:43:04 AM
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?

Yes.

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.[/i]

If you have an issue with this, perhaps take it up with the airline industry and the folks who devise, engineer and build the Inertial Navigation Systems that are employed on every single commercial plane you fly on.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 04:14:06 AM
They say that ring laser gyroscopes are used to detect the rotation of the Earth, but they are using the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula. In order to detect the rotation of the Earth you need the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

If you have an issue with this, perhaps take it up with the airline industry and the folks who devise, engineer and build the Inertial Navigation Systems that are employed on every single commercial plane you fly on.

The claims they make are based on Michelson's flawed 1925 experiment. He was the first physicist to state that he measured the supposed rotation of the Earth. However, Michelson published the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Since then, each and every physicist/engineer has used the same formula, without giving the entire matter a second thought.

That is, until now.

Here is the GLOBAL/GENERALIZED SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA, the most important formula in physics, since it reveals everything we want to know about the universe:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Unconvinced on February 17, 2019, 08:11:34 AM
Well, this thread went about as expected.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on February 17, 2019, 09:16:28 AM
Fellow cannot get his head out of that cloud he has stuck it in.

No matter what Sandy wants to insinuate with his long diet of copypasta, ring laser gyroscopes still work in all inertia guidance systems they are used in. They still show the orientarion of the air craft with respect to the earth.

So either Sandy is spouting a heap great big  bowl of bovine excrement, or RLGs have been lied to by thu conspiraceh into believeing they can measure orientation with regards to the earth.

Personally, I go with the first one.

The one that detects the earth spinning at 15 degrees an hour.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 12:12:05 PM
ring laser gyroscopes still work in all inertia guidance systems they are used in.

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.

For the MGX, the SAGNAC EFFECT is 21,000 times greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT for the same interferometer.

The one that detects the earth spinning at 15 degrees an hour.

Again, you need to understand basic physics.

You cannot detect the rotation of the Earth UNLESS you are using the SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.

If the RLG detects ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary.

So, what the RLG is actually detecting is the ROTATION OF THE ETHER DRIFT: a CORIOLIS EFFECT.

If you want to prove the rotation of the Earth, you need the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.



Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2019, 06:33:26 PM
ring laser gyroscopes still work in all inertia guidance systems they are used in.

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.
Yes, but I have seen how you derived that and I do not accept it.
If yours is the correct expression for the Sagnac delay how is ot that none of the references support that result?

I would far prefer the analysis by, say, Ludwik Silberstein in his July 1921 paper that starts as:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sl4avvdi4c0ller/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein.jpg?dl=1)

This paper was written at a time when Einstein's GR was not widely accepted and there was still the question of where a fully or partially dragged aether might explain the Sagnac effect.
Note Silberstein's opening words:
"The purpose of the present paper is to investigate some ques­tions concerning light propagation in a uniformly rotating rigid system, such as the Earth, on both the aether theory and the relativity theory."

1) Analysis assuming aether
So he first presents an analysis for a system without GR and including "the rotatory dragging coefficient, κ - 1, at and near the surface of the Earth".
In his analysis, he includes the Coriolis deflection on the light paths between the mirrors, though that turns out to be completely negligible for a Sagnac loop on the earth's surface.

The result he ends up with is: ε = 4κ ῶn σ/(c λ) where: ε is the number of fringes shifter,  κ - 1 is the aether rotatory dragging coefficient, n is the angular velocity normal to the area of the loop and σ is the area of the loop.
And this boils down to exactly the first result that you presented, vis: (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w) if κ = 0 and A ω sin φ is recognised as the same as n σ

2) General Relativistic Analysis on page: 302.
This starts with:
Quote
    2. Let us now try to find out what aspect the same problem assumes from the standpoint of the theory of relativity, the special
and the generalized one.
 It goes without saying that with neither of these theories can there be any question of an aether and its being dragged by the Earth in its daily rotation around its
axis, or in its annual motion around the sun.
And ends up the same result, without any aether dragging coefficient: ε = 4n σ/(c λ) where the symbols have the same significance as before.

The first-order analysis always gives a result where the Sagnac delay in quite independent of the centre of rotation and many reference in effect say as does E. J. POST the Sagnac delay,
          "does not depend on the shape of the surface A;]"
          "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"
As in:
Quote from: Mathpages
2.7  The Sagnac Effect (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm)
(http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)
where A = πR2 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)/(c2 – v2).
Just note, "where A = πR2 is the area enclosed by the loop".

And again in Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) – Published 1 April 1967 (http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf) we have "in which A is the area enclosed by the loop" and
further on in Section III. General Aspects of the Theory, near end p. 478
Quote
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.

Now Ludwik Silberstein only does a first-order analysis, ignoring second order effects and it is possible that these are significant if the centre of rotation is far outside the loop.

But this paper gives a the simple analysis and then a General Relativistic analysis for a loop with the centre of rotation far outside: General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1643.pdf)
He first presents the usual result, without relativistic correction at the start:
                             (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k9ihm45mdja08au/General%20relativistic%20Sagnac%20formula%20revised%20by%20Paolo%20Maraner%20%C2%B7%20Jean-Pierre%20Zendri%20-%20Fig.%201.png?dl=1)

And then, you will be glad to know that they did a general analysis including relativistic effects for a Sagnac Loop rotating about a point a distance R outside the loop.
Here is their result:
                             (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1t6uxf1nw8w6b4/General%20relativistic%20Sagnac%20formula%20revised%20by%20Paolo%20Maraner%20%C2%B7%20Jean-Pierre%20Zendri.png?dl=1)
had they not used the relativistic correction the loop delay would have been independent of the centre of rotation.





Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 10:23:38 PM
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.

Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?

The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.

The next term is O(wr/c)2.

Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?

The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.


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.

You do not even understand the meaning of the symbol O().


There is no such thing as general relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750 (total demolition of STR/GTR)

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:

(http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/annotations/annot1420a.gif)

However, the original set of dynamical Maxwell equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, a variable speed of light:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884



Silberstein's paper first quoted by me, here on this forum, is very clear.

The derivation of the Coriolis effect for light beams is undergraduate level.

Very easy to do.

Two papers which prove that the formula derived by Michelson is the Coriolis effect equation:

Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory

Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921


The quote you provided, pg 298 of the paper, has nothing to do with the Sagnac or the Coriolis effect.

Dr. Silberstein is deriving the equation of the light path in relation to Fermat's principle.

Did you even read the paper?

How then could make such a catastrophic blunder?

He starts the derivation of the Coriolis effect on page 298 at the bottom.

The fact that you CONFUSED and MIXED UP two different situations tells volumes about your miserable training as physicist.


Remember, the CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect.

It relates directly to the area of the interferometer.

In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645

In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503


(https://image.ibb.co/bZAaCy/mgrot4.jpg)

Dr. Silberstein reveals the error committed by M. von Laue in the paper published in 1911:

"Laue seems, by the way, to be under the misapprehension that the light rays relative to the rotating table are straight lines, which they are not."

Dr. Silberstein proved that the effect measured by Sagnac is A PHYSICAL EFFECT, a deflection/inflection of the light beams due to the CORIOLIS FORCE.


Dr. Silberstein is describing the Coriolis effect, whether the lines are straight or not, NOT the electromagnetic effect (the Sagnac effect).

HERE IS THE PROOF THAT DR. SILBERSTEIN DERIVED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT:

One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.


Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.

Dr. Silberstein:

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.


If yours is the correct expression for the Sagnac delay how is ot that none of the references support that result?

What ?!

(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)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

(https://image.ibb.co/h0EPSA/fa.jpg)

The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.

Not even the formal derivation of the Sagnac effect formula is not entirely correct.

(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image001.gif)

(https://image.ibb.co/m909uq/fa2.jpg)

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 -

The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it):

2πR(1/(c - v)) - (-){-2πR(1/(c + v))} = 2πR(1/(c - v)) - (+)2πR(1/(c + v)) = 2πR(1/(c - v)) - 2πR(1/(c + v)) = 2vL/c2


The definition of the Sagnac effect is applied to a closed loop (either circular or a uniform path).

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.

Using the correct definition, we recover not only the error-free formula, but also the precise velocity addition terms.

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)

Practically, A. Michelson received the Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula (published in 1904 and 1887; E.J. Post proved in 1999 that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer).

No other physicist has been able to derive the correct Sagnac formula: for the past 100 years they have been using the wrong formula (the Coriolis effect equation) to describe a very different physical situation.

Here, for the first time, the correct Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation has been derived in a precise manner.


(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)

Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

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.


However, for the SAGNAC EFFECT, we have a single CONTINUOUS CLOCKWISE PATH, and a single CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE PATH, as the definition of the Sagnac effect entails.

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.


We can see at a glance each and every important detail.


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.

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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 17, 2019, 10:47:39 PM
"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."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231153281_The_Sagnac_effect_Correct_and_incorrect_explanations
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2019, 11:32:51 PM
"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.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

to = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: zork on February 18, 2019, 01:04:08 AM
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.

 It really is not about mathematical understanding. Your walls of text are meaningless and your supposed understanding of mathematics also because when you believe flat earth then you by definition do not understand or just willfully ignore simple and basic trigonometry.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 18, 2019, 01:11:37 AM
"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 are incorrect and missing the entire point and are like a runaway train of copy and paste walls of data that spiral out into oblivion and ultimately mean nothing to anyone.

The operative words are: relativistic corrections

Look it up.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2019, 02:16:00 AM
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.

Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?
Yes!
Quote from: sandokhan
The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.
So you say.
But Maraner and Zendri never mention "the Coriolis effect" other than briefly when comparing the Sagnac effect with the  Aharanov-Bohm effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
The next term is O(wr/c)2.
Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?
Yes!
Quote from: sandokhan
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.

Please read this again!
                             (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1t6uxf1nw8w6b4/General%20relativistic%20Sagnac%20formula%20revised%20by%20Paolo%20Maraner%20%C2%B7%20Jean-Pierre%20Zendri.png?dl=1)
had they not used the relativistic correction the loop delay would have been independent of the centre of rotation.

The "large ring laser G in Wettzell" mentioned is referred to below.

But I'd believe Maraner and Zendri rather than you any day,  thank you!

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
You do not even understand the meaning of the symbol O().
Quote from: sandokhan
I understand that perfectly well, thank you.

There is no such thing as general relativity:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I'll let you believe all that if it makes you happy.
If, however, you claim that there is "There is no such thing as general relativity" please explain all the times that GR has been verified.
Just one example: Einstein gets it right again—weak and strong gravity objects fall the same way, July 4, 2018, Green Bank Observatory (https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-againweak-strong-gravity-fall.html#jCp)

And if you have all this wonderful information why don't you publish in the open literature and collect your Nobel Prize for disproving GR?

Many physicists and astrophysicists try to prove  GR wrong or incomplete - it's what scientists do!
Here's one case: Was Einstein WRONG? Scientists probe supermassive BLACK HOLE to disprove theory of gravity. (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1043472/einstein-theory-gravity-wrong-black-hole-experiment-andrea-ghez)

In the meantime, I'd rather believe that devices like the "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser" installed in Italy are 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:
Quote
1. Introduction
Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG) are, at present, the most precise sensors of absolute angular velocity for an Earth based apparatus. They are based on the Sagnac effect arising from a rigidly rotating ring laser cavity.
The resolution is quite impressive.
Quote
The Gross Ring ”G” at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of 3 × 10−9 (about 15 × 10−14 rad/s with 4 hours integration time).

That paper did not give the rotation rate, just the stability etc.
But this paper does: Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa (https://agenda.infn.it/getFile.py/access?contribId=140&sessionId=5&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=10512)

And the result is:
Quote
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is  ;) guess what  ;) a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours - the GINGER result is more precise than that.

The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser proves that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec.

Look, I've seen the end result of your logic and it convinces me not to put any weight on what your interpretations.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 18, 2019, 04:00:56 AM
This is the paper you put forth in front of the readers:

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.

No Minkowski space-time, no valid computations.

Moreover, the leading term is proportional to the area, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


And, again, the authors make the same ERROR as did Michelson, to compare the two sides and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

They are analyzing the CORIOLIS EFFECT with relativistic corrections, NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT which requires two loops.

Convince yourself that there is no such thing as general relativity or a Minkowski space-time continuum:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750


Let us now use the theory of general relativity to prove that the CORIOLIS EFFECT will be derived first, IF the two arms of the interferometer are located away from the center of rotation:


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.

(http://image.ibb.co/cUTCax/cor1.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/jGVx8H/cor2.jpg)

An interferometer with DIFFERENT RADII (located away from the center of rotation) will manifest the Coriolis force in the form of a phase shift 4AΩ/c2.


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.



The papers you provided in favor of TGR are using A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT context, and the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ EQUATIONS.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:

(http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/annotations/annot1420a.gif)

However, the original set of dynamical Maxwell equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, a variable speed of light:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884

Einstein made a terrible blunder in having assumed that the speed of light is constant.

If we remove this error, the experiments used as a proof of TGR are much better explained in terms of a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT.


In the meantime, I'd rather believe that devices like the "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser" installed in Italy are able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.


They are NOT measuring the rotation of the Earth at all, they simply recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT using Michelson's formula published in 1925.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

And they are using the same relativistic correction terms, as did Maraner and Zendri, obtained in terms of the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


Dr. Silberstein is describing the Coriolis effect, whether the lines are straight or not, NOT the electromagnetic effect (the Sagnac effect).

HERE IS THE PROOF THAT DR. SILBERSTEIN DERIVED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT:

One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.


Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.


(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)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

(https://image.ibb.co/h0EPSA/fa.jpg)

The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.

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.


We can see at a glance each and every important detail.


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.

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.


Let us now compare the MGX with the correct SAGNAC FORMULA, the same analysis would apply for the Gingerino RLG.

Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').

FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4AΩsinΦ/c2

FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2


Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72

THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (existence of the ether drift).

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the SAGNAC EFFECT, then the Earth is rotating (no ether drift).

Since 1913, all interferometers, especially the ring laser gyroscopes have detected ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2019, 04:27:49 AM
This is the paper you put forth in front of the readers:

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.
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.

Quote from: sandokhan
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!
But as I said before, I'll believe Paolo Maraner and Jean-Pierre Zendri (and "Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all" if it comes to that) before you any day so repeatedly posting the same material is a total waste of space!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 18, 2019, 04:55:38 AM
Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula (published in 1904 and 1887; E.J. Post proved in 1999 that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer).

No one else, no other physicist was able, or has been able, to derive the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula; all of them have been content to copy Michelson's glaring error, including Post.

The definition of the Sagnac effect is applied to a closed loop (either circular or a uniform path).

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 promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on February 19, 2019, 03:14:42 AM
I think they ecpected an inconclusive result. One they could twist into a flat earth win.

Just like Antonio Subirats. He proposed an experiment using a tube to look at the horizon from one end. He said if looking through the other end one sees the horizon again, then the earth would be flat. If one sees the sky above the horizon, the earth must be a globe. Low and behold, Critical Think does said experiment and it conforms to a globe. Antonio subirats has shifted the goal posts so much in trying to explain away the results that he is no longer in the same ball park as when he started.

Flat earthers look only for things that will confirm their bias and seem to think if they say it enough, everyone else would believe like they do and then maybe the earth would somehow conform to their wishes. Like Sandy up there. Truth isn't the aim. Confirmation of their belief is.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 19, 2019, 05:31:47 AM
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)/c2

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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Lonegranger on February 19, 2019, 07:19:17 AM
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)/c2

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.

Every single day thousands of papers are published that say you are wrong. We don't have to go back to 1947 or whenever to find supporting evidence. But again the scientists who wrote the paper you quoted were they flat earth believers........I think not. In fact none of the scientists you are so fond of quoting believed in a flat earth or any of the other things you believe in.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: zork on February 19, 2019, 12:41:03 PM
Sungenis is christian apologetic and Bennet is speculative fiction writer. Good to know from who sandokhan gets his information.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: MicroBeta on February 19, 2019, 02:12:48 PM
Regardless of the discussion on the differing interpretations of the math the fact is that the measured drift is 15°/hr.  The exact value it should get because of the earths rotation.  Bob Knodel (the person doing the experiment) find it unnerving and tries it again with the same results.   Bob was so sure it would disprove rotation and wants to keep it under wraps because it blows their whole theory out of the water.

Mike
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2019, 02:26:14 PM
This post deserved a fuller answer so here is the first part about Silberstein's paper.

You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?
Yes!
Quote from: sandokhan
Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.
Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.
Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.

Dr. Silberstein:
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
No, he does not! Here read again exactly what he wrote and not what you read into it:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/dzp491rv028t5l1/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein%20-%20p300.png?dl=1)
And read very carefully his last paragraph!

Quote from: sandokhan
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
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".
But he then goes on to show that the lengths of these paths are virtually the same and the Coriolis effect makes no significant change to the Sagnac shift.

Quote from: sandokhan
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
No! It is not the Coriolis effect.
Silberstein takes great pains to show that while the Coriolis effect does cause the light paths to curve very slightly it can have no effect on the Sagnac delay.

So your claim is a total distortion of what Silberstein wrote. Sure, "A = σ1 + σ2" but Silberstein carefully points out that "σ1 + σ2" is twice "the area (σ) of the rectilinear (dotted) triangle, and similarly in the case of any polygons.

Silberstein knows he is deriving the Sagnac effect and he clearly says so and he goes on the derive the relativistic case:
                  (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lf21suf0o995x3h/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein%20-%20Sagnac%20Shift%20SR.png?dl=1)

Exactly as before but without the drag coefficient and it is quite obvious that Silberstein is calculating the Sagnac effect!

In the meantime, please carefully check your derivation of your "for the first time, the correct Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation has been derived in a precise manner."
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 19, 2019, 02:49:22 PM
You are destroying whatever credibility you had left here, in the upper forums.

You are not able to even read a scientific paper properly.

You are confusing two very different derivations which speaks volumes of your training as a researcher into scientific matters.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

One of them, the first one, ends on page 298, and Dr. Silberstein is deriving the equation of the light path in relation to Fermat's principle.

It is there where he states that: "the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly".

Next, he takes up another matter, the derivation of the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Silberstein takes great pains to show that while the Coriolis effect does cause the light paths to curve very slightly it can have no effect on the Sagnac delay.

He does?

(https://image.ibb.co/bZAaCy/mgrot4.jpg)

Dr. Silberstein:

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.


Dr. Silberstein is describing the Coriolis effect, whether the lines are straight or not, NOT the electromagnetic effect (the Sagnac effect).

HERE IS THE PROOF THAT DR. SILBERSTEIN DERIVED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT:

One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.


Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.


You confused TWO VERY DIFFERENT DERIVATIONS, deviously assigning the conclusion for the first derivation to the second derivation, which really means you are getting very desperate.


I understand your predicament.

(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)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

(https://image.ibb.co/h0EPSA/fa.jpg)

The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.

Not even the formal derivation of the Sagnac effect formula is not entirely correct.

(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image001.gif)

(https://image.ibb.co/m909uq/fa2.jpg)

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 -

The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it):

2πR(1/(c - v)) - (-){-2πR(1/(c + v))} = 2πR(1/(c - v)) - (+)2πR(1/(c + v)) = 2πR(1/(c - v)) - 2πR(1/(c + v)) = 2vL/c2


The definition of the Sagnac effect is applied to a closed loop (either circular or a uniform path).

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.

Using the correct definition, we recover not only the error-free formula, but also the precise velocity addition terms.

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)

Practically, A. Michelson received the Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula (published in 1904 and 1887; E.J. Post proved in 1999 that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer).

No other physicist has been able to derive the correct Sagnac formula: for the past 100 years they have been using the wrong formula (the Coriolis effect equation) to describe a very different physical situation.

Here, for the first time, the correct Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation has been derived in a precise manner.


(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)

Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

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.


However, for the SAGNAC EFFECT, we have a single CONTINUOUS CLOCKWISE PATH, and a single CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE PATH, as the definition of the Sagnac effect entails.

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.


We can see at a glance each and every important detail.


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.

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.


The derivation used by Dr. Silberstein leads to the same formula derived by Michelson where THERE IS NO LOOP WHATSOEVER in the analysis.

The SAGNAC EFFECT requires two loops, neither Silberstein nor Michelson ever offered at least one loop.

Again, this speaks volumes of your training as a physicist, and of your true motives for trolling the upper forums.


Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2019, 03:03:38 PM
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.
Have a look at: Flat Earth Geography: The Flat Earth Frenzy, Unscientific and Unbiblical (http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf)

There's a great deal of good anti-flat earth material in his "The Flat Earth Frenzy" yet Sandokhan dares to refer to Robert Sungenis for support - Strange bed-fellows!

A Geocentric Solar System makes much more sense than any flat earth but still cannot be supported if Newtons Laws are valid.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 19, 2019, 03:20:44 PM
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.

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:
No, you are the one who does not understand. The 2 effects are the same.
You have been completely unable to refute this in any way.

A laser ring gyroscope is fully equipped to register/record TWO TYPES OF ROTATIONAL MOTIONS: either the ether drift rotation
As the aether doesn't exist, it is completely incapable of doing so.

What it is capable of doing is recording rotation. That is what it does. This is the rotation of Earth.
However in some fantasy models that will be represented by the rotation of a magical aether around Earth.

has registered ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.
As that is all there is to detect, as that Coriolis effect is the Sagnac effect.

You wish to claim the 2 are magically different yet have been completely unable to substantiate it in any way.

You are yet to show any magical derivation for such a magically different formula, not have you been able to refute my refutation in any way.

Again, if you want to start, start from the basics. Rather than focus on a rotating/moving loop, start with a stationary one.
No copying and pasting massive walls of text, a lot of which is completely irrelevant as the experiments discussed don't use a phase conjugate mirror.

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.
There are 2 options to calculate the overall phase difference.
1 - Calculate the time taken for the clockwise path, and the counterclockwise path and find the difference.
2 - Calculate the phase difference for each segment and add them.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)
Again, these should be times, there is no negative here. You need to add the 2 times.
That is where your massive error is.

This is why you need to start from the basics.

How long will it take the light to propagate around the loop if it is completely stationary?
If you like we can even shrink arm 2 and 4 to be 0, i.e. so it is effectively just a light path back and forth. According to your nonsense it takes no time at all.

So again, start from the basics, a simple stationary loop. How long does it take the light to propagate around it in a clockwise direction?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 19, 2019, 10:17:14 PM
The RE are dodging the very definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Michelson did the same thing.

The SAGNAC EFFECT is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation

A stationary loop does not reveal 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.

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.


Let us take a look at the humongous error perpetrated by Michelson and also by the RE.

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

Now, what the frell is this?

The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.

We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.

This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:

l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)

and

-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)

Catastrophically wrong!!!

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The proper signs, in accordance with the direction, are in place.

What jackblack did is to substract the phase differences for TWO SEPARATE OPEN SEGMENTS, and not for the TWO LOOPS (as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect).

He assigned the wrong signs, moreover, he did not complete the counterclockwise and the clockwise addition of the components of the phase differences.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


jackblack assigned the SAME SIGN, even though he just said a few lines earlier, that they are in fact in opposite direction.


Where are your loops???

You are still comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS: defying the very definition of the Sagnac effect.

Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A


Completely wrong!

The paths are very clear:

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time

You CANNOT ignore the sign, since by your own admission you have light beams travelling in opposite directions.

You are literally saying it takes negative time to do something.

No negative times at all.

Just two loops, continuous paths, as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)

Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2


BY CONTRAST, here is what you did:

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

You used the SAME sign for opposite directions.

Moreover, you compared two open segments, and not the two loops of the Sagnac interferometer.

l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Again, there are 4 legs, not 2. This means you should actually have 4 components.
If you assume arm 2 and 4 to be insignificant (which is technically wrong for a rectangle, as they need to be radial to have no effect, but then again you don't even have a constant v for a rectangle either), then you end up with arm 1, where the light is propagating with the motion of the apparatus, a time of (again, just accepting the formula you provided rather than double checking it):
l1/(c - v1)
which is larger than if it is at rest.

Then for the time in arm 3 you get:
l3/(c + v3)
which is smaller than if the arm is at rest.
You need to add these 2 POSITIVE times to get a reference time for the loop (as well as 2 lots for arm 2 and 4).


You seem to need medical attention jackblack.

Of course the times will be larger and smaller, since you are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES, c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.

Positive times? Everyone is laughing at you.

You used the wrong signs.

You compared two open segments, in full defiance of the definition of the Sagnac effect.

I added correctly the terms for the two loops.

Do you understand the definition of the Sagnac effect?

Let me remind you of it:

https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

You have the wrong sign!!!

These beams are in opposite direction: one has a positive sign l1/(c - v1), the other has a negative sign -l2/(c + v2).

But again, we don't use your nonsense negative times.

There are NO negative signs.

Just TWO LOOPS: one counterclockwise, one clockwise.

Exactly as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.


EXPERIMENTAL PROOF THAT MY FORMULA IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:

(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)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2



YOU ARE NOT USING THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT: TWO COUNTERPROPAGATING LOOPS.

You are comparing two sides, WITHOUT ANY LOOPS.

As such, your analysis is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, and not at all the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 19, 2019, 11:23:54 PM
The RE are dodging the very definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT.
No, that would be you, repeatedly.
In fact, lets look at your definition and your claimed formula:

The SAGNAC EFFECT is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation
Notice the key part? ROTATION!

Now your alleged formula:
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
Notice how there is nothing in there to do with rotation?
You have lengths and linear velocities. Nothing to do with rotation at all.
In fact, we can even setup the interferometer to be a square such that L=L1=L2, and have it undergo linear motion such that V=V1=V2, with no rotation at all.
What do we get with your "correct" formula?
2(V*L + V*L)/c2
=4*V*L/c2
So in a system which is undergoing no rotation at all, your formula still claims you should measure a shift due to the Sagnac effect, which is purely for rotation.

So who is the one ignoring the definition?
It sure doesn't seem to be us REers.

A stationary loop does not reveal the SAGNAC EFFECT.
I know. It provides a baseless to start with.
It shows your derivation is pure nonsense.
So like I said, start with a stationary loop. Once you have figured out that, you can move on to more complex systems.

The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.
We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.
Yes, and as we are dealing with times, i.e. the time taken for the light to propagate, the sign will be positive.
Or as we are focusing on the difference between the time taken for each beam, we can focus on the light going one way vs the other.

This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:
l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)
No, that would be you, where you also have the opposite sign for the same direction.
In the equation you quoted, the direction is the same, they are going the one direction around the loop.
The change in direction of motion of the individual beams is expressed entirely in the c-v or c+v component, based upon the light going with or against the motion.

For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:
l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)
That isn't adding. That is subtracting. Do you know the difference?
Adding goes A+B.
Subtracting goes A-B.
You are subtracting 2 times from one another to find the difference in time taken for one beam to go along one arm vs going along the other arm.
It equates to nothing physical.

Like I said, start from a stationary loop. See if you can get it then.
How long does it take the light to propagate around the stationary loop?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 20, 2019, 12:05:04 AM
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.

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)

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 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

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.

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):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


By contrast, 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.

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.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 20, 2019, 03:30:56 AM
I am going to explain the entire phenomenon using even more details
You mean spam with even more nonsense.
The problem is you are just repeating the same refuted nonsense and magically subtracting times for a single path, completely ignoring the massive problems, like your formula producing a shift for an interferometer which is just moving in a straight line without rotation, clearly indicating it isn't the Sagnac effect.

Like I said, go back to the basics.
What is the time taken for light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Can you answer that? If not, you shouldn't even attempt to deal with the Sagnac effect.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 20, 2019, 03:40:34 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

Do you understand the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT?

It involves both rotation and two loops.

A stationary interferometer has nothing to do the SAGNAC EFFECT, which comes into play once the table is being rotated.

We are dealing here with the SAGNAC EFFECT.

You need TWO LOOPS, you have neither.

I have the TWO LOOPS, and the correct signs, and the correct counterclockwise/clockwise paths, everything is in plain sight.

Moreover, my formula agrees with the experimental proof provided by Professor Yeh, a paper published in the Journal of Optics Letters.

A beautiful and striking generalization of the Sagnac effect 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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 20, 2019, 04:18:01 AM
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.

Quote from: sandokhan
The RE standard for the Sagnac effect:
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?
We are not dealing with "TWO LOOPS". Mathpages simply draws the light paths separate for clarity.
And of course we can but calling it "the differences in time travel" that "have to be subtracted" seems misleading.
Each of the delay times are positive values and it would be better to simply say "that the time travels have to be subtracted?".

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.

He makes this quite obvious at the end of the preamble about the shape of light paths where he says:
Quote from: Dr L. Silberstein
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.
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.
And he proceeds to derive the Sagnac effect!

Quote from: sandokhan
Sagnac phase component for the clockwise path: 2πR(1/(c - v))
Sagnac phase component for the counterclockwise path: -2πR(1/(c + v))
What on earth are those expressions? You call them "phase components" but the dimensions are of time delays.

Quote from: sandokhan
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).
What is wrong with Dr Silberstein's Sagnac effect allowing for aether dragging? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8jfiaypo5041kxt/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein%20-%20Sagnac%20Shift%20aether%20%28eqn%29.png?dl=1)
What is wrong with Dr Silberstein's relativistic derivation? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j9qz5vv6t709wi9/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein%20-%20Sagnac%20Shift%20SR%20%28eqn%29.png?dl=1)

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
Sure, you have (c - v) and (c + v) but both are still positive time delays that you are subtracting.

Quote from: sandokhan
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)

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.
Why TWO LOOPS? It is simply light propagated in two directions around the one loop.

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
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.

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
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):
l1/(c - v1)
-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)
-l1/(c + v1)
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.
Quote from: sandokhan
For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)
But your making that second term in each negative is quite incorrect.

Even though the propagation is against the velocity of the segment all of the delays are positive,
       so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)
       and the total delay for the the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise ) should be: l2/(c - v2) + l1/(c + v1)

So everything from here on is incorrect.
Quote from: sandokhan
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
No, it cannot be correct.
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: sandokhan
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.

Quote from: sandokhan
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!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 20, 2019, 05:16:18 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

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.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.


Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.

Here is another reference, explicitly deriving the CORIOLIS EFFECT, same formula as that published by Dr. Silberstein:

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071


Why TWO LOOPS? It is simply light propagated in two directions around the one loop.

You are continuing your trolling series unabated.

You have ONE interferometer, with two loops: a counterclockwise loop and a clockwise loop.

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.


Make sure you understand the definition of the term LOOP.

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 you need the total time around the clockwise path, (A > D > C > B > A) so you must add the time delay in each leg.


Each time transit has a DEFINITE DIRECTION.

Opposite directions have opposite signs.

Let us go back to the original derivation of the Sagnac effect.

(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)

To get the time transits IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, you must assign a NEGATIVE SIGN to one of them.


(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.

so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

It can't be.

Now, you have TWO OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, while you assign the SAME SIGN, a catastrophic mistake if you are seeking the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Moreover, where are the loops ??

What in effect you are saying is this:

A > D > C combined with A > B.

NO LOOP AT ALL.

A tremendous error committed by Michelson.

The SAGNAC EFFECT requires TWO LOOPS. Now we are dealing with the clockwise loop.

What you want is this:

A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path)

Now we have a loop.

This loop includes two opposite directions, two opposite terms/components.

That is why one must a positive sign, while the other must have a negative sign.

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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.


It can easily be seen to be incorrect by simply centring the loop over the equator

Is this supposed to be a joke?

If you now have equal radii and equal velocities, the old Sagnac formula comes into play at once.

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)."

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2019, 06:51:28 AM
A beautiful and striking generalization of the Sagnac effect 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.
Where is the term for rotation in your formula?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on February 20, 2019, 09:04:54 AM

The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351


The most important? In all of physics? All of it?

I'd like to hear comments. From anyone except sandokhan.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 20, 2019, 09:40:08 AM
You better believe it.

Michelson was promptly awarded a Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula.

He used the same formula in 1925 to claim that his interferometer in Clearing, Illinois measured the angular velocity of the Earth.

The GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT formula answers directly the most important questions we might have about the universe, the ones most physicists are seeking at the present time.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JCM on February 20, 2019, 09:58:12 AM
My favorite part of all of these arguments from the Bob Knodels of the world is they don’t address the consequences, they just pick some aspects of science they like and then misrepresent it. After which they then claim seemingly all of science to be fake news, while using cherry picked 100 plus year old science experiments to push their agenda. It boggles the mind..

Now another issue is if the Earth is still then the entirety of the Universe is orbiting us.  Every galaxy, every nebula, everything.  That makes more sense to Mr. Knodel then simply the Earth is spinning just like every single object in space we can see. 

Mr. Knodel then claims the laser gyroscope is so sensitive he changes the units from degrees rotation per day to sensing the mph of the rotation and then infers it also would pick up the movement around the Sun and the rotational movement of the Milky Way and finally it would pick up the linear velocity of the galaxy.  How utterly underhanded.  The uniform linear motion cannot be directly detected while inside Earth’s reference frame.  As an “engineer” he would know this.  Otherwise the gyroscope wouldn’t be able to work at all on the airplane.   
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 20, 2019, 12:07:54 PM
Do you understand the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT?
Yes. Do you?
It involves rotation, as you have already admitted, yet your nonsense formula claims you will experience a shift without rotation, with just linear motion.
Do you understand what that means? It means your formula is wrong.
Meanwhile, my formula doesn't predict such nonsense.

So either you aren't trying to calculate the Sagnac effect, or your formula/derivation is completely wrong.

Your formula only displays lengths and linear velocities. Another sign that it is completely wrong.

Yet you refuse to address any of this and instead just keep making the same baseless assertions.

Now, as I actually understand the derivation, I also understand where the big error is in your analysis. It is how you are horribly mistreating times. Yet you cannot argue it and instead just repeatedly assert that you are correct.


This is why I am telling you to start with a stationary loop.
It is the most basic (at least the most basic loop).
If you can't figure out the stationary loop you have no hope of figuring out what happens to a loop in motion.

Once you have figured it out for a stationary loop you can then see what effects motion will cause.

And no, you don't have 2 loops. You have light propagating around a single loop in 2 directions.

So I will ask again, how long does it take for the light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 20, 2019, 02:18:34 PM
You are trolling the upper forums.

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.
No it is not and Grigorii B. Malykin, Vera I. Pozdnyakova do not ever claim that he does.

Quote from: sandokhan
One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?
Perfectly well, thank you!

Quote from: sandokhan
Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.
Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.

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.
But, rather than being "directly related to the area of the interferometer" he shows that the deviations from straight are so slight that it cannot affect the result.

Here read this from p 298:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/60n3lab4h5nqkst/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein%20-%20p298.png?dl=1)

Now read exactly what Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova say in:[/i]
        (https://www.dropbox.com/s/gv62i4nbr4m2lqa/Ring%20Interferometry%20By%20Grigorii%20B.%20Malykin%2C%20Vera%20I.%20Pozdnyakova%20%202.1.4.5.png?dl=1)

Malykin and Pozdnyakova do say:
Quote from: Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova
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.
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."

And again, "There are recent studies by Bashkov [74, 75, 78] where the erroneous statement of Silberstein [798, 799] is repeated."
In my opinion that "erroneous statement of Silberstein" is simply a case of Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova quite innocently mistaking Silberstein's words.

Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova might interpret what Dr Silberstein wrote a little differently but nowhere suggest that Dr Silberstein is deriving the Coriolis effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is another reference, explicitly deriving the CORIOLIS EFFECT, same formula as that published by Dr. Silberstein:

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams (http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071)

I'm perfectly aware of that paper but I'll not go into it now.

And I'll ignore the repeated incorrect derivation of your famous "global/generalized Sagnac effect formula"!

Quote from: sandokhan
It can easily be seen to be incorrect by simply centring the loop over the equator

Is this supposed to be a joke?
Sure 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!
The global/generalized Sagnac effect formula, the most important in all of physics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Quote from: sandokhan
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!

Quote from: sandokhan
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)."
Agreed, but that is around the whole equator of the rotating earth and is quite irrelevant to your loop.

But, I'd agree with Michelson, Silberstein, MathPages, E.J. Post, Maraner and Zendri long before your result.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on February 20, 2019, 02:36:22 PM
Anyone who claims "Everyone who ever worked on X in physics or math was wrong except me!" deserves special scrutiny.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 20, 2019, 09:46:21 PM
Here read this from p 298:

On page 298 there are two DIFFERENT derivations, a fact quite obvious for anyone but yourself.

You are quoting from the previous derivation, the equation of the light path in relation to Fermat's principle.

he shows that the deviations from straight are so slight that it cannot affect the result.

Yes, for the light path in terms of Fermat's principle.

Then, he starts to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT on the same page, a totally different derivation.

The quote refers to FERMAT'S PRINCIPLE, not to the next derivation which takes place on the same page:

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/60n3lab4h5nqkst/THE%20PROPAGATION%20OF%20LIGHT%20IN%20ROTATING%20SYSTEMS%2C%20Dr%20L%20Silberstein%20-%20p298.png?dl=1)

You must be pretty desperate to use these kinds of tactics in a debate.


http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf


The derivation for the light path in terms of FERMAT'S PRINCIPLE starts on page 293 and ends on page 298.

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."

For FERMAT'S PRINCIPLE, yes, NOT for the next derivation.

So, your entire argument amounts to nothing at all, with the exception of your devious and miserable tactics you are using to satisfy your cognitive dissonance.

The derivation for the CORIOLIS EFFECT starts quite obviously with these words, right on the same page 298:

The experimental possibilities with regard to the optical effect of the rotation of the Earth lie in another direction...

Yet, you quoted from the PREVIOUS derivation, based on FERMAT'S PRINCIPLE, which has nothing to do with the NEXT derivation, right on the same page, which is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

This means that you are UNABLE to read a scientific paper.

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.
Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.

Here is a second reference which explicitly derives the 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 global SAGNAC EFFECT formula applies to the interferometer whose center of rotation is located away from its geometrical center.

It works perfectly.

If the center of rotation coincides with the geometrical center, then you use the local SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Agreed, but that is around the whole equator of the rotating earth and is quite irrelevant to your loop.

There is no agreement with your previous statement:

In that situation there should obviously be no Sagnac delay,

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)."

If you now have equal radii and equal velocities, the local Sagnac formula comes into play at once: if v1 = v2 and l1 = l2, then quite simply, my formula becomes dt = 4VL/c2, which is the local Sagnac effect formula.

You stated that there is no delay at the equator, yet you were proven to be quite wrong: there is a delay right on the equator, which is picked up by the local Sagnac effect formula, a successful trial for my global formula.

Once again, you seem to be very confused, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

You are simply trolling the upper forums.

A perfect "trial" for the global Sagnac effect formula: if you have equal lengths/velocities, then you use the local Sagnac effect formula, and you do have a delay just like proven by the above reference.



I have the loops, you have nothing.

I use the signs correctly, you use the same sign for beams traveling in opposite directions.


You have ONE interferometer, with two loops: a counterclockwise loop and a clockwise loop.

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.


Make sure you understand the definition of the term LOOP.

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.

Each time transit has a DEFINITE DIRECTION.

Opposite directions have opposite signs.

Let us go back to the original derivation of the Sagnac effect.

(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)

To get the time transits IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, you must assign a NEGATIVE SIGN to one of them.


(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.

so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

It can't be.

Now, you have TWO OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, while you assign the SAME SIGN, a catastrophic mistake if you are seeking the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Moreover, where are the loops ??

What in effect you are saying is this:

A > D > C combined with A > B.

NO LOOP AT ALL.

A tremendous error committed by Michelson.

The SAGNAC EFFECT requires TWO LOOPS. Now we are dealing with the clockwise loop.

What you want is this:

A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path)

Now we have a loop.

This loop includes two opposite directions, two opposite terms/components.

That is why one must a positive sign, while the other must have a negative sign.

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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, using topology it can be proven that the SAGNAC EFFECT formula must include the velocity and the path of the arms of the interferometer, while the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula must include the area:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039 (the SAGNAC EFFECT can only be described by the SU(2) group of transformations)

(http://image.ibb.co/hiKRPc/topo9.jpg)

Only when the interferometer is being rotated does the TOPOLOGICAL PATCH condition/MULTIPLY-CONNECTED domain come into play.

No rotation, no multiply-connected domain.

Two very different topological situations.

(http://image.ibb.co/cyOgqH/topo11.jpg)

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 20, 2019, 11:53:24 PM
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.

The time or phase shift created by the coriolis effect for 2 beams of light counter-propagating around a ring interferometer IS the Sagnac effect.
You are yet to show any cause to think they are not.
Instead all you have provided is an incorrect derivation producing an incorrect formula.

You have repeatedly avoiding/ignored the massive problems with this and just kept asserting the same nonsense.
You have also refused to do very simple things to show your understanding by starting from the basics.

Your formula is wrong. It has clearly been shown to be wrong. It has clearly be shown to not be linked to rotation.

Now like I said, start from a simple stationary loop.
How long does it take light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Once you have that we can move on to how long it takes for light to propagate around a rotating loop, for each of with and against the rotation.
Then we can focus on the difference, i.e. the Sagnac effect.

So can you start from the basics and show how long it takes for the light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 01:39:01 AM
For a stationary loop there is no difference in transit times.

NO SAGNAC EFFECT AT ALL.

Sagnac effect = the rotation of the interferometer

Therefore, the RE are avoiding the very definition of the Sagnac effect: rotation of the interferometer, two counterpropagating beams of light, two loops.

No multiply-connected domain for a stationary interferometer, that is why I included the facts from topology in my previous message so that these issues are very well understood.


"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:

(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)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers


The formula derived by Silberstein, Post and Michelson has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.

Very easy to prove.

(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.


so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

It can't be.

Now, you have TWO OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, while you assign the SAME SIGN, a catastrophic mistake if you are seeking the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Moreover, where are the loops ??

What in effect you are saying is this:

A > D > C combined with A > B.

NO LOOP AT ALL.

A tremendous error committed by Michelson.

The SAGNAC EFFECT requires TWO LOOPS. Now we are dealing with the clockwise loop.

What you want is this:

A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path)

Now we have a loop.

This loop includes two opposite directions, two opposite terms/components.

That is why one must a positive sign, while the other must have a negative sign.

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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.

I have the loops, you have nothing.

I use the signs correctly, you use the same sign for beams traveling in opposite directions.


You have ONE interferometer, with two loops: a counterclockwise loop and a clockwise loop.

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.


Make sure you understand the definition of the term LOOP.

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.

Each time transit has a DEFINITE DIRECTION.

Opposite directions have opposite signs.

Let us go back to the original derivation of the Sagnac effect.

(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)

To get the time transits IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, you must assign a NEGATIVE SIGN to one of them.



The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT are two different phenomena: they require two different formulas.

Professor Yeh's experiment, peer-reviewed at the highest possible level, in the Journal of Optics Letters proves I am correct.


The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 01:57:16 AM
The CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect: the modification of the paths of the light beams. It compares two arms of the interferometer, no loops at all.

The SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect: the modification of the velocity of the light beams, it compares two loops.

They are not the same phenomena, they require different formulas.

Here is the very easy derivation of the CORIOLIS EFFECT for light beams:

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.

By contrast the formula derived by me and proven to be correct by Professor Yeh is this:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


No loops for the CORIOLIS EFFECT, just a comparison of the two arms, a physical effect.

(https://image.ibb.co/h0EPSA/fa.jpg)

The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.

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.

Let us take a look at the humongous error perpetrated by Michelson and also by the RE.

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

Now, what the frell is this?

The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.

We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.

This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:

l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)

and

-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)

Catastrophically wrong!!!

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The proper signs, in accordance with the direction, are in place.

What jackblack did is to substract the phase differences for TWO SEPARATE OPEN SEGMENTS, and not for the TWO LOOPS (as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect).

He assigned the wrong signs, moreover, he did not complete the counterclockwise and the clockwise addition of the components of the phase differences.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


jackblack assigned the SAME SIGN, even though he just said a few lines earlier, that they are in fact in opposite direction.


Where are your loops???

You are still comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS: defying the very definition of the Sagnac effect.

Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A


Completely wrong!

The paths are very clear:

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time

You CANNOT ignore the sign, since by your own admission you have light beams travelling in opposite directions.


My analysis is correct, as also proven by Professor Yeh.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 02:55:34 AM
Which in no way makes them different things.

Are you telling your readers that you do not understand the difference between the analysis for light paths based on FERMAT'S PRINCIPLE and the CORIOLIS EFFECT?

The analysis in terms of FERMAT'S PRINCIPLE starts on page 293 and ends on page 298:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

Here is the final formula:

4akw/c x (...)

THIS FORMULA IS OF THE ORDER OF 1/C: O(1/c).

By constrast, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, whose derivation also begins on page 298, is of the order O(1/c2).


Two different formulas, yet the RE seem to be unable to differentiate between them.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: zork on February 21, 2019, 03:08:52 AM
 I don't really care if you understand what you copy/paste here but thank you for demonstrating how out of date you are. Some hundred and more years always.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 03:13:02 AM
My formula is totally up to date.

"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:

(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)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

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
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2019, 03:45:38 AM
For a stationary loop there is no difference in transit times.
I know. Why do you need to keep repeating this?
This is just a simple starting point. If you can't do the derivation correctly for a stationary loop you have no hope of doing it correctly for a rotating loop.
So start with the basics.
How long does it take for light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Can you answer that.

NO SAGNAC EFFECT AT ALL.
Sagnac effect = the rotation of the interferometer
Yes, that is correct. Your formula is not the Sagnac effect at all.
Sagnac is for a rotating interferometer, but yours works with any motion, even linear motion without any rotation at all.
That is a big indicator that your formula isn't for the Sagnac effect.

Your errors have already been pointed out and you just ignore them.
Repeating the same BS wont magically make you correct.
Ignoring what other people say wont magically make you correct.


So like I said, start with the basics.
How long does it take for light to propagate around a stationary loop?

Can you figure that out? If not, anything more advanced is pointless.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on February 21, 2019, 03:49:51 AM
Go on Sandy, have a go at answering JBs step-by-step derivation. As you’re so sure you’re right, it will be easy to show he’s a fool no?

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2019, 03:52:44 AM

By contrast the formula derived by me and proven to be correct by Professor Yeh is this:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My analysis is correct, as also proven by Professor Yeh.
The nearest result from Professor Yeh seems to be:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xumdgg3e60ji6r/Prof%20Yeh%20-%20phase%20conjugate%20fibre%20optic%20gyroscope.png?dl=1)
and that is only for his Phase Conjugate Mirror fibre optic gyroscope so is totally irrelevant here!

So before wasting more time going over you derivation again and again,
let's see just what values your "beautiful and striking generalization of the Sagnac effect formula" gives in some practical situations.

Here is what you claimed:
A beautiful and striking generalization of the Sagnac effect 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.
Obviously your diagram came from the Conspiracy of light, Michelson-Gale Interferometer Simulator (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/Michelson-Gale.htm).
Now surely you would trust the "Conspiracy of Light" site to give the correct answers or is everybody but you wrong?

That simulator let's the delay for various latitudes be calculated so why not check your "most important formula in physics" against those values.
For example for a loop of the dimensions used by Michelson, Gale and Pearson the delays are:
Latitude     Delay sec      Fringes
      0°         0.00                 0.000
    45°         4.77 x 10-16    0.251
    90°         6.74 x 10-16    0.355 

Now you calculate the Sagnac delay for those dimensions and at latitudes 0°, 45° and 90°. If yours differ markedly from the above please explain why.

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!
My formula is totally up to date.

"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(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

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
Did you seriously think that we didn't know the difference between the two?

Now please show your "CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT formula" as used in Sagnac's experiment and the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 05:13:06 AM
It is nigh time to welcome both rabinoz and jackblack as flat earth believers.

Sagnac is for a rotating interferometer, but yours works with any motion, even linear motion without any rotation at all.

The SAGNAC EFFECT can detect LINEAR/UNIFORM/TRANSLATIONAL MOTION as well.

You didn't know that?

The translational/linear Sagnac effect IS A FACT OF SCIENCE.

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.

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)

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."

Here is another demonstration.

(https://image.ibb.co/cPs5vd/sagnac3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m86n8y/sagnac4.jpg)


If you can't do the derivation correctly for a stationary loop

But you just stated the opposite:

I know. (that for a stationary interferometer there are no transit times).

Then, if you know that the SAGNAC EFFECT applies to a rotational interferometer (or to an interferometer in linear motion), your requests are meaningless, since you are well outside the scope of our debate here. A stationary interferometer has no transit times. We need to understand the SAGNAC EFFECT, which in our case here, involves rotation.

Your errors have already been pointed out and you just ignore them.

Let's put your word to the test.

(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.


so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

It can't be.

Now, you have TWO OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, while you assign the SAME SIGN, a catastrophic mistake if you are seeking the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Moreover, where are the loops ??

What in effect you are saying is this:

A > D > C combined with A > B.

NO LOOP AT ALL.

A tremendous error committed by Michelson.

The SAGNAC EFFECT requires TWO LOOPS. Now we are dealing with the clockwise loop.

What you want is this:

A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path)

Now we have a loop.

This loop includes two opposite directions, two opposite terms/components.

That is why one must a positive sign, while the other must have a negative sign.

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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.

I have the loops, you have nothing.

I use the signs correctly, you use the same sign for beams traveling in opposite directions.


You have ONE interferometer, with two loops: a counterclockwise loop and a clockwise loop.

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.


Make sure you understand the definition of the term LOOP.

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.

Each time transit has a DEFINITE DIRECTION.

Opposite directions have opposite signs.

Let us go back to the original derivation of the Sagnac effect.

(https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07_files/image002.gif)

To get the time transits IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, you must assign a NEGATIVE SIGN to one of them.



The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT are two different phenomena: they require two different formulas.

Professor Yeh's experiment, peer-reviewed at the highest possible level, in the Journal of Optics Letters proves I am correct.


The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


You... were saying what?

No errors whatsoever in my derivation which is backed up by Professor Yeh's fantastic experiment.

SAME FORMULA.

By contrast, you derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

YOU HAVE NO LOOPS.

YOU USED BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS WITH THE SAME SIGN.

Your derivation has nothing to do with the SAGNAC EFFECT.

You have been proven wrong, yet again.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 05:16:14 AM
Let us know take a look at jackblack's errors, which lead to the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Let us take a look at the humongous error perpetrated by Michelson and also by the RE.

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

Now, what the frell is this?

The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.

We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.

This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:

l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)

and

-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)

Catastrophically wrong!!!

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The proper signs, in accordance with the direction, are in place.

What jackblack did is to substract the phase differences for TWO SEPARATE OPEN SEGMENTS, and not for the TWO LOOPS (as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect).

He assigned the wrong signs, moreover, he did not complete the counterclockwise and the clockwise addition of the components of the phase differences.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


jackblack assigned the SAME SIGN, even though he just said a few lines earlier, that they are in fact in opposite direction.


Where are your loops???

You are still comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS: defying the very definition of the Sagnac effect.

Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A


Completely wrong!

The paths are very clear:

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time

You CANNOT ignore the sign, since by your own admission you have light beams travelling in opposite directions.


My analysis is correct, as also proven by Professor Yeh.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 05:33:12 AM
and that is only for his Phase Conjugate Mirror fibre optic gyroscope so is totally irrelevant here!

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!

You mean I also have to explain the physics of the phase-conjugate mirror to you?

Phase Conjugate Mirror

"Let us begin with the properties of a phase conjugate mirror. A phase conjugate mirror is like a mirror, in that it reflects incident light back towards where it came from, but it does so in a different way than a regular mirror.

In a regular mirror, light that strikes the mirror normal to its surface, is reflected straight back the way it came (A). This is also true of a phase conjugate mirror (B). When the light strikes a normal mirror at an angle, it reflects back in the opposite direction, such that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. (C)

(http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/PhaseConjugate/PhaCon1.jpg)

In a phase conjugate mirror, on the other hand, light is always reflected straight back the way it came from, no matter what the angle of incidence. (D)

This difference in the manner of reflection has significant consequences. For example if we place an irregular distorting glass in the path of a beam of light, the parallel rays get bent in random directions, and after reflection from a normal mirror, each ray of light is bent even farther, and the beam is scattered.

(http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/PhaseConjugate/PhaCon2.jpg)

With a phase conjugate mirror, on the other hand, each ray is reflected back in the direction it came from. This reflected conjugate wave therefore propagates backwards through the distorting medium, and essentially "un-does" the distortion, and returns to a coherent beam of parallel rays travelling in the opposite direction."

BOTH THE PHASE-CONJUGATE MIRROR AND THE REGULAR MIRRORS LEAD TO THE VERY SAME RESULTS; ONE, THE PHASE CONJUGATE MIRROR, LEADS TO THE USE OF A MUCH SMALLER INTERFEROMETER, A BETTER TECHNOLOGY PUT TO GOOD USE.

(http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/PhaseConjugate/PhaCon3.jpg)

Steven Lehar


http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~cvijayan/opc-review.pdf

Optical phase conjugation: principles, techniques, and applications

Over the last three decades, optical phase conjugation (OPC) has been one of the major
research subjects in the field of nonlinear optics and quantum electronics.

Optical phase conjugation (OPC)1 is a new laser-based technique developed since
1970s. As this technique is feasible for use in many significant applications, the study
of OPC has become one of the most active research subjects in the areas of nonlinear
optics and quantum electronics.

In the area of OPC-related studies, a huge number (more than thousands) of
research papers and conference presentations have been published since 1970s.

The use of the phase-conjugate mirror in optical interferometry has produced huge breakthroughs.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xumdgg3e60ji6r/Prof%20Yeh%20-%20phase%20conjugate%20fibre%20optic%20gyroscope.png?dl=1)

Exactly.

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


THE VERY SAME FORMULA, OBTAINED FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENCE LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES.


That simulator let's the delay for various latitudes be calculated so why not check your "most important formula in physics" against those values.
For example for a loop of the dimensions used by Michelson, Gale and Pearson the delays are:
Latitude     Delay sec      Fringes
      0°         0.00                 0.000
    45°         4.77 x 10-16    0.251
    90°         6.74 x 10-16    0.355 

Now you calculate the Sagnac delay for those dimensions and at latitudes 0°, 45° and 90°. If yours differ markedly from the above please explain why.


These are the data FOR THE CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, the one employed for the simulator, the one derived by Michelson.

The simulator measures the CORIOLIS EFFECT for the MGX, at various latitudes.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/Michelson-Gale.htm

You seem to be a loss recognizing the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, no need for you to feel lost.

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.

That is why the corresponding values for the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT must be much greater than these for the 45° value latitude: the very debate we are having here. At 0° and at 90° latitude, the lengths and velocities are equal again, so the LOCAL SAGNAC EFFECT formula is being applied.

These much higher fringe values are NOT recorded.

All the MGX and RLGs are recording is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.


Let us compare the results for the MGX experiment (1925), same formula featured in the simulator, the same latitude as for Clearing, Illinois.

LATITUDE: 41°46' = 41.76667°

FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4AΩsinΦ/c2

FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2


Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72

THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (existence of the ether drift).

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the SAGNAC EFFECT, then the Earth is rotating (no ether drift).

Since 1913, all interferometers, especially the ring laser gyroscopes have detected ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2019, 12:17:11 PM
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.
Don't you recall what you have been repeatedly saying:
Quote
Sagnac effect = the rotation of the interferometer
Quote
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'.

Or were you completely wrong with those statements before?

No dealing with more complex setups until you have the basics done.
There is no Sagnac effect for an interferometer undergoing uniform translation motion, just relative translational motion, where different parts of the interferometer are moving relative to each other, which contains key parts which are rotating.

If you can't do the derivation correctly for a stationary loop
But you just stated the opposite:
No I didn't.
You have completely avoided the derivation.
It not producing a shift doesn't mean you can do the derivation, nor does it mean it is pointless.

It provides a baseless, a simple starting point.
If you can't figure it out, anything more is far too complex.

so the total delay for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise) should be: l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)
It can't be.
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.
This is because you are assuming that arm 2 and 4 do not contribute to the shift at all, and instead only arm 1 and arm 3 do.
This is the time taken to transit arm 1 and arm 3.

Now, you have TWO OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, while you assign the SAME SIGN
Yes, because they are times taken.
To assign a negative time you would be saying that the light is travelling backwards in time as it propagates along the loop.
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.
This makes absolutely no sense and is the massive error in your analysis.

What in effect you are saying is this:
A > D > C combined with A > B.

NO LOOP AT ALL.
No, that is what you have.
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)

Meanwhile, you have what amounts to this nonsense:
{l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c - v2)} -  {l1/(c + v1) + l2/(c + v2)}

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)

But notice how they have the same c+v or c-v?
This means the light is propogating in the same direction relative to the velocity of the loop.
i.e. you have a setup like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/YLzLwWL.png)
You have your light travel along B>C, but then magically go A>D.
This makes no sense. You are not having your light travel along the loop, and you are completely ignoring the effects of the crossing paths.

So no, I'm not the one with the complete nonsensical paths. That would be you entirely.
Either you have paths which do not correspond to the interferometer, or you have your light magically travelling backwards in time so it arrives before it leaves.

This is why I am demanding you start with the basics, a simple stationary loop.
Until you can get your head around a stationary loop, with only positive times, anything more complex is well beyond you.

So again:
Can you figure out how long it takes for the light to propagate around a stationary loop?
If so, provide the derivation here. If not, give up as you have no chance of understanding the Sagnac effect.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 01:01:52 PM
Sure, for the case being discussed here we have rotation (MGX).

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.

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)

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."

Here is another demonstration.

(https://image.ibb.co/cPs5vd/sagnac3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m86n8y/sagnac4.jpg)

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

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.

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):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


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.


You are about to become a flat earth believer, no doubt about that.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2019, 01:20:34 PM
Sagnac effect while in uniform/translational/linear motion is a proven fact.
No it isn't.
It has never been observed in a system that is moving with uniform translation motion.
But we are not discussing that.
Like I said, start with the basics.


Can everyone understand that the differences in time travel have to be substracted?
No, we need to find the difference in travel time.
We aren't dealing with multiple time differences (not with how you are trying to derive it, we would if you wanted to focus on the shift from each leg and add them up).

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
No we don't.
No one in the right mind does that.
To find the total travel time we need to add up the individual travel times. There are no time differences here.
A time difference is the final result.

This is why I am saying to start with a stationary loop.
You cannot even understand something as simple as adding times taken for multiple steps to find the total time.
According to your insanity, the time taken to travel around a stationary loop is 0.
Do you really think that is true?

So now, like I said, start with the basics.
How long does it take light to travel around a stationary loop?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2019, 01:31:53 PM
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

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.

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):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


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.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2019, 03:02:33 PM
and that is only for his Phase Conjugate Mirror fibre optic gyroscope so is totally irrelevant here!
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!
YOU claim that:
BOTH THE PHASE-CONJUGATE MIRROR AND THE REGULAR MIRRORS LEAD TO THE VERY SAME RESULTS; ONE,.

Optical phase conjugation: principles, techniques, and applications Guang S. He (http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~cvijayan/opc-review.pdf)
Sure the PCM Fibre OPtic Gyroscope both measure rotation but only YOU seem to claim that the expressions for delay are the same!

So please post evidence for your claim that "BOTH THE PHASE-CONJUGATE MIRROR AND THE REGULAR MIRRORS LEAD TO THE VERY SAME" expression for the Sagnac delay.

And don't you dare just repeat your own incorrect "analysis" - that is not evidence.

Quote from: sandokhan
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.

I choose not believe YOU no matter how many times you post the same old rubbish!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2019, 04:20:14 PM
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.
The Sagnac effect deals with time differences in beams of light propagating around loops.
As such, even though a stationary loop does not produce the Sagnac effect, it is still very relevant.
According to you, it takes no time for the light to propagate around the loop.
That is pure insanity.

Again, your error has been pointed out repeatedly and you are yet to rationally address it.
As you seem to be completely unwilling to address the issues and instead insist upon repeating the same refuted nonsense, I will keep asking for the basics.

Now can you provide the derivation for how long it take light to propogate around a stationary loop?
If not, then you shouldn't be trying anything more complex.
You continually avoiding this very simple task if you trolling the fora.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2019, 09:38:32 PM
Sure, for the case being discussed here we have rotation (MGX).

Sagnac effect while in uniform/translational/linear motion is a proven fact.
Sure but only relative "uniform/translational/linear motion" never yet any measured absolute "uniform/translational/linear motion".

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
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.
Yes, but all those are just segments of the fibre and a Wang himself says.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)
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.
As I said, the "difference of two counterpropagating light beams" in a loop of fibre.

Quote from: sandokhan
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."

<< There's no point in repeating the same old.  >>
None of this is measuring absolute "uniform/translational/linear motion".

Now read the conclusion to:
Test of the one-way speed of light and the first-order experiment of Special Relativity using phase-conjugate interferometers by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng and Aiping Yao (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf)
Quote from: Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng and Aiping Yao
7. CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
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".

Up until the date of that paper there seemed to be no "Test of the one-way speed of light and the first-order experiment of Special Relativity" by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng and Aiping and their phase-conjugate interferometers.

So what is your point in claiming "Sagnac effect while in uniform/translational/linear motion is a proven fact."
And a Sagnac device must have a fixed geometry that is rotated or move about an off centre axis.
Ruyong Wang's devices measuring movement have a varying geometry and are not designed to measure rotation.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on February 21, 2019, 11:46:20 PM
Either Sandy knows what he has is bunk and so spends all his time spamming this forum trying to convince others he isn't as dumb as he writes.

Or he has tried to publish all his bunk and got shot down and so spends all his time spamming this forum trying to convince others he isn't as dumb as he writes.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: zork on February 22, 2019, 02:50:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 22, 2019, 06:47:04 AM
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.

Obfuscation.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Lonegranger on February 22, 2019, 04:28:09 PM
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

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.

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):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


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:

l1/(c - v1)

l2/(c + v2)

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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


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):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


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.

I’m not sure if Jack Black lies, but I know for a fact that you do. Not only do you lie constantly but you also twist and distort.
How many of the scientists you regularly misquote were or are flat earth believers?......let me answer thatfor you......none.

You tell lies about about science. You tell lies about maths and you tell lies about history.
It looks like you are both a serial and compulsive liar.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 22, 2019, 10:18:34 PM
Let's put your word to the test.

You are here after a SIX MONTH BAN, FOR HAVING LIED TO EVERYONE: you had multiple accounts/alts, one of which was nightsky.

You were lying all the time to your readers.

A sure sign of compulsive lying.

Yet, here you are having the audacity to accuse someone else.


Is Gauss' Easter formula a lie?

If not, then I am not lying about history.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

Are the paleomagnetic datings of the artefacts found in southern Italy, including Pompeii, a lie?

If not, then I am not lying about history.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683846#msg1683846


So far, no lies on my part.


The math part.

Here is my global natural logarithm formula, proven to be true by myself, also the RE checked it and found it to be true:

(https://image.ibb.co/bVhDQJ/glog2.jpg)

Here is my global cosine/exponential formula:

(https://image.ibb.co/cYCuzd/glog1.jpg)

Here is my global arctangent formula:

(https://image.ibb.co/bL89zd/glog3.jpg)

My formula/algorithm for the zeros of the Riemann zeta function works out perfectly, a feat unmatched and unheard of, without using mathematical analysis, only basic arithmetic.


No lies on my part so far.


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.


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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 23, 2019, 12:08:55 AM
Is Gauss' Easter formula a lie?

If not, then I am not lying about history.

I wouldn't go so far as saying a lie. Perhaps more of a misinterpretation. From a 'Scientific American' article titled, 'Algorithms Calendar Calculations: Easter Is a Quasicrystal'

"In 1800 German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss invented a simple algorithm that incorporated the church’s rules for calculating Easter’s date. Unfortunately, Gauss’s work contained a minor oversight: it gives April 13 for the year 4200 when the correct date should be April 20. He corrected this error by hand in his own copy of the published paper. The first flawless algorithm was presented in 1876 in the journal Nature by an anonymous American. In 1965 Thomas H. O’Beirne of Glasgow University published two such procedures in his book Puzzles and Paradoxes (Oxford University Press). O’Beirne’s method puts the various cycles and adjustments into an arithmetical scheme."

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2019, 12:21:59 AM
You were given a link which directly contradicts your drivel.

Yet, here you are merrily and happily wondering aloud about "misinterpretations".

No misinterpretations at all.

GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF 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.

I am going to prove to you that no such thing ever happened, thus showing the utter fallacy of the differential equation approach to understanding orbital mechanics.

You also seem to forget that just as Einstein fudged his Mercury equation to fit the results, so the conspirators who invented the RE differential equations of motion had to modify drastically not only the masses of the planets and the Sun, but also their corresponding distances from Earth, in order to, at least, offer accurate results for a time span not extending beyond some three hundred years.


Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR



It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.



What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:



Matthew Vlastar:



“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


I have just proven to you that the spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 23, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
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.

That is incorrect and has nothing to do with, "According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics." It was a a church thing to lay out the Christian holidays, standardize them across the religion. That's what the big meeting of bishops in Nicaea in 325 AD was all about. Pretty much everyone knows this except for you. Has nothing to with RE equations nor with orbital mechanics. Quit posting stuff that is totally irrelevant, then misinterpreting it, and plastering all over here.

"According to the Nicaean Ecumenical Council of 325 AD, Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring (Vernal) Equinox. All Eastern and Western churches follow this Ecumenical Council ruling. The differences come from the different interpretation of these rules.
The Eastern Christian Churches (Orthodox) follow the Julian calendar in calculating Easter dates, while the Western Christian Churches (Catholic, Protestant) follow the Gregorian calendar.
The Eastern Churches have fixed the above “Vernal Equinox” to be March 21 of the Julian calendar, which currently is April 3 in the Gregorian calendar. So, in Eastern churches, Easter falls between April 4 and May 8, while in Western churches Easter falls between March 22 and April 25."

From:
'On the Julian, Gregorian and Lunar Calendars, the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, the Vernal Equinox and the Paschal Full Moon. - Why is Easter Celebrated on Different Sundays in the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic and Protestant Churches?'

Panos Antsaklis
Notre Dame, Indiana
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 23, 2019, 01:10:39 AM
So far, no lies on my part.
Except basically every statement you have made int he thread.

Now stop with the pathetic distractions (This topic is laser ring gyroscopes, not Easter or logarithms). Your formula is pure garbage, not proven by anyone and just baselessly asserted by you, however it has been refuted by countless others.

Now can you show the derivation for how long it takes light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2019, 01:56:47 AM
You derived a formula which has NO LOOPS, and is a comparison of TWO SEGMENTS.

You used the same sign for beams traveling in opposite directions.

Your final formula is this:

4AΩ/c^2

However, THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

Here is a reference which uses the CORIOLIS FORCE to derive the very same formula, which is proportional to the area of the interferometer:

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:

4AΩ/c^2

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

A direct disproval of your failed claims that this would be the Sagnac effect formula.


My formula has the LOOPS, and the CORRECT SIGNS.

And there is nothing that you can do about it.

The experimental proof, using the VERY SAME FORMULA, was published in one of the two best journals on OPTICS in the world: the Journal of Optics Letters (the other one is Applied Optics).

It was peer-reviewed at the highest level possible.

It was published by the top expert in the world on LASER OPTICS: Professor Yeh.

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

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


THE VERY SAME FORMULA, OBTAINED FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENCE LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES.


Please read:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

THE FORMULA WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF OPTICS LETTERS.

PAGE 18 OF THE PDF DOCUMENT, SECTION 3.0 PROGRESS:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.


SELF-PUMPED PHASE CONJUGATE FIBER OPTIC GYRO, PUBLISHED BY OPTICS LETTERS

PUBLISHED BY THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, PHYSICS DIVISION

HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC LEVEL


PAGE 38 OF THE PDF DOCUMENT, PAGE 6 OF APPENDIX 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:


φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


THE VERY SAME FORMULA, OBTAINED FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENCE LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES.


The US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division, thus confirms my formula.

There is nothing else to discuss here.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2019, 02:00:14 AM
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!
And please don't claim that it makes no difference.

So now would you show your analysis of the passive loop as used in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson  measurement.

By the way, you do remember the book you referred to in your vain attempt to prove that Silberstein derived the Coriolis effect and not the Sagnac effect?
This book: Ring Interferometry, De Grigorii B. Malykin, Vera I. Pozdnyakova (https://www.amazon.com/Interferometry-Gruyter-Studies-Mathematical-Physics-ebook/dp/B07G4MMRWK)

Well, De Grigorii B. Malykin also wrote a paper in Russian, The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations, G. B. Malykin (http://m.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=ufn&paperid=1825&option_lang=eng), and look what the abstract says:
Quote from: G. B. Malykin
The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations

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.   
Luckily the abstract is in English.
Yes, YOUR expert states quite clearly that the"Sagnac effect" "can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity" and that "the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect" "are wrong".

Quote from: sandokhan
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.

But do "these scientists" really claim "that terrestrial gravity" is "a force of attraction"?
I'm no scientist but even I do not claim claim "that terrestrial gravity" is "a force of attraction" just that it behaves as one.

So what "findings . . . . obviously contradict Newton's law of gravitation"?

You do not even understand yet the implications of Newton's law of universal gravitation. It is a Law and not a theory.
And as such it simply states that gravitation behaves as a force of attraction, not that gravitation is a force of attraction.

Now according to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, gravitation is not "a force of attraction" but an "inertial force".
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2019, 02:03:32 AM
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
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2019, 02:05:55 AM
Except for one minor detail. Prof Pochi Yeh's Sagnac delay is for a device with a Phase Conjugate Mirror and yours isn't!

My formula has the LOOPS, and the CORRECT SIGNS.

And there is nothing that you can do about it.

The experimental proof, using the VERY SAME FORMULA, was published in one of the two best journals on OPTICS in the world: the Journal of Optics Letters (the other one is Applied Optics).

It was peer-reviewed at the highest level possible.

It was published by the top expert in the world on LASER OPTICS: Professor Yeh.

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

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


THE VERY SAME FORMULA, OBTAINED FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENT LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES.


Please read:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

THE FORMULA WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF OPTICS LETTERS.

PAGE 18 OF THE PDF DOCUMENT, SECTION 3.0 PROGRESS:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.


SELF-PUMPED PHASE CONJUGATE FIBER OPTIC GYRO, PUBLISHED BY OPTICS LETTERS

PUBLISHED BY THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, PHYSICS DIVISION

HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC LEVEL


PAGE 38 OF THE PDF DOCUMENT, PAGE 6 OF APPENDIX 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:


φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


THE VERY SAME FORMULA, OBTAINED FOR A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WHICH FEATURES TWO DIFFERENCE LENGTHS AND TWO DIFFERENT VELOCITIES.


The US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division, thus confirms my formula.

There is nothing else to discuss here.


Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2019, 02:43:34 AM
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.
And Prof Pochi Yeh's delay is for a device with a Phase Conjugate Mirror and not for your passive loop - quite different.

Quote from: sandokhan
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.

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?


There is no mention of the Sagnac effect!
It simply says "Bob Knodel . . . . obtained a UD$20,000 laser ring gyroscope, an extremely accurate device, to show that the earth was not spinning".
The device was part of a device used for inertial navigation systems. Here is a complete INS based on fibre optic gyroscopes plus accelerometers.
Quote
EMCORE-OrionTM EN-1000 Micro Inertial Navigation System (MINAV) (http://emcore.com/products/emcore-orion-en1000-micro-inertial-navigation-system-minav/)
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.
Who cares whether these devices use the Sagnac effect or the Fred ;D effect?
Whatever YOU call it, they work and depend on the earth's rotation to find true North (" to approximately 1 milliradian").
Try explanating what sort of aether rotation would  allow a "gyrocompass" to find true North on any flat earth map.

You now have to answer the OP and all your pages of copy-pasta will not do!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 23, 2019, 03:25:58 AM
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.
Meanwhile, instead of focusing on the loops, you decided to calculate the time difference between the segments, for a single beam, which has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.

Now again, can you show a derivation for the very simple problem of light propagating around a stationary loop?
If not, it isn't surprising that you don't understand what you are doing wrong and cannot correctly derive the Sagnac effect for a rotating loop.

So can you do this very simple task? If not, don't bother commenting on the Sagnac effect ever again because you clearly don't understand.

And repeating your same refuted nonsense again and again doesn't help your case.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: zork on February 23, 2019, 03:57:36 AM
I sometimes wonder if sandokhan even reads what he posts. Seems more that he has some keywords and then takes some text from somewhere and copies/pastes it here.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2019, 04:46:42 AM
Except for one minor detail. Prof Pochi Yeh's Sagnac delay is for a device with a Phase Conjugate Mirror and yours isn't!
My formula has the LOOPS, and the CORRECT SIGNS.
And there is nothing that you can do about it.
Oh, yes there is! I can inform everyone of your errors!

You say your formula for the Sagnac delay is the same as Prof Pochi Yeh's. Here's what you clsim:
CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:
2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2
For Professor Yeh's phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyroscope:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xumdgg3e60ji6r/Prof%20Yeh%20-%20phase%20conjugate%20fibre%20optic%20gyroscope.png?dl=1)
They would be the same except that:
          yours has (V1L1 + V2L2) where Prof Yeh's has 2π(R1L1 + R2L2.
In your analysis L1 and L2 are two SIDES of the one loop but in Prof Yeh's L1 and L2 are the total lengths of two loops.

Those differences make yours a whole different loop structure and yours hides the necessity for rotation which Prof Yeh's explicitly includes.
So, whatever YOU claim, while your formula might look similar to Prof Yeh's it is simply an incorrect analysis of a different structure.

Repeatedly claiming yours is the same as Prof Pochi Yeh's fibre optic gyroscope with a phase conjugate mirror will get you nowhere!

A repeated error is simply a compounded error.

Why is it that you are the only person who seems get an obviously incorrect expression like that?
Look at this from what appears to be the source of your diagram:
Quote from: Doug Marett
Conspiracy of Light, The Michelson-Gale Experiment (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html)
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:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
where:  Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
              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
And those 2's should be 4's because even Michelson didn't initially get it quite right and it was corrected by Silberstein:
Quote from: Doug Marett
   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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After taking all these factors into account, the expected fringe shift becomes:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MandG4.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Yendor on February 23, 2019, 10:57:50 AM
what gyro did Bob use, because small laser gyro (up to a perimeter length of 60 cm) used for navigation are unable to detect Earth’s rotation and need to be dithered to avoid lock-in.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 23, 2019, 03:18:56 PM
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

You are not entirely incorrect. But you are using things to run with completely out of context and to fabricate some sort of foundation for all of your claims that land squarely in obfuscation.

I too can copy/paste a wall of text:

"THE REFORM OF THE JULIAN CALENDAR
ROSCOE LAMONT.
The average length of the Julian year is 3654 days, which is about 11 ¼ minutes greater than the tropical year. Since there A 1440 minutes in a day, the number of years that must elapse before the excess amounts to one day will be found by dividing 1440 by 11%, which gives 128. Therefore at the end of 128 years the time of the equinox would be one day earlier in the calendar. When the Julian calendar was established in the year 45 B. C. the equinox occurred about March 24, and in 325 A. D. it came about March 21. At this rate, in a little over 10,00o years the equinox would fall on the first of January, and in 22,000 years the fourth of July would come at the time of the winter solstice. This would not do at all, and in order to prevent any such occurrence the calendar was reformed again.

But the idea of the reformers was to restore the equinox to March 21, the day on which they supposed it came in the year 325, when a Council of the Church was held at Nicaea, in Asia Minor, which made a decision as to the time of celebrating Easter. One sect of the Chris-tians, following the Jewish practice, observed the fourteenth day of the moon, on whatever day of the week it came, which fell on or next followed the date of the equinox; but the greater number condemned this practice, wishing to have nothing in common with the Jews, who boasted that without instruction from them the Christians wouldn’t know when to celebrate Easter. When the Nicene Council was held the
Romans placed the date of the equinox at March 18, and the Alexandrians at March 21, but modern astronomers who have written on this
subject say that the equinox in the year 325 came on March 20. The Alexandrian determination appears to have been accepted, and the rule laid down that Easter was to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon which falls on or next after March 21, the date of the equinox, the computation to be made by the Church of Alexandria, the most skilled in the science of astronomy, and the Church of Rome to make it known. The Romans, however, continued to make their own computation, for Hefele, in his History of the Church Councils, says that in the very next year, 326, the Romans celebrated Easter on a different day from the Alexandrians, and that the same thing happened in the years 330, 333, 340, 341 and 343. But though councils might by decree fix the equinox at March 21, it none the less continued to come one day earlier in the month every 128 years, falling on March 11 in 1582 when the reform of the calendar was carried into effect, and to restore the date to March 21 the omission of ten days, or, better, the dropping of ten monthly dates, was necessary."
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 25, 2019, 02:03:30 PM
The OP was:
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.

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?


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.

It is worth noting that, not only was there Bob Knodel's admission but:
Quote
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.

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."

Yes, two very “Interesting” admissions from "at the top" flat earthers.

Then we have "Rob Skiba Proves Globe" and a bit of "No I didn't!" and "Yes, you did!:

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

But it does seem to be that some of these YouTube flat earthers are starting to do experiments more carefully and are not liking their answers.
And all Bob Knodel could say was “It would be bad”, "What I've just told you is confidential" and Jeran Campanella simply says “Interesting” and later he denied the results.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on February 25, 2019, 03:39:08 PM
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

Woooo sando.
So many words.
What exactly is your point here?
I thought the aether was because scientists at the time didnt think space was empty.
What does that have to do with flatness of earth?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on February 25, 2019, 03:51:36 PM
Here's the 'interesting' clip Rab referenced:

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2019, 02:47:13 AM
Could I be excused for thinking that the YouTube "flat er'fers" are not happy with Jeran and Bob Knodel for "proving" the earth a rotating Globe?

JERANISM AND GLOBEBUSTERS Kicked Out of FE After Being BUSTED Part 2 - Dmarblez Love affair by UNIRock2
And I'm sure there's more to follow.  Poor poor Jeran ;D and Bob Knodel ;D don't you feel sorry ;) for them ::)?

Good advice. Don't get a conspiritard riled up or they'll a invent CIA conspiracy against you - and no flat er'fer wants that!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2019, 04:44:18 AM
The word it out about the Bob Knodel/Jeranism debacle:
Quote from: Lennart Regebro, Studied flat earth extensively.
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 26, 2019, 12:48:57 PM
My real question with this, which really challenges my beliefs about FEers, were they actually stupid enough to think it wouldn't happen?
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?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2019, 04:14:29 PM
My real question with this, which really challenges my beliefs about FEers, were they actually stupid enough to think it wouldn't happen?
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?
They probably, saw all those "toy" mechanical gyroscopes supposedly proving a stationary Earth so thought they would prove it once and for all.
Comments and debunks of those YouTube video told them what was wrong but being typical flat earthers "they knew better".

But now that Rob Skiba, Jeran Campanella and Bob Knodel are starting to good experiments and not liking the results as they go against their "TRUTH".

Of course Jeran Campanella is loathe to lose the few thousand a month he pockets from YouTube.
I wonder what happen after his demonstration of "curved water" and Bob Knodel et al's gyroscope fiasco.

Other flat-earthers are decidedly unhappy.

But at least they are doing these experiments. No flat earther on this site or TFES.org seem prepared to take part in the simplest.
Even the "Modified Eratosthenes Experiment" seems too much bother so just come up with the usual arguments against the original one.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on February 26, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2019, 04:50:50 PM
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?
Quote from: sandokhan, Flat Earth Sultan, Flat Earth Scientist
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)
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.
'Nuff said but when did that stop me ;)?
The luminiferous aether was accepted as the medium necessary for light propagation till well after 1900.
But some observations seemed to demand that this aether be dragged along by solid material and some didn't.
And James Bradley threw a spanner in the works with his explanation of Stellar Aberration.
Quote from: Wikipedia
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.

I attempted to present the aether options and refute them in Flat Earth Debate / Re: VERY SIMPLE QUESTION for HC believers!!! « on March 01, 2018, 11:29:16 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74508.msg2032816;topicseen#msg2032816)
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on February 27, 2019, 06:37:04 AM
More gobblygook.
Still doesnt answer the question.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 27, 2019, 01:40:34 PM
More gobblygook.
Still doesnt answer the question.
So you want the short version to
but still doesn't answer the question as to why sando is so adamant that 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?
Nothing!

But I should add that Sandokhan is mainly arguing against the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf) being really the Sagnac effect and he claims that it does not measure rotation.

He admits that:
Quote from: sandokhan, Flat Earth Sultan, Flat Earth Scientist
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)
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.
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.

It's that important and Bob Knodel et al have now admitted that.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on February 27, 2019, 01:45:27 PM
Thanks



Sando!
Wheres the sando answer?
Come on.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2019, 01:38:14 AM
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:

(https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;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.

Any kind of an argument raised by the RE (temperature, equipment used, anything else) can be turned against them as well.

This is the main reason why Michelson inserted this observation data on page 6 (in the acknowledgments section), away from the main discussion, in order to attract as little attention to it as possible.

On page 144 (page 5 of the pdf document) Michelson states:

In view of the difficulty of the observations, this must be taken to mean that the observed and calculated shifts agree within the limits of observational error.

However, several observations showed that the Earth is not rotating.

So, for the FE who do not want to get involved in debates regarding the aether, the Hammar experiment, all they have to do is use the data published by Michelson to indicate/prove that the Earth is stationary (no fringe shifts recorded at all in several cases).

Wasn't the MM experiment done because they didn't know space was actually mostly empty space?
so what's the deal?!
what does MM have to do with flatness?


MMX = SGX (same formula, proven by E.J. Post in 1999); all comments pertaining to the SGX apply immediately to the MMX as well

Aether theory = flat earth theory (pressure gravity instead of attractive gravity; pressure gravity is possible on a flat surface of the Earth)

Hoek/Mascart experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on February 28, 2019, 02:02:28 AM
Whole lot of words...

Ezecutive summary on why a stationary earth = flat earth
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 28, 2019, 02:03:46 AM
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:
Hey you're back.
I see you still haven't managed to figure out what is wrong with your derivation yet, nor the simple derivation for a ring.

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.
It is clear that there is a roughly normally distributed result clearly centred away from 0, with some significant error.
The closest you could get (with any semblance of honesty) is claiming there is too much error to determine if Earth is stationary.
But plenty far more accurate measurements, such as the one performed by Bob Knodel, clearly shows rotation without any possibility of dismissing it as error.

This is the main reason why Michelson inserted this observation data on page 6
He stuck it there because that is where it fits.
If he didn't want to attract attention to it, why include it at all?
Why draw attention to it by stating "The entire set of two hundred and sixty-nine determinations and their distribution about the mean value is shown graphically in Figure 3."?

Your reasoning makes no sense at all.

Aether theory = flat earth theory (pressure gravity
Aether does not mean flat Earth, not does it mean pressure gravity, nor does FE mean pressure gravity, nor does pressure gravity mean FE.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Lonegranger on February 28, 2019, 02:13:04 AM
Thanks



Sando!
Wheres the sando answer?
Come on.

Come on be fair, you have to give him time for the laxative to do its work.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2019, 02:27:42 AM
The closest you could get (with any semblance of honesty) is claiming there is too much error to determine if Earth is stationary.

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.

You cannot claim too much error: any argument brought in the debate, whatever it is (temperature, equipment), can be turned immediately against the RE.

You have to deal with the fact that the readings, several of them, showed NO ROTATION AT ALL.

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.

However, the RE will now bring the RING LASER GYROSCOPES into play, both terrestrial and used in airplanes, with a much higher degree of accuracy, to claim the Earth is rotating. Seismic waves, Earth's line fluctuations can be explained by the RE, so that eventually the FE will need my formula to claim victory.


There is nothing wrong with my formula: it is splendidly correct.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on February 28, 2019, 02:41:57 AM
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.
That is the opposite of what I said.
Those results DO NOT prove Earth is stationary.
There strongly indicate (most people would say prove) Earth is rotating.
The only hope you have is to pretend the error is to great and say it can't tell.
That wouldn't mean Earth is stationary. It would just mean the results have too great an error to determine if Earth is stationary or rotating.
But all sane people would clearly see that it shows Earth is rotating.

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.
Also, you don't seem to be able to count. There was 1 reading which showed no rotation.

eventually the FE will need my formula to claim victory.
You mean to lie some more, embarrass themselves and pretend to have victory.
Again, your formula makes no sense.
When you are meant to be finding a total time, you are instead finding a difference which doesn't correspond to any physical thing in the setup.
It makes no sense at all.
This has been pointed out and explained repeatedly, but you just ignore it and continue to assert the same BS.

You have a formula, which can be applied to a symmetrical system which should show no phase shift at all, yet which predicts a phase shift, showing another massive problem with it.

You completely avoid very simple questions to expose this problems.


No copying and pasting loads of stuff you clearly don't understand.
Start with the basics.
How long does it take light to travel around a stationary loop?
Once you have figured out that we can then put the loop in motion to do more complex things.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on February 28, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:

(https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;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.
And how do you work out that 0.230 fringes is "NO ROTATION OF THE EARTH AT ALL".
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtyve5b7vempp04/Michelson-Gale-Pearson%20Results.jpg?dl=1)

But why do you only try to refute the Michelson-Gale-Pearson results when far more accurate modern similar devices are installed in various places.
One of these is the GINGERino deep underground ring-laser installed in Italy which is able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"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:
Quote
1. Introduction
Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG) are, at present, the most precise sensors of absolute angular velocity for an Earth based apparatus. They are based on the Sagnac effect arising from a rigidly rotating ring laser cavity.
The resolution is quite impressive.
Quote
The Gross Ring ”G” at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of 3 × 10−9 (about 15 × 10−14 rad/s with 4 hours integration time).

That paper did not give the rotation rate, just the stability etc.
But this paper does: Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa (https://agenda.infn.it/getFile.py/access?contribId=140&sessionId=5&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=10512)

And the result is:
Quote
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is  ;) guess what  ;) a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours - the GINGER result is more precise than that.

The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser proves that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on February 28, 2019, 03:07:08 AM
Uuuuugh

Sando

In plain english
1-2 sentences.
So what if the earth is stationary?!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: zork on March 01, 2019, 04:50:11 AM
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?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 01, 2019, 10:17:14 PM
Getting back the "Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope" some might say of this little squabble among the YouTube flat earthers "That's interesting . . " :P

Conference between #TheRealGlobebusters #TEAMYAHAWASHI #FlatEarth
Behind The Curve Star Bob Knodel of Globebusters EXPOSED... 2019 NETFLIX

The Limitless Channel
There was revolt at the flat earth station,
for the word had passed around,
that Bob Knodel let the secret get clean away.
He'd wasted that Laser Gyro — it was worth a cold twenty grand.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 10, 2019, 03:18:26 AM
This thread is a better place for an answer to:
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.
This is this official trailer:

Behind the Curve - Official Teaser Trailer

And here are a few "takes" on Bob Knodel's laser gyro experiment but there are numerous more.

The "Rory" version. Rory is a very level headed and polite anti-flat earther:

Bob Knodel vs Gyroscope (Bob loses) by Rory

The "FlatEarth.ws" version. "FlatEarth.ws" is very definitely an anti-flat earth site.

Bob Knodel & His Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment
by FlatEarth.ws


And the "YouTube Flat-Earth Community" is not happy and how!

Bob Knodel of globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST
and getting THE BOOT Beyond Flat Earth!
by Awake Souls
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 10, 2019, 03:39:01 AM
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 106 and later ones can achieve 1 part in 108.
Have a look at
Quote
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)
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 ∆ΩE < 10-8.
Of course that one in Italy is hardly the thing you might take home.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: MicroBeta on March 10, 2019, 07:57:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on March 10, 2019, 08:00:31 AM
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 106 and later ones can achieve 1 part in 108.
Have a look at
Quote
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)
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 ∆ΩE < 10-8.
Of course that one in Italy is hardly the thing you might take home.

Unfortunately, some flerf will come up and repeat their cult classic statement of "there is absolutely no scientific measurement of earth's rotation by anyone ever".

And Sandy will come up with reams of copy pasta to show that this is not the Sagnac effect or some such.

But like all things accepted by science, there is either physical experimentation, actual observations or at least cross-checkable mathematics to support said theories or/and accepted facts
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SpaceCadet on March 10, 2019, 08:32:43 AM
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.

From what I have read from your link, these guys really believe what they ....preach. They really believe the earth is flat. They have a good idea about scientific processes even though they will outright reject what doesn't confirm their bias, still they have a working knowledge of scientific processes.

How on earth can they still think the earth is flat? Gives more credence to thay ex flat earther interviewed by FightTheFlatEarth who said the flat earth belief is in the heart and not the head. You can use logic and reason against the head but not against the heart.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 10, 2019, 01:59:13 PM
Do these guys not understand that Pythagoras works in higher dimensions? In so many spots they are trying to just use 2 axes instead of all three.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 10, 2019, 05:28:38 PM
Does anyone have any information about the ring laser gyroscope tests mentioned in "Behind the Curve" other than the trivial amount shown?

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!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: MicroBeta on March 10, 2019, 05:41:55 PM
Does anyone have any information about the ring laser gyroscope tests mentioned in "Behind the Curve" other than the trivial amount shown?

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!
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.

All we know is they got a fiber optic gyro which they were sure would show no drift.  It did and links explains what the did after that.  If you go to their website (liked below) they discuss other gyros they tested and why they decided to build their own.

https://fecore.org/mechanical-gyros-and-testing-earth-spin/

This is a video of their custom built mechanical gyro that they believe will show no drift.



Mike
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 10, 2019, 05:52:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 10, 2019, 06:27:18 PM
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.

If "level" a single axis RLG should read (15 deg/hr) x sin(lat) but I'd let Bob Knodel's supporters bring that up.
Bob Knodel has raised the sin(lat) in relation to a mechanical gyro he's building.
But Bob Knodel, long time supporter of the flat earth claimed it read 15 deg/hr and none of his supporters questioned that.
All that was done was to try to shield it from "cosmic energies" but if the RLG is measuring inertial effects no shielding can change it.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SkepticMike on March 10, 2019, 06:30:07 PM
I think there's a clip where Bob admits to another flerfer the rotation results and says if they release the results its not going to be very good for FE. There's also a clip where Jism is left stunned that his lights and holes experiment confirms curvature.
 
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on March 10, 2019, 06:31:09 PM
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?

Not sure if it was a single axis FOG or not. In some other video Bob mentions that he previously mentioned the make and model of it. In some old globe busters vid. But those have all been marked private on the YT channel. So unclear.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 10, 2019, 10:25:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 12:49:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Stash on March 11, 2019, 01:08:23 AM
From the discussion Micro posted, there's this:

"I have decided to exchange the DSP-1760 3-axis for an IMU-1750.
This IMU-1750 does not have the mags that are on the IMU-1775"

DSP-1760 specs: https://www.kvh.com/Commercial-and-OEM/Gyros-and-Inertial-Systems-and-Compasses/Gyros-and-IMUs-and-INS/Fiber-Optic-Gyros/DSP-1760.aspx

IMU-150 Specs: https://www.kvh.com/Military-and-Government/Gyros-and-Inertial-Systems-and-Compasses/Gyros-and-IMUs-and-INS/IMUs/1750-IMU.aspx
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 03:16:00 AM
Can someone call/write to Bob Knodel and let him know that the mystery has been solved?

BK recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift rotating above the surface of the Earth.

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(v1 + v2)/c2

For the same interferometer, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is:

4Aω/c2

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.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: SkepticMike on March 11, 2019, 03:30:17 AM
One man's aether is another man's ektoplasm,
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 11, 2019, 04:26:22 AM
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.

Quote from: sandokhan
BK recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift rotating above the surface of the Earth.
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(v1 + v2)/c2

For the same interferometer, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is:
4Aω/c2

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.
In the meantime you could brush of Bob Knodel's ideas on aether, Airy's failure and Einstein etc, etc in this:

Ring Laser Gyro, Sagnac, Aether & the Motionless Earth GLOBEBUSTERS by God's Flat Earth
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 11, 2019, 08:23:21 AM
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?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 10:04:26 AM
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?

Seems the Aether rotates different directions on different parts of the earth.

Perhaps Sandokahn can clarify, but from what I've been able to gather, the Aether rotates around the north pole one way inside the equator and the other way outside the equator.
And presumably doesn't rotate at all on the equator.

Which maybe explains why the stars rotate one way south of the equator and the other way north thereof.

However theoretically, this would mean the stars don't move in the sky over the equator. so that's a problem.

What I don't know is if the aether doesn't rotate at the equator, or if it's rotation is just on the horizontal axis.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 10:26:30 AM
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)."

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 10:50:12 AM
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)."

Very interesting! I'll have to check into that some more. I was wondering if light traveled difference speeds east-west.

But to clarify, do you believe the ether is rotating at the equator? Or would Bob's gyro have read zero at the equator, regardless of orientation?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 10:57:38 AM
The Sagnac effect is caused by ether drift.

Someone has to communicate these facts to BK, otherwise he won't understand the readings of the RLG.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 11:01:31 AM
The Sagnac effect is caused by ether drift.
Fascinating!
Quote
Someone has to communicate these facts to BK, otherwise he won't understand the readings of the RLG.
Agreed.

But in your opinion, of Bob had taken his RLG to the equator, would it have read any significant rate of rotation of pointed straight to local up in its sensitive axis?
(Assuming it's a single axis unit.)
And would it have given near 15deg/hr at any orientation on the equator? What orientation would give the strongest reading of rotation rate?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 11:12:12 AM
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
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 11:17:32 AM
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

Interesting.

But that link is all globe earth based.

In your opinion, would a perfect mechanical gyro give the same readings in all locations and orientations on earth as would a perfect LRG?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 11:40:15 AM
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
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 11:54:55 AM
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

Fascinating.

I perceive that you have no opinion on whether the LRG would act the same as a spinning mass gyro in all locations on earth and all orientations.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 12:40:31 PM
They will act the same if the same force is acting on them: the CORIOLIS FORCE.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect on the light beams.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic force on the velocity of the beams.

Two very different phenomena, yet physicists are using the same formula to describe both situations, even though, by definition, the SAGNAC EFFECT requires two loops to be formed, while for the CORIOLIS EFFECT no loops are required.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 12:42:42 PM
That's understandable, but with all of your vast knowledge, would you expect a gyro of the two types to read the same thing if in the same location and orientation?

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 01:06:54 PM
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.
We have been over this countless times.
Your formula and derivation is nonsense.
The correct formula for the Sagnac effect for a rotating ring interferometer is 4Aω/c2

If you wish to claim otherwise, show the correct derivation, starting from the basics. That means starting from the time required for light to propagate around a stationary loop.


The Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect is the same thing for a rotating interferometer.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 02:12:04 PM
This is the Coriolis effect formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This is an accepted fact of science.

PROOF

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)

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, peer reviewed in the IOP article, and described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces" is this:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.


Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


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.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: it is proportional to the radius of rotation. It is a comparison of two loops.

Two different phenomena require two very different formulas.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 02:59:17 PM
This is the Coriolis effect formula:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
This is an accepted fact of science.
Which is the exact same thing as the Sagnac effect formula.
This is an accepted fact of science, as shown by all the scientists you quote while claiming they are confusing the 2.

A derivation showing that that is the correct formula has been shown to you several times, and you have been completely unable to find any error with it.
The only derivation you have that shows anything different is fundamentally flawed and shows you don't even understand what you are trying to measure or how long it takes for light to propagate around a loop.

Again, your fundamentally formula indicates a Sagnac effect should be observed for a square loop moving with linear motion, even though that is fundamentally impossible due to the symmetry of the system meaning neither path should take longer.

Like I said, if you want to do the derivation yourself, start with the basics. Show how long it should take for light to propagate around a stationary loop.
Once you have done that you can begin introducing motion into the loop and quickly see how your derivation is so fundamentally flawed.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 03:12:18 PM
Let's put your word to the test.

Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


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.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: it is proportional to the radius of rotation. It is a comparison of two loops.

Two different phenomena require two very different formulas.


My SAGNAC EFFECT formula proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science.


As for the Coriolis effect formula here it is:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

PROOF

THIS IS AN IOP ARTICLE, one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published.

(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)

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, peer reviewed in the IOP article, and described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces" is this:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 11, 2019, 04:26:57 PM
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 delay is proportional the dot product of the area of the Sagnac loop and axis of rotation.
          Sagnac effect and pure geometry by Angelo Tartaglia and Matteo Luca Ruggier (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0401005.pdf)
          THE SAGNAC  EFFECT IN THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM by Neil Ashby (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.615.3798&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
          MathsParges: Sagnac and Fizeau (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm)

The area loop around the equator (a vector) is parallel to the axis of rotation - the axis of earth's rotation so this dot product is maximised.

But for a loop flat on the surface at the equator, its area is normal to the axis of rotation so the dot product is zero.

Try your expression for the Sagnac delay of a loop rotating about an outside point on those two cases: 4L(v1 + v2)/c2.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 04:37:53 PM
Let's put your word to the test.
Fine, lets put my word to the test.
Show me what is wrong with MY derivation, the one I provided. You are so far completely unable to.
Show the time required for light to propagate around a stationary loop.
Explain how you get a shift with uniform linear motion, where the entire loop moves as one.


Don't just copy a paste a bunch of stuff you don't understand and don't understand how it varies from what we are discussing.
Don't just link to already refuted derivation.
Don't even bother bringing up studies/papers which utilise phase conjugate mirrors as that has no relevance to a interferometer without them.

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.
You completely ignore the abstract where it says:
Quote
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.

This paper isn't saying this is the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect is something different.
It is saying the Sagnac effect can be explained as the Coriolis effect, i.e. they are the same (and also goes into detail with correct vs incorrect explanations based upon that).

So this paper agreeing that the formula for the Sagnac effect is based upon the area enclosed by the loop and angular velocity, instead of the length and linear velocity just further refutes your claims.

So go ahead, put my word to the test.
Show what is wrong with my derivation, or provide your own starting from the basics of how long it takes light to travel around a stationary loop, or see if you can find a valid reference which for a simple rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors, so no FOCs or PCMs, claims the Sagnac effect isn't based upon the area and angular velocity.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Unconvinced on March 11, 2019, 08:06:11 PM
Here's the abstract from the "highest level of science" paper Sando just cited:

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 10:07:30 PM
Here's the abstract from the "highest level of science" paper Sando just cited:

Quote
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.

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.

Moreover, it is Malykin who makes a tremendous error in comparing the Sagnac effect with the effect predicted by special relativity.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

to = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 10:13:01 PM
The area loop around the equator (a vector) is parallel to the axis of rotation - the axis of earth's rotation so this dot product is maximised.

But for a loop flat on the surface at the equator, its area is normal to the axis of rotation so the dot product is zero.


Once you mention the word AREA you are dealing with the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Not with the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Moreover you quoted from Neil Ashby who clearly stated these facts.

In a rare admission, even N. Ashby states that the Coriolis force is responsible for the term commonly used in GPS technology for the Sagnac effect:

(https://image.ibb.co/geRwSo/kel11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fkfHYT/kel10.jpg)

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 10:19:17 PM
Your derivation leads to this formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.


Don't even bother bringing up studies/papers which utilise phase conjugate mirrors as that has no relevance to a interferometer without them.

Please update your knowledge on the subject.

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

It is saying the Sagnac effect can be explained as the Coriolis effect, i.e. they are the same


They cannot be the same.

Here is the formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, clearly described as being explained by the Coriolis force:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

(https://image.ibb.co/bX3aXp/sil2.jpg)

Here is my formula:

Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


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.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: it is proportional to the radius of rotation. It is a comparison of two loops.

Two different phenomena require two very different formulas.


My SAGNAC EFFECT formula proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 10:22:57 PM
[irrelevant nonsense removed]

Again, can you show any problem with my derivation?
Can you provide a valid citation for a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors which agrees with you, not me?
Can you provide your own derivation, starting from the basics of a stationary loop?
Can you explain why you are claiming that a square interferometer moving uniformly (i.e. all of it moving together with no rotation) will record a shift?

Asserting I am deriving the wrong formula, when that is the subject of debate, is basically just the same as asserting you are right. IT DOES NOTHING TO HELP YOUR CASE.
Bringing up phase conjugate mirrors does not help your case.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 10:36:55 PM
Your derivation leads to this formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.

Here is a step by step explanation of how your formula does not make use of LOOPS, which are required in the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148651#msg2148651


Don't even bother bringing up studies/papers which utilise phase conjugate mirrors as that has no relevance to a interferometer without them.

Please update your knowledge on the subject.

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.


Here is the explanation for the stationary loop:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2153966#msg2153966


The uniform/translational/linear Sagnac is a fact of science, look up Professor Ruyong Wang's seminal paper on the subject.


Or use the paper provided by your tag team partner.

(https://image.ibb.co/cPs5vd/sagnac3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m86n8y/sagnac4.jpg)

Bringing up phase conjugate mirrors does not help your case.

Please update your knowledge on the subject.

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

Here is my formula:

Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


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.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: it is proportional to the radius of rotation. It is a comparison of two loops.

Two different phenomena require two very different formulas.


My SAGNAC EFFECT formula proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 11, 2019, 11:32:50 PM
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.

I asked YOU to explain why your Sagnac equation gives a delay when flat on the surface of the equator - you have no done so!

Everyone except you gives the Sagnac delay as proportional to the area of the loop and don't try claiming "Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro by Pochi Yeh et al".
Even Pochi Yeh's "Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyroPhase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro", (https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fnc65b7q91rrfr/Phase-conjugate%20fiber-optic%20gyro%20by%20Pochi%20Yeh%20et%20al%20phase%20shift.png?dl=1).

And here's the frequency shift for a large ring laser gyroscope:
(http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/G/sagnac_formula.gif), where:
A = enclosed area,
P = perimeter (beam path length),
λ = optical wavelength,
n = normal vector to A and
Ω = rotation vector.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on March 12, 2019, 12:03:18 AM
Can you please have this discussion about the sagnac effect elsewhere? Not that it hasn't been done to death on multiple threads before!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2019, 03:12:16 AM
Every expression for the Sagnac effect has the loop area either explicitly or implicitly.

There is no area whatsoever involved in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Ever.

The area comes up ONLY in the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Please update your knowledge on the topological considerations of the Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

The SAGNAC EFFECT is a comparison of two loops, no area comes up at all in the derivation.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT is a comparison of two sides, the area always comes up in the derivation.

A huge difference.

Everyone except you gives the Sagnac delay as proportional to the area of the loop and don't try claiming "Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro by Pochi Yeh et al".
Even Pochi Yeh's "Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyroPhase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro", .


Professor Yeh's SAGNAC LOOP has no area at all.

It is the SAGNAC EFFECT without an area.

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

NO AREA, just TWO LOOPS.

So, you have just lied, again, to your readers, because you are really desperate.

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT frequency formula:

(http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/G/sagnac_formula.gif)

It does include the AREA.

This is the SAGNAC EFFECT frequency formula:

Δf = Δφ x c/P = [4L(v1 + v2)]/λP

No area at all, JUST THE VELOCITIES.

For the GINGERino RLG at Gran Sasso, Italy, the SAGNAC EFFECT FREQUENCY is 2,616,666.666 times greater than the Coriolis effect frequency:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2153966#msg2153966 (two consecutive messages)

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 12, 2019, 03:33:44 AM
Every expression for the Sagnac effect has the loop area either explicitly or implicitly.
There is no area whatsoever involved in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.
Forget it! I'm not interested in your repeatedly posting your totally incorrect Sagnac formula.
As far as I can see, you are the only one that claims that.
Read again: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope « Reply #155 on: Today at 05:32:50 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2155363#msg2155363).
Now do not bother replying in this thread!
If you must clutter things up with more copy-pasta please start a new thread on: "There is no area whatsoever involved in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula".
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2019, 03:47:36 AM
My formula is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

My formula was peer-reviewed at the highest possible scientific level, in the best OPTICS journal in the world: Journal of Optics Letters.

Here is my formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

Professor Yeh has published over 400 papers in the best scientfic journals in the world, has thirty US patents and has published five textbooks in optics and photonics.

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

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 12, 2019, 03:52:30 AM
<<  Make another thread, thank you, Mr Sandokhan! >>
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 12, 2019, 11:37:00 AM
<<  Make another thread, thank you, Mr Sandokhan! >>

Yeah, I don't get the point behind the massive walls of formula when the poster won't engage in simple questions like "What is the axis of aether rotation at different latitudes" and "Would a mechanical flywheel gyro and a laser ring gyro give the same rotational readings if in the same position and orientation on the earth."

Is there a complete disconnect between theory and the real world?

I for one would love to know if Bob Knodel's gyro gave the highest angular rate reading when aligned  with its sensitive axis to Polaris.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Themightykabool on March 12, 2019, 11:48:22 AM
Sando is actually a bot designed to spit out formulas to learn what they are.
Thats why he doesnt really respond.
Sort of like when you sign up for an online service and they req you to type the text shown in a picture.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 12, 2019, 02:01:28 PM
Your derivation leads to this formula:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Yes, the correct formula which is more commonly known as the Sagnac effect formula, as they are one in the same.
Repeatedly showing that I have gotten the correct formula will not help your case.

You have been completely unable to show a single problem with my formula. Instead all you have been able to do is repeatedly show it is the correct formula.
Just like you have been completely unable to show the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect on a counterpropagating light beams is different.

My derivation does use loops. You have seen that every time.
So you lying and saying it doesn't doesn't help your case.
If anyone's doesn't use loops it would be yours as you aren't bothering to determine the time taken to go around the loop and instead are just looking at 2 arms and finding the difference there, and then adding differences up.

So if you want to complain about not using loops, you are complaining about your own derivation.

Now either show what is wrong with my formula, provide a valid citation discussing the Sagnac effect which uses only a simple ring interferometer with normal mirrors with the entire apparatus rotating, or show your own derivation starting from the basics of how long it takes light to propagate around a stationary loop.
If you are unwilling or unable to do that then go away as you are clearly not interested in debate and just want to preach.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2019, 02:10:10 PM
Trolling the upper forums won't help you anymore.

Here is a step by step explanation of how your formula does not make use of LOOPS, which are required in the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148651#msg2148651

And again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148867#msg2148867

And again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148008#msg2148008

And yet again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148569#msg2148569


Your derivation leads to this formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.


Please update your knowledge on the subject.

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.


Here is my formula:

Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


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.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: it is proportional to the radius of rotation. It is a comparison of two loops.

Two different phenomena require two very different formulas.


My SAGNAC EFFECT formula proven and experimentally fully established at the highest possible level of science.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 12, 2019, 03:55:08 PM
Trolling the upper forums won't help you anymore.
You are the one trolling here, and it has never helped you.
Again, can you show what is wrong with my derivation, which clearly uses loops? Just repeating the same assertion doesn't magically mean it doesn't
Can you provide your own derivation starting from the basics of how long it takes light to propagate around a stationary loop?
Can you provide a paper which shows the Sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer with the entire setup rotating (so no PCMs or the like and no FOCs or the like) have a formula other than what I have (or equivalent to it)?

Until you do, every post you make is just trolling and spamming and wasting everyone's time.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 12, 2019, 04:02:51 PM
<< If you want to discuss the details of the Sagnac effect make your own thread! >>
Trolling the upper forums won't help you anymore.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2019, 10:25:51 PM
The US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division, is using my formula.

This formula has been peer reviewed in the Journal of Optics Letters, one of the best scientific journals in the world.

Here is the global/generalized SAGNAC EFFECT formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

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

Author of 400 papers on advanced optics, thirty US patents and five textbooks on optics and photonics.

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

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)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)


Here is a step by step explanation of how your formula does not make use of LOOPS, which are required in the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148651#msg2148651

And again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148867#msg2148867

And again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148008#msg2148008

And yet again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148569#msg2148569


Your derivation leads to this formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.


Here is the derivation of my formula, which is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, using two LOOPS, as required by the correct definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on March 12, 2019, 11:19:50 PM
Can you PLEASE start a separate thread for the Sagnac merry-go-round! It's most frustrating to have multiple threads derailed by this.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 12, 2019, 11:22:32 PM
<< 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.
Of you want any other response Make your own thread!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 12:20:48 AM
BK's RLG registered a 15 degree per hour drift.

The RE on youtube are mocking his experiment, saying all the while "I told you so".

Albert Michelson was the first physicist to claim that the formula used in detecting rotation, dt = 4ωA/c^2, is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

However, this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, here is a very easy derivation:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

The definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT involves TWO LOOPS.

No loops, no SAGNAC EFFECT.

The error committed by Michelson is a fundamental one: he used the Coriolis effect formula to describe a very different phenomenon, the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Here is the derivation of my formula, which is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, using two LOOPS, as required by the correct definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division:

(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

Here is another reference explicitly using my GLOBAL/GENERALIZED SAGNAC EFFECT 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)


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.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2019, 01:00:08 AM
The US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division, is using my formula.
Stop lying.
They are using a different formula, for a completely different setup.

That setup is irrelevant to the discussion at hand as it uses a PCM.

Laser ring gyroscopes, like that used by Bob Knodel which proved the Earth rotates (as do all experiments like this) did not use a PCM.

You have brought up the Sagnac effect and your wild claims about it in countless threads.
You have been refuted in every one of them in that I have seen which allowed debate.
You have refused to engage in any form of rational discussion on the subject and instead just repeatedly assert the same refuted nonsense and dismiss anything that goes against it, even from your own sources.

You are clearly unwilling to debate the Sagnac effect and instead just want to preach.
If you want to preach, do it in the preaching forum, not this one.

And like I have said repeatedly, if you want to appeal to authority, then you've already lost, as all the authorities you are appealing to accept Earth is round and rotating.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 01:18:58 AM
The phase-conjugate mirror ACTS AS A NORMAL MIRROR.

Please read.

(https://i.ibb.co/6Y9W45j/yeh5.jpg)

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

You are unable to read and comprehend a very simple known scientific fact: the PCM acts as a NORMAL MIRROR.


When faced with the truth, you are accusing someone else of lying, instead of realizing that by now the readers of this thread and of your messages are beginning to realize that you are unable to face reality.


PLEASE READ AGAIN:


The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.


The set-up is exactly the same.


That is why I included the exact quotes from the scientific papers, so that you will have no excuse at all in denying this fact.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)



HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2



Here is the derivation of my formula, which is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, using two LOOPS, as required by the correct definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.



Your derivation leads to this formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is a direct derivation of the same formula using only the Coriolis force:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The derivation has NO LOOPS at all.

Just a comparison of two sides.



Here is the complete refutation of your failed claims:

Here is a step by step explanation of how your formula does not make use of LOOPS, which are required in the SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148651#msg2148651

And again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148867#msg2148867

And again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148008#msg2148008

And yet again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148569#msg2148569


(https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg)

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY ME.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 01:27:52 AM
<< 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.
Of you want any other response Make your own thread!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 02:01:38 AM
BK's RLG registered a 15 degree per hour drift.
That's his words and the words of others of the Globebusters YouTube site.

Quote from: sandokhan
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:

#TheRealGlobebusters (https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23TheRealGlobebusters) #TEAMYAHAWASHI (https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23TEAMYAHAWASHI) #FlatEarth (https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23FlatEarth)
Bob Knodel of Globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST and getting THE BOOT by Awake Souls


Quote from: sandokhan
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 ::).

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"?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 02:30:06 AM
BK registered the Coriolis effect of the ether drift. This is a basic fact which all RE and FE on youtube must understand.

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?

You mean you don't know the difference between reciprocal phase changes and nonreciprocal phase changes?

ROTATION (SAGNAC EFFECT) is a nonreciprocal phase change, which produces a net phase shift.

A nonreciprocal phase shift, in an interferometer, is due to the Sagnac effect ( the phase shift produced by the Sagnac effect is nonreciprocal).
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2019, 02:38:52 AM
[more garbage preaching]
Like I said, if all you want to do is preach, do it in the believers only section.

If you want to try debating the Sagnac effect, go back to any of the countless threads where you have your ass repeatedly handed to you and discuss it there.

So far all your claims have been refuted and you have been completely unable to show any error from others, and you can't even manage an extremely simple derivation.

This means that the Sagnac effect remains proportional to the area and angular velocity, and that means Bob measured the rotation of the Earth.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 02:55:09 AM
BK registered the Coriolis effect of the ether drift. This is a basic fact which all RE and FE on youtube must understand.

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?
No.

Quote from: sandokhan
ROTATION (SAGNAC EFFECT) is a nonreciprocal phase change, which produces a net phase shift.

A nonreciprocal phase shift, in an interferometer, is due to the Sagnac effect ( the phase shift produced by the Sagnac effect is nonreciprocal).
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"?

Now have you contacted Bob Knodel? Remember that the most vicious attacks come from other flat earthers, especially his own Globebusters group. Take a look at:

#TheRealGlobebusters (https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23TheRealGlobebusters) #TEAMYAHAWASHI (https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23TEAMYAHAWASHI) #FlatEarth (https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23FlatEarth)
Bob Knodel of Globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST and getting THE BOOT by Awake Souls


Quote from: sandokhan
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 ::).
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 03:08:20 AM
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.


Here is a SECOND experiment performed by Professor Yeh, a SAGNAC EXPERIMENT WITHOUT AN AREA:

(https://image.ibb.co/iue4co/yeh1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/eOczCo/yeh2.jpg)

Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Applied Optics 25(7):1029-30 · April 1986

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.4)

FINAL 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)/c2


ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula involves an area:

4Aω/c2



Well, it looks like you are the someone! No flat earther would take any notice of me on YouTube

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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 03:36:39 AM
Well, it looks like you are the someone! No flat earther would take any notice of me on YouTube

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.
Go and do it yourself! I've no interest in resurrecting Bob Knodel or Globebusters! It's not my problem.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2019, 04:04:38 AM
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.
Good, I don't need one. You do.
Now like I said, if you want to debate the Sagnac effect go bring up one of your old threads.
If you want to just preach, go to the believers only section.

If you want to stay here, discuss Bob knodel measuring the rotation of Earth with the laser ring gyroscope.
Anything else is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 05:59:03 AM
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.
Oh, you mean Appendix 5.1 where I, McMichael and Pochi Yeh says:
Quote
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.

And what you claim is a "SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA" obviously has two loops clearly shown in the figure you kindly included.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, on page 3 of appendix 5.1 they also say:
Quote
The phase difference measured by the interference at detector D,

                       φ = -2(φnr2 - φnr1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc,                           (3)
Now 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 2(A1n1 + A2n2)Ω/λc and that looks like the Sagnac phase shift is proportion to (an area) x (an angular velocity)!

Please don't try to claim that is the same as your expression because:
So as stated before:
This means that the Sagnac effect remains proportional to the area and angular velocity, Ω
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sokarul on March 13, 2019, 06:09:13 AM
This is pointless. Sandokhan doesn’t believe in light with different wavelengths. He doesn’t believe in any of the experiments he posts.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 06:33:50 AM
And what you claim is a "SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA" obviously has two loops clearly shown in the figure you kindly included.

You tried this nonsense before.

Yes, I had to actually explain the difference between an open loop and a closed loop:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76270.msg2069009#msg2069009

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76270.msg2068987#msg2068987

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76270.msg2068975#msg2068975

Professor Yeh's interferometer features NO AREA at all, just TWO SINGLE SEGMENTS OF LIGHT traveling in OPEN LOOPS consisting of different lengths, which connect the the mirrors of the interferometer: there is no area enclosed at all.

(https://image.ibb.co/iue4co/yeh1.jpg)

NO CLOSED LOOP, NO AREA.

L is the entire length of the fiber, Professor Yeh specifies that quite clearly.

(http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath619/kmath619_files/image002.jpg)

(closed loop)

(http://www.mdpi.com/genes/genes-06-00734/article_deploy/html/images/genes-06-00734-g006.png)

(Open-ended (non-closed) loops: a single segment from end to end)



Now 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 2(A1n1 + A2n2)Ω/λc and that looks like the Sagnac phase shift is proportion to (an area) x (an angular velocity)!

φnr1 = +2πR1L1Ω/λc = +2πL1V1/λc

φnr2 = -2πR2L2Ω/λc = -2πL2V2/λc

A fact explained quite clearly on page 2 of the article:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (page 34 of the pdf document)

Which means that you are unable, yet again, to follow a scientific paper.

That expression is for a phase conjugate fibre optic gyro and yours is a square "loop" that only works if the centre of rotation is far from the loop.

The SAGNAC EFFECT interferometer in Professor Yeh's experiment also features DIFFERENT VELOCITIES and DIFFERENT LENGTHS.

Both arms of the interferometer ARE LOCATED AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF ROTATION, they are not symmetrical at all, since they feature DIFFERENT LENGTHS of the loops.

Your expression has no angular velocity in it

But it does.

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

V1 = R1Ω
V2 = R2Ω

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on March 13, 2019, 06:49:54 AM
All

Can we please do the "nitty gritty" of the Sagnac and Coriolis effects in a separate thread. There's no need for formulas and derivations here.

As I understand it......

Bob Knodel use a laser gyro for his test. Laser gyros employ the sagnac effect to detect rotation of the gyro. The gyro was in a fixed position wrt to the earth. The test detected a rotation.

The coriolis effect is due to viewing things from a rotating reference frame. In our case both the earth and the viewer are rotating. It is the rotating earth that is the cause of the observed coriolis effect. It affects all things in that frame, not just light. Some people, despite evidence,  still believe light travels through an ether. If the coriolis effect was due to a rotating ether wouldn't it only affect light? On the contrary we see the coriolis effect with bullets, artillery shells, storms etc etc. 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?

There you go - no formulas!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 08:25:18 AM
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

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on March 13, 2019, 08:42:20 AM
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

The vector of a hypothetical force that would replace the Coriolis effect would have to change depending on lattitude and even reverse direction south of the Equator. Can you BRIEFLY explain how your force would do so?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on March 13, 2019, 08:56:55 AM
Sorry Sando, but I don't "get" your statement ...

"Laser gyros employ the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for a SAGNAC interferometer"

For RLG, we are talking about the timing of counter-propgating light beams around a loop in the housing. If the gyro is rotating the 2 beams take different times to return to the origin producing a phase shift, which can then be used to derive the rotation rate. This is the sagnac effect. As I understand it this is how a laser gyro works. It's not the coriolis effect. TBH it doesn't really matter what you call it - laser gyros can measure rotation. End of.

The coriolis effect is describing the paths objects take on the earth. Mainstream science explains this with a rotating earth. You're saying the cause is a rotating ether instead.

Can you please give a summary, in your own words, of the ether drift experiment and how it moves physical objects? (maybe best in another thread).

But thanks, at least, for replying without a load of copy and paste. Much easier to follow.

Sorry, crossed with EMS. He asks a good question - answer that one first!
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 09:17:39 AM
The ether drift is latitude dependent:

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

A Sagnac interferometer will detect/register/record TWO POSSIBLE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA: the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.

To obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, one has to compare the two sides/arms of the interferometer.

To obtain the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, one has to compare the TWO LOOPS of the interferometer.

For RLG, we are talking about the timing of counter-propgating light beams around a loop in the housing.

Exactly.

No loop, no Sagnac.

No loop = the Coriolis effect, a comparison of two sides

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, a modification of the paths of the light beams.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, the modification of the velocity of the light beams.

This is the incredible trick perpetrated by Albert Michelson in 1925: he published the Coriolis effect formula, while claiming it was the Sagnac effect.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2019, 09:51:32 AM
Now, in order to help all of you understand the situation, I will transform the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the Michelson-Gale experiment into the equivalent SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Here is the Coriolis effect formula:

4ΩA/c^2

No velocity and no radius of rotation, that is, no SAGNAC EFFECT.

But A = l x h (length x width of the interferometer)

(http://image.ibb.co/iQWfJ7/cir2.jpg)

So now we have this formula:

4Ωlh/c^2 = 4vch/c^2

vc = lΩ

This is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for a rectangle which rotates around its own geometrical center, with sides l and h.

(http://image.ibb.co/dkiwQn/cir1.jpg)

In reality, the Michelson-Gale experiment actually measured the Sagnac fringe shift obtained for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with that of the Earth.

That is, a rectangular interferometer with the dimensions of 2010 ft (612.65 m) by 1113 ft (339.24 m) is simply placed with its center of rotation coinciding with the center of rotation of the Earth having a radius of 6,376.164 km.

But that is NOT the Sagnac phase shift for the original problem, where the same interferometer was placed on the surface of the Earth, at a distance of 4,200 km from the center of rotation.


(http://image.ibb.co/j7Q3hc/kel12.jpg)

We have a distance of some 4,200 km from the center of the Earth to Clearing, Illinois.

That is the radius of rotation for the SAGNAC EFFECT.

The velocity will be v = RΩ.

This is the true Sagnac effect.

The Coriolis effect, by contrast, will be 4ΩA/c^2.

Now, in order to obtain the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which will feature the velocity and the radius of rotation we must proceed as follows:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on March 13, 2019, 10:25:28 AM
It was going so well up until the last post Sandy.

No formulas here please! Start a new thread for that.

What I will say though is this. You appear to have it all arse-about-face...

The coriolis effect is what we see in the real world - objects moving in curved paths, different directions in different hemispheres. This is all explained nicely using a rotating globe. Moreover the formula for the coriolis effect (by which I mean a predicting tool for the paths of moving objects) is derived using relatively trivial geometry. We start with a model, derive a formula, test it against reality. The coriolis effect has absolutely nothing to do with laser gyros or the sagnac effect.

You're fond of quoting Feynman here - if the experiments don't match the hypothesis then the hypothesis is wrong.

Now, you say the observed coriolis effect has an all-together different cause. Your hypothesis has to explain all the observed effects. Your hypothesis should have a mechanism from which you can derive a formula that can be tested against reality.

So, in simply terms, can you explain how ether drift moves objects on a round or flat earth, and how they curve in different directions on either side of the equator?

Edit

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 thread



Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2019, 01:21:24 PM
You tried this nonsense before.
You mean you have tried to escape these facts by spouting a bunch of nonsense?

Like I said, if you want to preach, go to the believers only section.

As it stands, your own sources agree that FOGs measure the Sagnac effect and thus the rotation of Earth.


The Sagnac effect could hypothetically be attributed to a hypothetical ether as a medium of light, but that hypothetical aether has been firmly refuted.
That means the only option left is the rotation of Earth.


That means Bob measured the rotation of Earth.
There is no escaping that fact.

Even if you did want to pretend it is just measuring the motion of the aether around Earth, it still requires Earth to be round, otherwise everywhere would record the same drift.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 07:38:38 PM
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 thread
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.
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Zaphod on March 14, 2019, 01:24:42 AM
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.

Good man, I'll leave it to you then. Maybe 2 seperate threads for the coriolis and sagnac effects?
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Mr.Newton on March 23, 2019, 07:08:47 AM
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.
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.....
that device you can not fooled...so,

bedtime story for the kids, about flat earth, is finally finished...

ps.
@Sandokhan, please, if you do not understand math and physics, and all i can see, that you do not understand, then please, stop copy paste stuff you can not comprehend, from the internet......
Title: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
Post by: Tom Foolery on March 23, 2019, 07:35:14 AM
Yes, that means that Earth IS rotating..15 degrees per 1 hour  drift.....

I think the community in general would be benefited to understand that the 15 degrees per hour is in a way not even true genuine "drift."
A boat who's dead in the water drifts. It could be moving one way, or the other, and at different rates depending on untold unmeasured variables like winds, water currents, perhaps magnetic fields if it's a steel boat, etc. But the point is, it could be going any which way and at different speeds at different times.
"Drift" carries sort of an "unintentional unpredictability" to it. Not that it couldn't be predicted but often isn't. It's just an annoying unknown variable that has to be ignored.

The 15 degrees per hour is, while perhaps called a Coriolis drift, is much much more than the above described kind of drift. It is an exact, precise, repeatable, constant, and highly predictable apparent motion around a specific axis of a specific rate. Which just happens to perfectly match the earth's rotation with respect to the most distant stars.

It's important to mention this because gyroscopes of various technologies are subject to real bonafide drift which can be in any direction and at any rate and can change from time to time, especially the mechanical gyros. This is real drift and cannot practically be modeled because as the gyro wears or the grease in the bearings dry out or oxide layers build up on the metal parts, the drift changes. It also changes with temperature as the physical sizes of the different metals change and cause slight imbalance. Temperature differences cause internal air currents which cause some drift.

It is very beneficial to the community to understand the differences between these two kinds of drift. We could almost call the second one a rotational rate offset or something.