The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ju on November 11, 2019, 01:53:36 AM

Title: The earth rotation
Post by: ju on November 11, 2019, 01:53:36 AM
Hello I'm new here and there is something I don't understand at all. Why do we have to demonstrate that the earth isn't rotating. I'm not saying it does ! But, if it does, is there any contradiction with our  theory ?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on November 11, 2019, 03:27:07 AM
Hello I'm new here and there is something I don't understand at all. Why do we have to demonstrate that the earth isn't rotating. I'm not saying it does ! But, if it does, is there any contradiction with our  theory ?
It comes down to how the rotation is and what effects it would have.

One of the big arguments presented in favour of a FE is that Earth can't be rotating as you would feel it.
If a FE was rotating you would feel it even more. That is because it would be sideways, not up and down.
It would mean all the water on Earth would pool at the edges.
To avoid this you would need Earth to be shaped like a bowl, specifically a parabola.
This means not only is Earth curved, the curvature would vary with location.
The edges of Earth (at 20 000 km) would be turned up by roughly 0.6 degrees.

It would make it even harder to explain things like why objects disappear from the bottom up, and why the southern hemisphere can't see Polaris.

It would also relate back to the Coriolis effect. If Earth rotated then that should be expected. However the big difference between this rotating FE and the RE is that the rotation would be the same everywhere as the surface is basically flat.
This means things like Focault's pendula should record the same rate of rotation everywhere, and that weather systems should turn the same way in the north and south.
But that contradicts so many observations.

In order to have rotating help the model, you need to have the north rotate in one direction and the south rotate in the other. But for a FE that would mean the sun would rise in the east in the north and the west in the south.

So rotating doesn't help FE models match reality, so it is easier to simply deny it rather than accept it and have the evidence which supports it support a RE due to how the effect of rotation varies.

P.S. FE doesn't have a theory. It has an idea with many different contradictory models.
E.g. some people say the north pole is at the centre, some say the south pole, some say the equator, some say it is infinite and has no centre.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2019, 03:52:48 AM
There are three aspects of the rotation question.

FET must address these issues:

1. Rotation of the Earth (axial rotation)

2. Rotation of the Earth around the Sun (orbital motion)

3. Precession

The most difficult one is the third, the precession, since it requires the proof that ancient history was entirely forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler).
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on November 11, 2019, 04:32:59 AM
There are three aspects of the rotation question.

FET must address these issues:

1. Rotation of the Earth (axial rotation)

2. Rotation of the Earth around the Sun (orbital motion)

3. Precession

The most difficult one is the third, the precession, since it requires the proof that ancient history was entirely forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler).
But would any sensible person claim "that ancient history was entirely forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler)"?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: markjo on November 11, 2019, 07:27:32 AM
The most difficult one is the third, the precession, since it requires the proof that ancient history was entirely forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler).
Or, maybe the ancients didn't understand the true nature of the earth as well as they thought they did.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2019, 07:45:20 AM
That would be an understatement.

Here is the mighty moon elongation D" parameter paradox, one of the most devastating proofs against the accepted chronology of history:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1927373#msg1927373
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: mak3m on November 11, 2019, 08:39:41 AM
That would be an understatement.

Here is the mighty moon elongation D" parameter paradox, one of the most devastating proofs against the accepted chronology of history:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1927373#msg1927373

Mighty, but not subject of any recognised paper.

Can you provide a reliable link?

Robert R Newton questioned the validity of historical observations, not history itself.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2019, 09:02:47 AM
Dr. Robert Newton, Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531060430/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. A. 276, 99-110 (1974)


Dr. Robert Newton, Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531054411/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm

Astrophysics and Space Science 16 (1972) 179-200


Here is another amazing contradiction of the conventional chronology of history.

"When the Emperor was waging war in Syria, at the winter solstice there was an eclipse of the Sun such as has never happened apart from that which was brought on the Earth at the Passion of our Lord on account of the folly of the Jews. . . The eclipse was such a spectacle. It occurred on the 22nd day of December, at the 4th hour of the day, the air being calm. Darkness fell upon the Earth and all the brighter stars revealed themselves. Everyone could see the disc of the Sun without brightness, deprived of light, and a certain dull and feeble glow, like a narrow headband, shining round the extreme parts of the edge of the disc. However, the Sun gradually going past the Moon (for this appeared covering it directly) sent out its original rays, and light filled the Earth again."

Refers to a total solar eclipse in Constantinople of 22 December AD 968.
From: Leo the Deacon, Historiae, Byzantine.

http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes2.html

However, the winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years), according to the official chronology.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: mak3m on November 11, 2019, 09:43:01 AM
Nope they are not the references

Among the other experts in celestial mechanics who attacked this problem was Robert Newton from Johns Hopkins University. In 1979, he published the first volume of a book that considered the issue by looking at historical solar eclipses. Five years later, he came up with a second volume, which approached the problem from the point of view of lunar observations. His conclusion was that the behavior of D'' could be explained only by factoring in some unknown forces.

That was your statement which then follows a paste of some body else??

Newton had issues with historians not chronological history

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2019, 09:52:49 AM
(https://web.archive.org/web/20120323153614im_/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec1.gif)

The concern is with the acceleration, D'', of the moon's elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between -18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around -18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.

You now have three possibilities:

1. There are unknown forces

2. The laws of physics have changed since the past millenium

3. Traditional chronology is wrong

Each and every astronomical observation for the period 500 AD - 1200 AD researched by Dr. Newton was faked/forged; this is the reason for the unimaginable discrepancies.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: mak3m on November 11, 2019, 09:58:21 AM
(https://web.archive.org/web/20120323153614im_/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec1.gif)

The concern is with the acceleration, D'', of the moon's elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between -18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around -18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.

You now have three possibilities:

1. There are unknown forces

2. The laws of physics have changed since the past millenium

3. Traditional chronology is wrong

Each and every astronomical observation for the period 500 AD - 1200 AD researched by Dr. Newton was faked/forged; this is the reason for the unimaginable discrepancies.

That diagram is not from Newton, cite your sources

third time Newton had an issue with historians not history.

But congratulations for once again moving the conversation away from the OP
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: markjo on November 11, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
However, the winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years), according to the official chronology.
Since the Gregorian calendar wasn't introduced until 1582 (over 600 years after said battle), then the winter solstice could well have occurred on December 16 of the old calendar and corrected to December 22 on the Gregorian calendar.  I don't see a problem, except for maybe some trouble keeping track of which calendar was being used when.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: MouseWalker on November 11, 2019, 06:36:44 PM
That would be an understatement.

Here is the mighty moon elongation D" parameter paradox, one of the most devastating proofs against the accepted chronology of history:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1927373#msg1927373
and this history?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14.msg22#msg22
Is how we have arrived to our current state of affairs.
"since there is an enormous abundance of evidence that the Earth is, to a high approximation, spherical, rotates, and revolves around the sun."
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on November 15, 2019, 04:45:18 PM
However, the winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years), according to the official chronology.
Since the Gregorian calendar wasn't introduced until 1582 (over 600 years after said battle), then the winter solstice could well have occurred on December 16 of the old calendar and corrected to December 22 on the Gregorian calendar.  I don't see a problem, except for maybe some trouble keeping track of which calendar was being used when.
And the introduction of the Gregorian calendar was spread over centuries:
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKfz0wPx/Introduction-Gregorian-Calendar.png)
Change From Julian to Gregorian Calendar (https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html)

Sandokhan is possibly well aware of it but others have been confused by impossible sunsets etc.
Title: The earth rotation
Post by: dukovit on January 09, 2020, 11:25:55 AM
Hi.
There is  right question - is the Earth spinning?
I`m still sure the Earth is globe. But.. few times ago youtube offered to me some video. "Hiroscope. Still Earth". I was thinked: What the fuck? I was thinked: What the f :-X :-Xk? How it can be? I`m sure - Erath is spinnig!!!
 This is the video (http://)
Wright now we can see a real proff of STILL Earth in experiment.

I think it`s some trick or mistake. And continued to search any experiments with hyro like this one. Totaly 3 people made this experiment with hyro to examine Eearth spinning.

May by all of them are crazy? Now i`m try to find any proof of spininng Earth by the hyro. And... - thtere are nothing!

And now i`m starting to build own simple hiro to get an answer: Do the Earth is spinning or not?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2020, 01:14:55 PM
Wright now we can see a real proff of STILL Earth in experiment.
I think it`s some trick or mistake. And continued to search any experiments with hyro like this one. Totaly 3 people made this experiment with hyro to examine Eearth spinning.
The problem with any experiment like this, is that the rotation of Earth is very slow.
A small amount of friction is often enough to drag the gyroscope along with Earth. This is especially true if the rotation needs to occur over multiple axes.
Another issue is that it requires the gyro to be balanced, such that it will not drift by itself, and free from disturbances which would otherwise cause it to drift.

The first thing anyone should do when attempting an experiment like this is first determine the limit of detection of the instrument and method, or at the very least confirm that the rotation of Earth is above that limit.

A simple way to do this would be with an equatorial mount telescope or the like, where you rotate the setup as if Earth was rotating, both in the direction of Earth's rotation and against it.
Assuming your setup is sensitive enough, then if Earth is not rotating, you should get the same result in both directions, if Earth is rotating, you will get different results.

If your setup is not sensitive enough, then it wont detect the rotation you have induced.


Another important point is that it is a slow process. Try watching the hour hand on a clock and see if you can see it move, and then note that Earth rotates roughly half as fast, and depending on the gyro and your latitude, you may only be observing a portion of that.

The best videos would be a timelapse, without someone repeatedly resetting it.
In fact, if you watch that video you linked carefully, the gyro is rotating, but the guy keeps moving it so you can't easily tell.
It also doesn't appear to be balanced as the direction it rotates changes.
e.g.:
(https://i.imgur.com/UdoXkDj.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/Czoe1HA.gif)

So it definitely isn't show Earth to be stationary. Instead it is showing the gyro is drifting.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: dukovit on January 09, 2020, 02:32:27 PM

The first thing anyone should do when attempting an experiment like this is first determine the limit of detection of the instrument and method, or at the very least confirm that the rotation of Earth is above that limit.

A simple way to do this would be with an equatorial mount telescope or the like, where you rotate the setup as if Earth was rotating, both in the direction of Earth's rotation and against it.
Assuming your setup is sensitive enough, then if Earth is not rotating, you should get the same result in both directions, if Earth is rotating, you will get different results.
   You are absolutely right! For getting more accurate result we need 'ideal gyro' and use ideal bearing in gimbal. I know all this problems because I`m an engineer.  But as we know from a history first using gyrocompass as part of navigating system is about 100 years ago.
   Thanks for some ideas like testing sensitivity. I suppose that I don`t need hi accurate of gyro because no need a navigation.
   By the way in video from 0:00:00 to 2:03:00 gyro have constant direction. It is worth noting that axis of giro in this case was horizontal.  After that author turn axis to some angle and gyro start procession moving. I think this moving is able in case mass center of gyro is not in across gimbal axes.
   It`s very fun - nobody want to chek earth rotation with gyro. 
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Macarios on January 10, 2020, 12:30:51 AM
Hi.
There is  right question - is the Earth spinning?
I`m still sure the Earth is globe. But.. few times ago youtube offered to me some video. "Hiroscope. Still Earth". I was thinked: What the fuck? I was thinked: What the f :-X :-Xk? How it can be? I`m sure - Erath is spinnig!!!
 This is the video (http://)
Wright now we can see a real proff of STILL Earth in experiment.

I think it`s some trick or mistake. And continued to search any experiments with hyro like this one. Totaly 3 people made this experiment with hyro to examine Eearth spinning.

May by all of them are crazy? Now i`m try to find any proof of spininng Earth by the hyro. And... - thtere are nothing!

And now i`m starting to build own simple hiro to get an answer: Do the Earth is spinning or not?

Still Earth?
LOL

Watch from around 2:47:00 till the end (3:20:00 or so). Or mouse-over the play bar and look at the thumbnail. :)
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: dukovit on January 10, 2020, 03:34:11 PM


Still Earth?
LOL

Watch from around 2:47:00 till the end (3:20:00 or so). Or mouse-over the play bar and look at the thumbnail. :)
[/quote]
Ok. What do You think about all time before 2:47:00? All this time the axis keeping horizontal direction. And it`s azimuth was 90. In time about 3 hours axis of gyro must by change it angle to horizontal about 45 degrees, isn`t it?
 So... how do You eplain this?

 From 2:47:00 gyro have precession by the unbalanced gimbal. Author demonstrate this unbalance at the begining.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Macarios on January 10, 2020, 09:44:00 PM
From 2:47:00 gyro have precession by the unbalanced gimbal. Author demonstrate this unbalance at the begining.

So, the unbalance sometimes exists and sometimes doesn't?


BTW, if the gyro axis and the Earth axis are parallel you can wait all day and gyro won't drift, except by the said unbalance. :)
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 11, 2020, 12:40:05 AM

Still Earth?
LOL

Watch from around 2:47:00 till the end (3:20:00 or so). Or mouse-over the play bar and look at the thumbnail. :)
Ok. What do You think about all time before 2:47:00? All this time the axis keeping horizontal direction. And it`s azimuth was 90. In time about 3 hours axis of gyro must by change it angle to horizontal about 45 degrees, isn`t it?
 So... how do You eplain this?
[/quote]
How did you prove that the gimbal bearing friction was low enough to show movement.

Quote from: dukovit
From 2:47:00 gyro have precession by the unbalanced gimbal. Author demonstrate this unbalance at the begining.
Bob Knodell procured a "highly precise" ring laser gyroscope to "prove once and for all" that the earth is stationary.
Look what he found:

Flat Earth Ring Laser Gyroscope Test by TheYobbo71
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2020, 02:56:09 PM
Bob Knodell procured a "highly precise" ring laser gyroscope to "prove once and for all" that the earth is stationary.
Look what he found:

Flat Earth Ring Laser Gyroscope Test by TheYobbo71[/b]

Look what I found: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope

The Ring Laser Gyroscope is an inconsistent experiment, based on statistics and unknown effects, and therefore invalid as demonstration of any particular phenomena.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: MouseWalker on January 14, 2020, 03:04:55 PM
Bob Knodell procured a "highly precise" ring laser gyroscope to "prove once and for all" that the earth is stationary.
Look what he found:

Flat Earth Ring Laser Gyroscope Test by TheYobbo71[/b]

Look what I found: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope

The Ring Laser Gyroscope is an inconsistent experiment, based on statistics and unknown effects, and therefore invalid as demonstration of any particular phenomena.
You're biased reference has been noted.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 14, 2020, 04:48:29 PM
Bob Knodell procured a "highly precise" ring laser gyroscope to "prove once and for all" that the earth is stationary.
Look what he found:

Flat Earth Ring Laser Gyroscope Test by TheYobbo71[/b]

Look what I found: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope
And look who wrote what you found:
Quote
• 00:10, 15 January 2020‎ Tom Bishop talk contribs‎  8,867 bytes
• 00:10, 15 January 2020‎ Tom Bishop talk contribs‎  8,866 bytes
• 23:07, 14 January 2020‎ Tom Bishop talk contribs‎  7,982 bytes
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Ring Laser Gyroscope is an inconsistent experiment, based on statistics and unknown effects, and therefore invalid as demonstration of any particular phenomena.
So you say but let's see what other sources say, shall we?

Modern ones are not "an inconsistent experiment"! For example read
Quote from: J Belfi1, N Beverini1,2,
Analysis of 90 days operation of the gyroscope, GINGERINO (http://inspirehep.net/record/1668221/files/1804.02569.pdf)
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. They are essential in estimating rotation rates relative
to the local inertial frame in many contexts ranging from inertial guidance to angular metrology, from geodesy to geophysics. The Gross Ring “G”at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of about 15 × 10−14 rad/s with 4 hours of integration time (3 × 10−9 in relative units).

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 from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser shows that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2020, 05:49:43 PM
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:

(https://i.imgur.com/N3BsIOX.png)

It doesn't look like the data is naturally stable to me. We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days.

(https://i.imgur.com/yn9AVJf.png)

It looks like they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2020, 06:04:31 PM
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 14, 2020, 07:25:26 PM
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/d96ptj14q0sgnyb/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28Vscale%29.png?dl=1)

Now show me anything that the flat-Earth has measured to anything that precision!

For example, justify the FE claim that the Moon is about 3000 miles above the Earth yet "moon-bounce" experiments show a "bounce time of 2.5 seconds".

Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:
. . . . .
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 14, 2020, 07:42:17 PM
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:

(https://i.imgur.com/N3BsIOX.png)

It doesn't look like the data is naturally stable to me. We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days.
And of course "We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days." What a ridiculous suggestion!
If that were the cause the results would be far more random than that!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
(https://i.imgur.com/yn9AVJf.png)

It looks like they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data.
Look at the scale!
Even the raw data deviations are around 0.1 Hz in 280 Hz and of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

But even the raw data has a "natural stability" orders of magnitude better than anything any flat-Earther has ever dome!

Now, excuse me if I go off-topic but YOU turned it into a discussion of precision!

What about Sun height? Rowbotham did "measure it" but!
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, Earth is Not a Globe (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.
IT is now demonstrated that the earth is a plane, and therefore the distance of the sun may be readily and most accurately ascertained by the simplest possible process. The operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[iIf any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; ]so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.[/i]

The above method of measuring distances applies equally to the moon and stars; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles.

But Rowbotham claimed "that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles" not 3100 miles as is now asserted.
Funny that!

You complain about less than 1/10% when flat-Earthers don'y turn a hair at the massive differences in their own "model". Get real!

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2020, 07:50:50 PM
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that. Scale won't help you.

Why are you spamming about Rowbotham in a thread about rotation?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2020, 07:58:34 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

Looks like this is a checkmate then. You admit that it is noisy raw data that must be filtered.

The device is detecting a multitude of unknown effects and special filtering algorithms are applied to pull out patterns in the data. How do we know which effect is being pulled out from the various phenomena from the background environment that is causing the noise?

Because it matches the period of a diurnal day? Not really sufficient evidence. If the earth were flat and motionless phenomena related to the diurnal day would still exist.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 14, 2020, 09:00:59 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

Looks like this is a checkmate then. You admit that it is noisy raw data that must be filtered.
Not so fast!
It might need data averaging to each this precision (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec but even without averaging the relative errors are not more than one part in 1000.
Look for yourself at the raw data.

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 from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The device is detecting a multitude of unknown effects and special filtering algorithms are applied to pull out patterns in the data. How do we know which effect is being pulled out from the various phenomena from the background environment that is causing the noise?
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.
So all these so-called "unknown effects" always average to the same value on all the ring-laser gyroscope installed around the world?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Because it matches the period of a diurnal day? Not really sufficient evidence. If the earth were flat and motionless phenomena related to the diurnal day would still exist.
No one ever mentioned the "diurnal day". Try reading what is written!
But, in any case why would "phenomena related to the diurnal day" be significant when the Moon supposedly circles with a period about 50 minutes longer.
And, according to flat-Earthers the Moon is about the same size as the Sun.

It's not just one large ring-laser gyroscope in Italy but there's a similar one in Germany, one in New Zealand etc and numerous smaller ones with lewer precision.

You whole attitude seems be that we can measure nothing and that proves the Earth to be flat - but it does nothing of the sort.

Now what about justifying some of the flat-Earth claims such as the Sun and Moon's heights?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 15, 2020, 12:29:03 AM
Look what I found: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope
You mean look at what you wrote.

As you have pointed out before, your baseless claims can just be dismissed.
Do you have evidence?

It doesn't look like the data is naturally stable to me. We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days.
Really?
It looks pretty stable, staying between 280.40 and 280.45 with the exception of a few spikes such as due to Earthquakes.
That is a variation of less than 0.02%.
That is very stable.

Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):
Did you read the title?
It is raw-average.
This alone doesn't tell us much, other than that the variation is very small, on the order of 10-8 rad/s.
Now what was the average?
Going by what rab posted I suspect it is on the order of 10-5, so again, a tiny variation.

That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that. Scale won't help you.
Can you not read, or are you intentionally being dishonest?
Like I said, that is raw-AVERAGE!
It is not the raw data. It is purely showing the noise.

So no, that is not showing Earth rotating backwards, try again.

Because it matches the period of a diurnal day? Not really sufficient evidence. If the earth were flat and motionless phenomena related to the diurnal day would still exist.
No, it doesn't. Look at the plot over 1 hour. Does that match a day? No.
But more importantly, what is causing your flat, allegedly stationary Earth to record such a rotation, or such strong noise at that specific frequency?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 02:13:53 AM
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data?
I don't see 15 degrees in those minute random deviations in data!
Why on earth would you expect to "see 15 degrees in that mess of data"?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.
Rubbish! That graph shows nothing of the sort!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Scale won't help you.
I need no scale to help but the scale is vitally important,

This is getting tedious! Read what is written in the title of that graph!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl44qnzyl0mwzq/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28heading%29.jpg?dl=1)
It reads "GINGERino angular velocity - average value".

Look! That graph does not show any angular velocity at all - but it does show how small the deviations were!

Even the raw data rarely shows deviations exceeding 2 x 10-8 rad/sec and the average deviation is about 1 x 10-8 rad/sec.

Hence the raw data, without any averaging shows the Earth's rotation rate as (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec.
Who needs any better to show that the Earth rotates? By the way, the ring-laser gyroscope responds to rotation not to gravitation or electromagnetic effects.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Why are you spamming about Rowbotham in a thread about rotation?
I'm not spamming!
Firstly you raised these these baseless claims about the precision of the gyroscopes so I wanted you to face the abysmal precision of the few measurements flat-Earthers have claimed.

And then because you refuse to address that in any other thread!

Now, in future please read what is written in the references and the annotations on diagrams and graphs!
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Platonius21 on January 15, 2020, 06:50:06 AM
Forget all the technical issues with the gyro.  The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 15, 2020, 07:03:39 AM
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2020, 10:01:44 AM
Quote from: rabinoz
of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

Looks like this is a checkmate then. You admit that it is noisy raw data that must be filtered.
Not so fast!
It might need data averaging to each this precision (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec but even without averaging the relative errors are not more than one part in 1000.
Look for yourself at the raw data.

Quote
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: markjo on January 15, 2020, 10:58:14 AM
Tom, do you actually understand the data or the statistical analysis involved in the graphs that you presented?  Pointing to a graph without understanding the context doesn't really help your argument.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2020, 11:36:30 AM
If you need a statistical analysis of noise to prove your case, it is a weak case. You may as well perform analysis on TV static and tell me that you can detect the rotation of the earth. Totally invalid. The nature of the analysis itself, of trying to pick out one thing among unknown effects, provides no empirical demonstration or verification of what you are trying to measure.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Mikey T. on January 15, 2020, 01:08:37 PM
So, no then.  You could have just said no.  What makes you think it's all noise?  Did you notice the slope of the average actually increase at constant rate over that 1 hour graph?  Do you know what that may or may not mean?  I didn't read the article, so why did you post it, what is it showing?  Don't be lazy, explain your reasoning for it being evidence to support your position, not point at something you clearly don't understand and say it's just noise.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 15, 2020, 01:13:25 PM
Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.
Except as the aether doesn't exist, that leaves just the Earth rotating.

Also, I am yet to see any explanation of why the aether would magically cause the Coriolis effect.
In fact, you have it completely the wrong way around.
The Sagnac effect can be explained by Earth rotating or a hypothetical aether rotating around Earth.
So the Coriolis effect, like displayed by Foucault's pendulum would be the deciding factor, unless you accept that aether doesn't exist, in which case either can be.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
Except the data you are just ignoring.
Of course when you ignore it you can pretend it isn't there.
But for everyone else, it still is.

In fact, you provided some of the data yourself.

Remember that first graph you posted? Showing a variation between 280.40 Hz and 280.45 Hz?
What is the variation in that? 0.05 Hz
What is the average? Roughly 280.425.
So what is the % variatoin?
0.05/280.425 = 0.0001783...
Or, expressed as a percentage is 0.01783...%
i.e. less than 0.02%.
Or to express it another way, it is + or - less than 0.01%.

Likewise, with the second figure you provided, we see that the variation from the average is less than 2*10^-8 rad/s and the average is roughly 7.3*10^-5 rad/s.

So what is the variation as a fraction?
2*10^-8/(7.3*10^-5)=0.00027 = 0.027%.

But of course, you ignore that and just pretend that that tiny variation means it just noise and we are trying to pull something from noise.

To compare it to your TV analogy, it would be akin to saying that the TV is just trying to pull a pattern from the noise, which just somehow makes a picture on the TV and it has nothing at all to do with people transmitting that image, all because there is some tiny, almost unnoticeable noise.
It is pure nonsense.

The signal is quite apparent, and quite clear.
Even without averaging, it is still clearly there.

Why not be honest and admit that there is clearly something there and that we aren't just pulling nonsense from noise?

Or at the least be consistent and say that because EVERYTHING will have some measure of noise that nothing can ever be empirically demonstrated because of that noise, regardless of how small the noise is compared to the signal?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Unconvinced on January 15, 2020, 01:39:16 PM
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.

So your version of ether can physically move a solid object like a pendulum?

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 02:48:45 PM
If you need a statistical analysis of noise to prove your case, it is a weak case. You may as well perform analysis on TV static and tell me that you can detect the rotation of the earth. Totally invalid.
If you "perform analysis on TV static" you might learn a lot more than you realise! But I doubt that you would "detect the rotation of the earth" - but who knows?

And it was unexpected "static" that lead to radio-astronomy.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The nature analysis itself, of trying to pick out one thing among unknown effects, provides no empirical demonstration or verification of what you are trying to measure.
In other words, you know nothing about statistical analysis - got that!
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 03:01:20 PM
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.

I'm basing my claim on the graph that you seem incapable of understanding! This one that you so helpfully pointed out:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
The vertical axis is the deviation in rad/s x 10-8 and elsewhere the paper,  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) gave the result as:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2020, 03:25:11 PM
Quote from: JackBlack
In fact, you provided some of the data yourself.

Remember that first graph you posted? Showing a variation between 280.40 Hz and 280.45 Hz?
What is the variation in that? 0.05 Hz
What is the average? Roughly 280.425.
So what is the % variatoin?
0.05/280.425 = 0.0001783...
Or, expressed as a percentage is 0.01783...%
i.e. less than 0.02%.
Or to express it another way, it is + or - less than 0.01%.

Bunk. The noise displacement in that graph was across 0.05 Hz, yes. But the displacement the earthquakes were causing ranged across about 0.11 Hz. Now you are claiming that the general static seen is about half the magnitude of an earthquake and are trying to dismiss the range as trivial.

None of it tells us how small the supposed rotation rate of the earth compares.

Quote
Likewise, with the second figure you provided, we see that the variation from the average is less than 2*10^-8 rad/s and the average is roughly 7.3*10^-5 rad/s.

So what is the variation as a fraction?
2*10^-8/(7.3*10^-5)=0.00027 = 0.027%.

More bunk. You are now talking about figures after the data analysis filtering, in the effort to make your argument.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2020, 03:27:03 PM
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.

I'm basing my claim on the graph that you seem incapable of understanding! This one that you so helpfully pointed out:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
The vertical axis is the deviation in rad/s x 10-8 and elsewhere the paper,  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) gave the result as:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?

Your argument appears garbled, since you are comparing a figure from further filtering steps and processes down the line to raw data.

Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 05:12:25 PM
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.

I'm basing my claim on the graph that you seem incapable of understanding! This one that you so helpfully pointed out:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
The vertical axis is the deviation in rad/s x 10-8 and elsewhere the paper,  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) gave the result as:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?

Your argument appears garbled, since you are comparing a figure from further filtering steps and processes down the line to raw data.
And why not? That shows how little that raw data deviates from that average.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!
So, of course,
I cannot "Just show YOU where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph" because it is not on that graph and was never intended to be!

Read what is written in the title of that graph!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl44qnzyl0mwzq/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28heading%29.jpg?dl=1)
It reads "GINGERino angular velocity - average value".

Look! That graph does not show any angular velocity at all - but it does show how small the deviations were!

Even the raw data rarely shows deviations exceeding 2 x 10-8 rad/sec and the average deviation is about 1 x 10-8 rad/sec.

Now, in future please read what is written in the references and the annotations on diagrams and graphs!
Do you understand YET?
That graph is only showing the deviation between the instantaneous reading and the average value and it says exactly that at the top of the graph - read it again!

Here is the "raw data" as simply the Sagnac frequency:
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:
(https://i.imgur.com/N3BsIOX.png)
It doesn't look like the data is naturally stable to me. We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Look at the scale!
Even the raw data deviations (including the minor quakes) are around 0.1 Hz in 280 Hz and of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

But even the raw data has a "natural stability" orders of magnitude better than anything any flat-Earther has ever dome!
As to your "presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days" claim.
Of course, there are "not constant earthquakes for all 95 days" but there are quite a number of minor shakes as is noted in the paper.

And it needs little data processing to see that, apart from minor quakes etc the Sagnac frequency lies in the range 280.42 ±0.02 Hz.

Show me any relevant measurement that any flat-Earther has done to anything like that precision.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 15, 2020, 05:17:54 PM
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.

Since there's no such thing as ether, that reduces those options by one.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2020, 05:36:18 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!

Quote
Read what is written in the title of that graph!

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl44qnzyl0mwzq/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28heading%29.jpg?dl=1)

I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?

Quote
That graph is only showing the deviation between the instantaneous reading and the average value and it says exactly that at the top of the graph - read it again!

Actually, it doesn't say that.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 05:47:01 PM
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum
Agreed.
Quote from: sandokhan
and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect)
The mechanical marine gyrocompass might be due to the Coriolis effect but Ring Laser Gyroscopes are based on the Sagnac effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes:
Except that Mach's principle was little more than a conjecture of Ernest Mach and the name "Mach's principle" was coined by Albert Einstein.

Einstein would like to have had his GR successfully encompass the "complete relativity" of Mach's principle but realised that was not possible though questions still remain.

Quote from: sandokhan
either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.
But the ether drift has never been proven and a number of experinents, when taken together, seem to indicate that no consistent ether theory can be found.

Quote from: sandokhan
The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.
Well, no it isn't, but there are a number of Sagnac devices that can measure rotation directly to better than 1 part in 107.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 06:08:43 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!

Quote from: rabinoz
Read what is written in the title of that graph!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl44qnzyl0mwzq/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28heading%29.jpg?dl=1)
I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?
Read it again then because it says "angular velocity - average value . . . . . Raw data". So where is the no 15 degrees per hour shown!
How could you possibly not see the "- average value" in this (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jjsqyzldlq5vk71/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28ang%20velocity%20-%20average%29.png?dl=1)?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: rabinoz
That graph is only showing the deviation between the instantaneous reading and the average value and it says exactly that at the top of the graph - read it again!

Actually, it doesn't say that.
Actually, it does say: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jjsqyzldlq5vk71/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28ang%20velocity%20-%20average%29.png?dl=1)!
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
That does not imply that the results are averaged with an algorithm, or that some things are subtracted with an algorithm. It explicitly says RAW DATA.

It's untouched raw data showing what would be the total raw values of the angular velocity, to which we can see the average noise and trends.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 11:21:14 PM
That does not imply that the results are averaged with an algorithm, or that some things are subtracted with an algorithm. It explicitly says RAW DATA.
Abd it just as explicitly that it is (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jjsqyzldlq5vk71/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28ang%20velocity%20-%20average%29.png?dl=1)!

And it cannot possibly be simply "raw data" because it is centred on ZERO! The angular acceleration cannot be centred on zero because it was derived from a Sagnac frequency averaging (by eye only) about 280.42 Hz.

Look in your own post:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):
(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
Now, look at the raw Sagnac frequency shift.
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:
(https://i.imgur.com/N3BsIOX.png)
You have seen both of that because those are your own posts.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's untouched raw data showing what would be the total raw values of the angular velocity, to which we can see the average noise and trends.
No, it is not simply "raw data" because the graph says it st not! Can't you read plain English?
Read again: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jjsqyzldlq5vk71/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28ang%20velocity%20-%20average%29.png?dl=1) - what do you think a "minus sign" means.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 15, 2020, 11:33:22 PM
Bunk. The noise displacement in that graph was across 0.05 Hz, yes.
And that is tiny compared to the signal.
Do you understand that?
The measured value was roughly 280.425 Hz.
0.05 Hz is basically nothing.
So you are complaining over nothing.
So no, not bunk at all.

You are appealing a tiny amount of noise to say there is no signal.
Again, that is like complaining about unnoticeable noise to say there is no TV signal.

None of it tells us how small the supposed rotation rate of the earth compares.
Again, can you see the clear signal?
That makes it quite clear how well it compares.

More bunk. You are now talking about figures after the data analysis filtering, in the effort to make your argument.
No, now I am comparing the noise to the average value.

If there was filtering, it would not be that noisy.
Do you understand what filtering does?
It removes the noise.

What is shown is the difference between the raw data and the average.
All that is doing is offsetting it.

You are attacking strawmen to pretend you have an argument.

That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
No, it is your argument that is complete garbage.
Again, that graph shows the raw data minus the average.
Do you understand that?
It is showing the deviation from the average.
Now, do you think Earth's rotation rate is part of the average, or part of the deviation?
As Earth's rotation is almost constant (especially over that time period) it would be part of the average, and thus when you look at the deviation, it will vanish.

Do you understand?
If you do, why are you continuing to make such a pathetic and obviously false claim?

I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?
Try harder. Make sure you note what it says after angular velocity.
Here, I'll even make it simpler by circling it in red.
(https://i.imgur.com/8BtKbqp.png)
Can you see it now? The important 2 words you are either completely missing or intentionally lying about?

Again, where you expect Earth's ~15 degree per hour rotation rate to show up in that graph?

Actually, it doesn't say that.
While it doesn't use those exact words, that is what it says.
It is the angular velocity-average value, and that is the deviation.
Just what do you think the deviation is?

That does not imply that the results are averaged with an algorithm, or that some things are subtracted with an algorithm.
Then what do you think it means?
Please explain exactly what you think angular velocity - average value means?
What is the average value?

It explicitly says RAW DATA.
To indicate that it hasn't been filtered.

All it does is change the 0 point, i.e. shift the axis.

It is like expressing "RAW DATA" for temperature in celsius vs fahrenheit.

If it was just the raw data like you want to pretend then it would not have " - average value".

Do you understand the insanity of your claim?
You are saying that even though it explicitly states that the value plotted has had the average subtracted, it somehow doesn't mean that the average has been subtracted?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2020, 09:50:37 PM
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.

It specifically says RAW DATA and you are arguing that it is filtered in some way. I can only interpret that as a rather weak argument. On topics like these there should be multiple sources or quotes which confirm what you are trying to claim, yet you appeal to your own personal interpretation of a dash.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 16, 2020, 11:32:15 PM
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.
No, that is obviously a "minus sign" otherwise it would not have been centred on zero!

Read it again:
Read what is written in the title of that graph!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl44qnzyl0mwzq/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28heading%29.jpg?dl=1)
It reads "GINGERino angular velocity - average value".
That heading would be meaningless with a "dash".

Stop this scrabbling around for excuses to explain away these results.
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec with no data averaging:
Even the raw data rarely shows deviations exceeding 2 x 10-8 rad/sec and the average deviation is about 1 x 10-8 rad/sec.

Hence the raw data, without any averaging shows the Earth's rotation rate as (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec.
Who needs any better to show that the Earth rotates?

But when the data is quite legitimately "filtered" the result is:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
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)
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 16, 2020, 11:42:55 PM
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.
No, it is quite clearly a minus sign.
What would the dash even mean?

Again, clearly explain just what you think that portion of the title means.

you are arguing that it is filtered in some way.
No, we are arguing that it has an offset, as in the average has been subtracted.
Meanwhile, you are completely ignoring that it clearly states it is the angular velocity - average value, you are completley ignoring that the average has been subtracted.

That isn't a rather weak argument. That is blatant dishonest, wilfully rejecting reality to prop up fantasy.

On topics like these there should be multiple sources or quotes which confirm what you are trying to claim
You mean like the other data which clearly show it isn't centred on 0? The data you just like to ignore?

You are the one clinging to personal interpretation, not us.

Again, tell us just what you think that means.
Not just that you think it could be a dash, but exactly what you think that title means, making sure you address the " - average value" part.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 17, 2020, 12:14:35 AM
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec

No.

Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.

However, the RLGs do not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all.

Two different formulas.

This is the point Knodel and his critics did not understand.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 17, 2020, 01:00:54 AM
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec
No.
Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Again, PURE GARBAGE!
We have been over this countless times with you repeatedly failing to justify your insane claims.
The sagnac effect will be the same regardless of if you accept reality with a rotating Earth, or if you choose to cling to a refuted aether which is stationary with Earth rotating, or the refuted aether which rotates about a stationary Earth, or the refuted aether which rotates with Earth rotating as well.


The Sagnac effect is recorded with ring laser gyroscopes. You blatantly lying about that will not change that fact.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to go back to one of the countless threads on the Sagnac effect you have already been refuted in and try to defend your claims. Maybe start with a derivation, from first principles, starting with how long it takes for light to traverse a stationary loop.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 17, 2020, 01:03:21 AM
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec

No.

Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.

However, the RLGs do not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all.

Two different formulas.

This is the point Knodel and his critics did not understand.

Looks like these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 17, 2020, 03:51:32 AM
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec

No.

Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Who says that?

Quote from: sandokhan
If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
True and the Ring Laser Gyroscope is based on the Sagnac effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
However, the RLGs do not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all.
How is it then that everybody of note does claim that Ring Laser Gyroscopes do measure the rotation of the Earth through the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Are all those physicists wrong and are you the only one who is right?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Unconvinced on January 17, 2020, 04:20:03 AM
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.
No, it is quite clearly a minus sign.
What would the dash even mean?

I suppose it could mean the average readings of angular velocity.  But then a graph against time would just be a horizontal line, which would be pointless.  It also could hardly be called raw data.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 17, 2020, 05:29:10 PM
Looks like these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

How is it then that everybody of note does claim that Ring Laser Gyroscopes do measure the rotation of the Earth through the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Are all those physicists wrong and are you the only one who is right?


This was before the LISA SPACE ANTENNA calculations.

LISA Space Antenna

(https://image.ibb.co/ivHjjS/lisa2.jpg)

The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.


Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 17, 2020, 06:04:54 PM
TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.

We're not talking about LISA and the sun, but about earth rotation. As stated before, physicists disagree with your assessment: Earth-bound RLG's measure the Sagnac frequency.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 17, 2020, 07:36:07 PM
Looks like these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

How is it then that everybody of note does claim that Ring Laser Gyroscopes do measure the rotation of the Earth through the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Are all those physicists wrong and are you the only one who is right?


This was before the LISA SPACE ANTENNA calculations.
The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Look, the "LISA SPACE ANTENNA" is a quite different to either the GPS of these RLGs so I fail to see the relevance.
For a start the orbital period and the rotational period of LISA are both one year not only that but there is not one laser sending light in both directions but lasers at each corner..

Besides, you don't believe that the Earth or the LISA satellites could be orbiting the Sun so I see it as a mite hypocritical to try to use this material to support your ideas that no one else in this whole world seems to support.

But who said it was "To everyone's surprise"? You alone?
Where has anyone mentioned "CORIOLIS EFFECT" other than you? Stop reading into papers thing that are not there.

Quote from: sandokhan
TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.
So you say but everyone else says that the Coriolis force is (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymhi8efjdujyywm/Coriolis%20Force%20Equation.png?dl=1).
The Coriolis acceleration is 2 x the vector cross product of (the angular velocity of the rotating reference frame) and the (velocity of the particle).
No area comes into it.

Quote from: sandokhan
The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.
So you say but everybody else says that the Sagnac delay is proportional to the (angular velocity of the loop) x (the area of the loop projected onto the plane of rotation).
That can be expressed as an inner vector product if you wish.

Quote from: sandokhan
RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Incorrect! You go and read all the papers by people that know far more than you who all refer to the GINGERino ring-laser-Gyroscopes as being Sagnac devices.

Quote from: sandokhan
The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.
What was recorded was the Sagnac effect.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 17, 2020, 10:39:06 PM
As stated before, physicists disagree with your assessment: Earth-bound RLG's measure the Sagnac frequency.

Not anymore.

Here is the latest viewpoint.

The formula which features an area and an angular velocity is now derived DIRECTLY using the CORIOLIS force:

(https://i.ibb.co/3y1qt05/sak1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/p1gG2tm/sak2.jpg)

The Sagnac Phase Shift
G. Rizzi and M.L. Ruggiero
(two of the best known experts on the SAGNAC EFFECT in the world)

(M.L. Ruggiero is member of the GINGER collaboration)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0305046.pdf

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, 4Aω/c2, has been derived using solely the CORIOLIS FORCE.

But this is not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

Stokes' theorem/formula guarantees that there will always be two formulas for each interferometer: the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula and the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.


Cambridge University:


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0392.pdf

The influence of Earth rotation in neutrino speed measurements between CERN and the OPERA detector

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."


Look, the "LISA SPACE ANTENNA" is a quite different to either the GPS of these RLGs so I fail to see the relevance.

Your statement belongs to CN.

BOTH ARE LIGHT INTERFEROMETERS.

For a start the orbital period and the rotational period of LISA are both one year not only that but there is not one laser sending light in both directions but lasers at each corner..

GINGER has corners too, four of them.

It doesn't matter how many lasers you have: what does matter are the LOOPS.

THE FORMULAS ARE THE SAME: both RLGs and LISA features the very same formulas.

Where has anyone mentioned "CORIOLIS EFFECT" other than you? Stop reading into papers thing that are not there.

 You go and read all the papers by people that know far more than you who all refer to the GINGERino ring-laser-Gyroscopes as being Sagnac devices.


Read the above references: THE VERY BEST.

GINGER and CAMBRIDGE agree with me.

What was recorded was the Sagnac effect.

You cannot derive the SAGNAC EFFECT from the CORIOLIS FORCE.

Read the proof provided by G. Rizzi and M.L. Ruggiero, the best experts in the world on the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Read the statements issued by Cambridge University.


Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA:

Δt = 4AΩ/c2

Here is the SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


Professor MASSIMO TINTO, principal scientist at CALTECH agrees with me:


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 17, 2020, 11:37:44 PM
RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.

Apparently not. According to the following the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 17, 2020, 11:50:55 PM
Yes, you tried this before.

Take a look at the date of the article: 2004.

Now, you and these scientists have to deal with the TWO FORMULAS DERIVED FOR THE LISA SPACE ANTENNA by Professor Massimo Tinto, principal scientist at CALTECH.

The same two formulas derived by ESA.

RLGs measure the CORIOLIS EFFECT, the formula proportional to the area, nothing else.

The SAGNAC EFFECT is much larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D



TAKE A LOOK AT THE DATE: 2018!


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 18, 2020, 12:24:26 AM
Yes, you tried this before.

Take a look at the date of the article: 2004.

Now, you and these scientists have to deal with the TWO FORMULAS DERIVED FOR THE LISA SPACE ANTENNA by Professor Massimo Tinto, principal scientist at CALTECH.

The same two formulas derived by ESA.

RLGs measure the CORIOLIS EFFECT, the formula proportional to the area, nothing else.

The SAGNAC EFFECT is much larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

What you have cited is all regarding the Solar System Barycentric (SSB), not the rotation of the earth. Two vastly different things.

From an earth rotation and RLG perspective, as it stands, according to the following the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 12:26:42 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

The formula for RLGs and the CORIOLIS FORMULA for LISA are the same.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 12:37:44 AM
http://web.archive.org/web/20130218082359/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf

The term “Sagnac effect” is part of the vocabulary of only the observer in the rotating reference frame. The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 18, 2020, 12:51:05 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

The formula for RLGs and the CORIOLIS FORMULA for LISA are the same.

Apparently, you are trolling the upper forums.

Terrestrial RLGs register/measure the Sagnac Effect according to previously cited papers. Regardless of whether you agree or not.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 12:55:18 AM
Not anymore.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

Make sure to mail this quote to each and every physicist who said that ring laser gyroscopes measure the SAGNAC EFFECT.

RLGs measure only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 18, 2020, 01:06:12 AM
Not anymore.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

Make sure to mail this quote to each and every physicist who said that ring laser gyroscopes measure the SAGNAC EFFECT.

RLGs measure only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

Yes, still more.

Again, you're citing LISA which is in regard to Solar System Barycentric (SSB), not terrestrial RLG earth rotation. Apples and oranges.

Your point is moot.

Terrestrial RLG's record and measure the Sagnac Effect. Stick to earth.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2020, 01:23:30 AM
LISA Space Antenna
Like I said, take it back to one of the countless prior threads on the Sagnac effect.

All the evidence shows you are wrong.
Unless you go back to one of those threads, I don't really care what lies you want to spout about the Sagnac effect.

The simple fact is that laser ring gyroscopes record the Sagnac effect for Earth's rotation.
The simple fact is that the Sagnac effect, for a simple ring interferometer is based upon the area and angular velocity.

Like I said, if you wish to disagree, go back to one of the countless threads you have destroyed and provide a derivation.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 02:02:36 AM
Again, you're citing LISA which is in regard to Solar System Barycentric (SSB), not terrestrial RLG earth rotation. Apples and oranges.

SAME FORMULA in both cases.

The very same formula.

BOTH LISA AND THE RLGs ARE LIGHT INTERFEROMETERS.

Same formula applies.


Countless threads?

Here are the best examples:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.0

A total disaster for the RE.

Another recent example:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.0

It can't get much worse than this for the RE.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES MEASURE/RECORD THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Then you might worry about average values, raw data.

They positively do not register the SAGNAC EFFECT.

The SAGNAC EFFECT has nothing to do with the area of the interferometer.

Here is the most direct proof:

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

NO ROTATION, ACCELERATION OR ENCLOSED AREA APPEAR IN THIS EXPRESSION.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 18, 2020, 02:07:06 AM
RING LASER GYROSCOPES MEASURE/RECORD THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Ring Laser Gyroscopes measure/record the Sagnac Effect:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 02:11:15 AM
That was back in 2004.

Now, in 2018, things have changed dramatically.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.


Make sure you understand these very important words coming from CALTECH:

very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others

The paper referenced by you is obsolete: the new data shows that there are TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2020, 02:44:24 AM
Countless threads?
Well yes, technically you could count them, but I can't be bothered.

Here are the best examples:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.0
Yes, where you ran away, after being completely unable to provide any rational justification for your claims.
You were unable to provide any derivation for your claimed formula.
And you were unable to provide a refutation of the correct derivation of the correct formula and instead just attacked it with childish assertions and refused to engage in any rational discussion.
A total disaster for you.

Another recent example:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.0
Yes, where you tried to completely derail the thread after you were completely incapable of defending your claims regarding the sun.

Another total disaster for you.

They positively do not register the SAGNAC EFFECT.
The SAGNAC EFFECT has nothing to do with the area of the interferometer.
Again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.
We are not discussing a FOC, which can measure a more generalised Saganc effect. We are discussing a ring interferometer.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 02:59:59 AM
Those threads show pretty clearly that I won hands down.

Each and every page.

The same formula applies for FOC as for regular mirror interferometers.

They are the very same, a more advanced technology.

Phase-conjugate mirrors (PCMs) are even more advanced than FOC, yet they feature the very same formula.

Stokes' theorem guarantees/proves that you need to deal with two formulas: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

Dr. Massimo Tinto proves that there are TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation.

One is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

The other one is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

RLGs register only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, not the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 18, 2020, 03:58:37 AM
As stated before, physicists disagree with your assessment: Earth-bound RLG's measure the Sagnac frequency.

Not anymore.

Here is the latest viewpoint.

The formula which features an area and an angular velocity is now derived DIRECTLY using the CORIOLIS force:
I'll only show an extract of that
Quote

2.3 Experimental tests and derivation of the Sagnac Effect
The Sagnac effect with matter waves has been verified experimentally using Cooper pairs[41] in 1965, using neutrons[42] in 1984, using 40Ca atoms beams[43] in 1991 and using electrons, by Hasselbach-Nicklaus[44], in 1993.
The effect of the terrestrial rotation on neutron phase was demonstrated in 1979 by Werner et al.[45] in a series of famous experiments.

The Sagnac phase shift has been derived, in the full framework of the SRT, for electromagnetic waves in vacuum (Weber[26], Dieks[27], Anandan[28], Rizzi-Tartaglia[29], Bergia-Guidone [30], Rodrigues-Sharif[31]). However, a clear and universally shared derivation for matter waves is not available as far as we know, or it is at least difficult to find it in the literature. Indeed,
the Sagnac phase shift for matter waves has been derived, in the first order approximation with respect to the velocity of rotation of the interferometer, by many authors (see Ashby’s paper in this book[46] and the paper by Hasselbach-Nicklaus for discussions and further references). These derivations are often based on an heterogeneous mixture of classical kinematics
and relativistic dynamics, or non relativistic quantum mechanics and some relativistic elements.

     An example of such derivations is given in a well-known paper by Sakurai[7], on the basis of a formal analogy between the classical Coriolis force
                       FCor = 2mov × Ω                           (3)
acting on a particle of mass mo moving in a uniformly rotating frame, and the Lorentz force
                       FLor = (e/c) v × B                            (4)
acting on a particle of charge e moving in a constant magnetic field B.


The Sagnac Phase Shift
G. Rizzi and M.L. Ruggiero (two of the best known experts on the SAGNAC EFFECT in the world)
(M.L. Ruggiero is member of the GINGER collaboration)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0305046.pdf
[/quote]
Agree!

Quote from: sandokhan
The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, 4Aω/c2, has been derived using solely the CORIOLIS FORCE.
So no, it has NOT "been derived using solely the CORIOLIS FORCE"! Did you miss the "formal analogy between the classical Coriolis force"?

In fact they write "its universality can be clearly understood as a purely geometrical effect in the Minkowski space-time of the SRT"!

Quote from: sandokhan
But this is not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.
Sorry, but Rizzi and Ruggiero seem to disagree with! See above.

Quote from: sandokhan
Stokes' theorem/formula guarantees that there will always be two formulas for each interferometer: the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula and the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.
Stokes theorem "guarantees" that there will always be two ways of calculating the same formula! One by a line integral and one by a surface integral.
[/quote]
I'll let you digest that first.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2020, 04:40:40 AM
Those threads show pretty clearly that I won hands down.
Really?
With you repeatedly being refuted?
With you repeatedly failing to provide any derivation to back up your claims?
With you repeatedly failing to explain why the derivation I have provided is wrong, or why that claimed by countless physicists is wrong?
With you repeatedly refusing to engage in any rational discussion and instead just ignoring what is being said?

With you bringing up references which refute your claims?

That isn't you winning.

The same formula applies for FOC as for regular mirror interferometers.
No, it doesn't. They are fundamentally different.

Stokes' theorem guarantees/proves that you need to deal with two formulas: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.
It also guarantees that these formulae will be equivalent and equate to the same number.
If you don't get the same number, it means you screwed up.

Again, it means you are wrong.
If you end up with 2 formulae with different values, i.e. they produce different numbers, Stoke's theorem guarantees that you screwed up.

There are not 2 separate effects with different formulas like you are so desperate to pretend.
There is a singular phenomenon with multiple explanations which results in the same or an equivalent formula.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 05:06:10 AM
You cannot derive the SAGNAC EFFECT from the CORIOLIS FORCE. The Coriolis force means that you are going to get the Coriolis effect.

Proof:

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

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

Bilger et al (1995), Anderson et al (1994) and Michelson–Gale assisted by Pearson (1925) measure/ mention Sagnac effect on the circuital light/laser beams on the spinning Earth. But from the consideration of classical electrodynamics, the effect measured/mentioned by those experimenters is the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.

Sagnac effect? No, it is Coriolis effect (section 4)

The author derives the Coriolis effect formula directly from the Coriolis force.

Case closed.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, nothing else, a slight path deviation of the light beams.

By contrast, the Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, a modification of the velocities of the light beams.

RIZZI/RUGGIERO FORMULA #1, AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY

(https://i.ibb.co/3y1qt05/sak1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/p1gG2tm/sak2.jpg)

RIZZI/RUGGIERO FORMULA #2, NO AREA, VELOCITY

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

NO ROTATION, ACCELERATION OR ENCLOSED AREA APPEAR IN THIS EXPRESSION.

Sorry, but Rizzi and Ruggiero seem to disagree with!

Please write to Dr. Rizzi and to Dr. Ruggiero and have them explain why they feature TWO VERY DIFFERENT FORMULAS FOR THE SAGNAC EFFECT: ONE DISPLAYS AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT.


Stokes theorem "guarantees" that there will always be two ways of calculating the same formula! One by a line integral and one by a surface integral.

Yes.

Two distinct situations: 1. the center of rotation coincides with the geometrical center of the interferometer and 2. the center of rotation does not coincide with the geometrical center of the interferometer.

Stokes' theorem guarantees two formulas for each interferometer.

The calculations provided by Dr. Massimo Tinto prove it.

Here is what the scientists at ESA/CALTECH discovered: the R/L factor for LISA.

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)


Show me a single "refutation" coming from you.

None will be forthcoming.

You are trolling the upper forums on a daily basis.

Your "arguments" were debunked in less than 60 seconds.

Show me and show to your readers your "refutations".

Please provide the links.

You are unable to face reality.

As such, you resort to lying on a monumental scale to satisfy what you have left of your sanity.

Here is your latest lie.

They are fundamentally different.


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)

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

You have just been caught plain lying.

What are you going to do now?

Act sanely and accept defeat, or claim another "refutation" which never happened?


If you don't get the same number, it means you screwed up.

You are trolling the upper forums.

The statement refers to a single formula, applied in different references.

Not to two different formulas.

If you end up with 2 formulae with different values, i.e. they produce different numbers, Stoke's theorem guarantees that you screwed up.

One is much larger than the other, in the context where the center of rotation does not coincide with the geometrical center. This is what Dr. Massimo Tinto described as: "very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others".


The LISA SPACE ANTENNA TEAM did encounter two different formulas in their calculations.

Here is their R/L factor:

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Dr. Massimo Tinto, CALTECH:

the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized

Let us now incorporate the R/L factor:

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)

There are not 2 separate effects with different formulas like you are so desperate to pretend.

CALTECH HAS PROVIDED TWO SEPARATE EFFECT/TWO SEPARATE FORMULAS FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.

CALTECH AGREES WITH ME, not with you.

No desperation on anyone's part but yours.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2020, 12:40:35 PM
You cannot derive the SAGNAC EFFECT from the CORIOLIS FORCE.
Except people have done just that.

Proof:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
He is not saying there are 2 effects.
He is saying that it isn't the Saganc effect at all, i.e. that the Sagnac effect isn't real, and instead it is just the Coriolis effect.

Try to find a single paper in a reputable journal which says that for a rotating ring interferometer there are 2 separate effects acting on the light, the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect, which produce a different shift. Not one showing how you can derive the Sagnac effect from the Coriolis effect or claiming the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, nothing else, a slight path deviation of the light beams.
By contrast, the Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, a modification of the velocities of the light beams.
No, the Sagnac effect is a physical effect, the relative motion of the components of the light path.

RIZZI/RUGGIERO FORMULA #1, AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY
And notice what it ends with?
Equation 7 is the Sagnac phase shift.
This is showing how you can derive the Sagnac effect from the Coriolis effect.

Again, what the actual difference is between those 2 papers is one is focusing on ring interferometers, while the other focuses on FOCs.

Please write to Dr. Rizzi and to Dr. Ruggiero and have them explain why they feature TWO VERY DIFFERENT FORMULAS FOR THE SAGNAC EFFECT: ONE DISPLAYS AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT.
There is no need.
I have already explained it.
One is for a FOC, the other is for a ring interferometer or FOG.

Yes.
Two distinct situations:
No, the exact same situation, with the same value obtained by 2 methods.

Stokes' theorem guarantees two formulas for each interferometer.
Which produce the same value.
Not where you just arbitrarily throw in extra constants to try and prop up your nonsense.

Show me a single "refutation" coming from you.
Remember those threads you linked?
They had the refutations.

You are the one failing to refute anything.


Your "arguments" were debunked in less than 60 seconds.
You have debunked literally nothing.

My derivation remains unchallenged.
You were unable to show a single problem with it. Instead you just tried to ridicule it.
You were completely unable to provide a derivation of your own, and instead just repeatedly asserted that your magic formula is correct, even though problems with it were shown quite easily.

You were even completely incapable of showing a derivation or calculating how long it takes for light to go around a stationary loop.

Like I said, if you wish to disagree, go back to one of those threads and provide a derivation and clearly show what is wrong with mine.

You are unable to face reality.
As such, you resort to lying on a monumental scale to satisfy what you have left of your sanity.
Good job projecting, yet again.
Why do you feel the need to project your inadequacies onto others?
Is it the only way you pretend to yourself that you are better than them?

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.
You have just been caught plain lying.
No, I haven't.
You have just been caught displaying extreme dishonesty.

You were discussing a FOC, using it as evidence that you can have a Sagnac formula without area.
I pointed out that they are fundametnally different to a FOG.
And how do you respond?
By a quote comparing FOGs, to one with phase conjugate mirrors.

And what formula is provided by your source for such a system with phase conjugate mirrors?
The key part is:
4*pi*(R1*L1+R2*L2)*omega/(lambda*c).
Now, the only way to convert this to a velocity of the beam is if the 2 coils are rotating about their centre, in which case omega*R=v.
But that isn't what we are discussing so such a conversion would be incorrect.
We are discussing it rotating about a point away from the centre.

There are multiple loops in the coil.
In fact, the number of loops is easy to calculate from the radius and total length, as l=n*(2*pi*r).
So we can substitute that in to the formula above and get this:
4*pi*(2*pi*R1*n1*R1+2*pi*R2*n2*R2)*omega/(lambda*c)
And then simplify a bit, by noting pi*r^2 is the area.
4*pi*(2*n1*A1+2*n2*A2)*omega/(lambda*c)
Then if we make it comparable to the gyros we are discussing, where the loops are cocentric, we end up with:
4*pi*2*(n1+n2)*A*omega/(lambda*c)

So this formula, which is based upon just simple substitution has what in it?
An AREA and an ANGULAR VELOCITY!

There is no linear velocity in this formula.
The only way to get one in a simple manner is if you have both loops concentric and have it rotate about the centre of the loop.
That is because the tangential velocity is given by r*omega, where r is the distance from the centre of rotation, not the radius of the loop.

So even then, the formula equates to one based upon an area and angular velocity.


What are you going to do now?
Act sanely and accept defeat, or claim another "refutation" which never happened?

If you don't get the same number, it means you screwed up.
You are trolling the upper forums.
The statement refers to a single formula, applied in different references.
Not to two different formulas.
No, the statement applies to Stoke's theorem, which shows there are 2 equivalent ways to derive the value, either going based upon a line integral or based upon an area integral.

Again, do you actually understand Stoke's theorem?

If you end up with 2 formulae with different values, i.e. they produce different numbers, Stoke's theorem guarantees that you screwed up.
One is much larger than the other
That means you screwed up.
Stoke's theorem guarantees that the numbers will be the same.
If you get different numbers you screwed up.

CALTECH HAS PROVIDED TWO SEPARATE EFFECT/TWO SEPARATE FORMULAS FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.
Where?
Caltech also fully accepts that Earth is round, and orbiting the sun.
That sure seems like it agrees with me, not you.
Are you going to admit that you claiming Earth is flat is wrong?
If not, perhaps you should stop repeatedly appealing to authorities you clearly don't understand.

If you want to pretend they agree with you, find a paper where they are clearly stating there are 2 fundamentally different formulas which produce different values for the exact same interferometer with the exact same rotation.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 01:03:23 PM
There are multiple loops in the coil.
In fact, the number of loops is easy to calculate from the radius and total length, as l=n*(2*pi*r).
So we can substitute that in to the formula above and get this:
4*pi*(2*pi*R1*n1*R1+2*pi*R2*n2*R2)*omega/(lambda*c)
And then simplify a bit, by noting pi*r^2 is the area.
4*pi*(2*n1*A1+2*n2*A2)*omega/(lambda*c)
Then if we make it comparable to the gyros we are discussing, where the loops are cocentric, we end up with:
4*pi*2*(n1+n2)*A*omega/(lambda*c)

So this formula, which is based upon just simple substitution has what in it?
An AREA and an ANGULAR VELOCITY!

There is no linear velocity in this formula.


Your readers are not amused by your worthless try to bamboozle them.

In most debates, it is the contention of some physicists that for a circular coil with N turns, there will be a term featuring the area in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula; then N would be multiplied by the circumference of the circular coil and by the radius, even though there is no area at all, just a segment light path.

However, this is completely wrong.

The N turns term is multiplied by the velocity and the length of the fiber coil.

Professor R. Wang, world's foremost expert in FOC/FOG, explains:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf

(https://i.ibb.co/6FR2NM3/cosag.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/nDpvsfM/cosag2.jpg)

This is the correct expression for the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for FOC/FOG interferometers:

Δt = 2VL/c2

L = N x l

V = R x Ω

R is not multiplied by (N x l) at all: the velocity (V = R x Ω) is multiplied by L (L = N x l).


Except people have done just that.

They haven't. They have derived the CORIOLIS FORMULA, not the SAGNAC FORMULA.

A huge difference.

Try to find a single paper in a reputable journal which says that for a rotating ring interferometer there are 2 separate effects acting on the light, the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect, which produce a different shift. Not one showing how you can derive the Sagnac effect from the Coriolis effect or claiming the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

I have already done that, you are not paying attention.

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

(http://Equation 7 is the Sagnac phase shift.)

NO, THAT IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA!

In the next paper, they derive the correct SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA WITHOUT AN AREA!

My derivation remains unchallenged.

You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

As for unchallenged, your arguments have been thrashed thoroughly here.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that the numbers will be the same.

NO.

They can't be the same for the interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

Here is the R/L factor:

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2020, 02:01:31 PM
Your readers are not amused by your worthless try to bamboozle them.
Good thing I'm not trying to.
We are not impressed by your pathetic dismissals and bait and switch BS.

The N turns term is multiplied by the velocity and the length of the fiber coil.
Again, the formula provided by the paper you cited shows you are wrong.

The formula is equivalent to one containing an area and angular velocity.

If you want to use velocity instead you will need to know the radius from the centre of rotation and do a complex line integral.
It is not a simple case of multiplying the angular velocity by the radius of the loop, or pretending there is only one velocity for the entire system.

Again, your own citations, support me, not you.

providing a citation for a FOG rotating about its centre, where then the 2 radii are equal, doesn't help your case at all.

Go and find a citation which claims the Sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside it, is based upon the tangential velocity of that rotation.

I have already done that, you are not paying attention.
No, you haven't, and you aren't even doing that now.
Instead you are cutting and pasting from multiple sources which you probably don't understand to try and pretend you have a case.
Go do what I aksed, or stop appealing to authorities that you reject and provide a derivation yourself, preferably from first principles.

NO, THAT IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA!
Then why does it clearly state that it is the Sagnac shift?
Is it because the 2 are the same?

As for unchallenged, your arguments have been thrashed thoroughly here.
No, you have pathetically dismissed them, but are yet to show a single problem with them.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that the numbers will be the same.
NO.
They can't be the same for the interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
Again, THEY MUST BE!
You lying and sticking in a factor which doesn't exist in Stokes theorem doesn't magically change reality.
It just shows you have no integrity.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that they MUST be the same. If they aren't you failed.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 18, 2020, 10:47:24 PM
You have been reduced to total silence.

In most debates, it is the contention of some physicists that for a circular coil with N turns, there will be a term featuring the area in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula; then N would be multiplied by the circumference of the circular coil and by the radius, even though there is no area at all, just a segment light path.

However, this is completely wrong.

The N turns term is multiplied by the velocity and the length of the fiber coil.

Professor R. Wang, world's foremost expert in FOC/FOG, explains:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf

(https://i.ibb.co/6FR2NM3/cosag.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/nDpvsfM/cosag2.jpg)

This is the correct expression for the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for FOC/FOG interferometers:

Δt = 2VL/c2

L = N x l

V = R x Ω

R is not multiplied by (N x l) at all: the velocity (V = R x Ω) is multiplied by L (L = N x l).


Go and find a citation which claims the Sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside it, is based upon the tangential velocity of that rotation.

Not any reference, but one coming from the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).


Then why does it clearly state that it is the Sagnac shift?

Because of the confusion created by Albert Michelson in 1925, when he claimed that his formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation.

But Michelson derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

The calculations provided for LISA prove that a light interferometer, located away from the center of rotation, will ALWAYS be subjected to two EFFECTS: CORIOLIS and SAGNAC.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that they MUST be the same.

This new situation requires the R/L factor evidenced by the calculations put forth for LISA: an interferometer located away from the center of rotation. Now, the R/L factor balances out the two formulas derived from Stokes' theorem.

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

"the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized."

This fact, the R/L factor, has to be incorporated into the Stokes formula which guarantees TWO EQUATIONS for each interferometer.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.

The formula used for the ORBITAL SAGNAC (difference in path lengths) is 2VL/c, V = RΩ.


My references are the very best: CALTECH and ESA.

They prove that there will ALWAYS be two effects to deal with: CORIOLIS and SAGNAC.

TWO FORMULAS.

ALWAYS.

One is much greater than the other.

RLGs register only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, but never the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 19, 2020, 12:06:02 AM
RLGs register only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, but never the SAGNAC EFFECT.

I'm not sure why we have to keep going over this, but these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

Stick to terrestrial RLG's, not FOG, not LISA, but RLG's. Clearly, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable despite what you claim.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 19, 2020, 12:17:16 AM
FOG, PCMs, RLGs, LISA are all light interferometers.

SAME FORMULAS APPLIES TO ALL OF THEM.

That was back in 2004.

Now, in 2018, things have changed dramatically.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.

One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The other (SAGNAC EFFECT) is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.


RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.


Make sure you understand these very important words coming from CALTECH:

very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others

The paper referenced by you is obsolete: the new data shows that there are TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 19, 2020, 12:38:23 AM
FOG, PCMs, RLGs, LISA are all light interferometers.

SAME FORMULAS APPLIES TO ALL OF THEM.

That was back in 2004.

Now, in 2018, things have changed dramatically.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km....

The paper referenced by you is obsolete: the new data shows that there are TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

Like I referenced before, you're mixing apples and oranges. LISA and the study of Solar System Barycentric (SSB) does not change the findings regarding terrestrial (earthbound) RLG's. Two totally different studies. We're talking earth rotation on its axis, not SSB. So stop citing things that are irrelevant. What is relevant to earth's rotation on its axis is:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

Your only argument thus far is the above paper is from 2004. I think you can do better than that, don't you? If publish date were an issue, I could throw out 90% of all of your citations. So try and stick to earth and what's relevant.

Stick to terrestrial RLG's, not FOG, not LISA, but RLG's. Clearly, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable despite what you claim.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 19, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
No.

Multiple arguments, amply evidenced throughtout these years during the debates.

The paper you presented displays a formula which features the area. That is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

If you want the SAGNAC EFFECT, you need a formula which DOES NOT feature the area.

Can you comprehend this much?

SSB, ECI does not matter in the least.

SAME FORMULA APPLIES.

Do you see a different formula being applied by ESA/CALTECH? Of course not.

Your silly argument does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Stick to Earth?

Ok.

Let us now imagine that the Earth is the size of the path of the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

That is, now the LISA interferometer will be located on the surface of that Earth.

What do you have now? BOTH CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

The interferometer will be subjected to both the CORIOLIS and to the SAGNAC effects.

TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 19, 2020, 12:54:14 AM
No.

Multiple arguments, amply evidenced throughtout these years during the debates.

The paper you presented displays a formula which features the area. That is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

If you want the SAGNAC EFFECT, you need a formula which DOES NOT feature the area.

Can you comprehend this much?

SSB, ECI does not matter in the least.

SAME FORMULA APPLIES.

Do you see a different formula being applied by ESA/CALTECH? Of course not.

Your silly argument does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Stick to Earth?

Ok.

Let us now imagine that the Earth is the size of the path of the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

That is, now the LISA interferometer will be located on the surface of that Earth.

What do you have now? BOTH CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

The interferometer will be subjected to both the CORIOLIS and to the SAGNAC effects.

TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH.

Odd that you continually cite LISA, a NASA/ESA project predicated on a probe launched from a rotating globe earth orbiting the sun. How do you square that?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 19, 2020, 01:02:46 AM
How can you have a globe orbit the Sun if the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?

This is the paradox which ESA/CALTECH must resolve/answer: their calculations, the best in the world, plainly and clearly prove that the ORBITAL SAGNAC effect is MUCH GREATER than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Same principle applies to GPS satellites.

Do you now understand why, as a last resort, modern mainstream science has started to embrace the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL?

They do not even understand the proper consequences of this action.

Since now the local-ether model is acknowledged to exist, the same scientists have to deal with these statements attributed to Einstein:

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: Stash on January 19, 2020, 01:16:49 AM
How can you have a globe orbit the Sun if the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?

How can you continually cite LISA, a NASA/ESA project predicated on a probe launched from a rotating globe earth orbiting the sun? You know you can't have it both ways, right?
What sort of hypocrisy are you aiming for? Citing LISA, irrelevant to the fact that RLG's measure the Sagnac Effect notwithstanding, yet you claim a rotating globe earth doesn't orbit the sun? You do realize that LISA is designed to orbit the sun, much like a globe earth, like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/LISA_motion.gif/300px-LISA_motion.gif)

Is LISA real? Or do you need to rework your irrelevant citation of it?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 02:06:46 AM
You have been reduced to total silence.
When you ignore what is said, it sure must seem like silence.
But to everyone else who isn't choosing to be wilfully ignorant they can see that is not the case at all.

In most debates, it is the contention of some physicists that for a circular coil with N turns, there will be a term featuring the area in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula; then N would be multiplied by the circumference of the circular coil and by the radius, even though there is no area at all, just a segment light path.
However, this is completely wrong.
Then you should easily be able to prove that.
But you can't.
The formula from the reference you provided equates to an area, not a linear velocity. There is also no single linear velocity for the entire loop unless it is rotating about its centre.

Go and find a citation which claims the Sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside it, is based upon the tangential velocity of that rotation.
Not any reference, but one coming from the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.
Which in no way says what you are claiming.
Try again.

Then why does it clearly state that it is the Sagnac shift?
Because of the confusion created by Albert Michelson in 1925, when he claimed that his formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation.
The only one it seems to have confused is you.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that they MUST be the same.
This new situation requires the R/L factor evidenced by the calculations put forth for LISA
No, it doesn't. That would be a direct contradiction of stoke's theorem.

Again, your misintrepretation of LISA has nothing at all to do with this thread, unless you are planning on accepting that Earth is round and orbiting the sun.

It isn't say there is some magic new formula, it is simply saying that the actual shift for this HYPOTHETICAL ARRAY is larger than previously assumed.

They prove that there will ALWAYS be two effects to deal with: CORIOLIS and SAGNAC.
No, they don't.
You are yet to provide a single instance which actually says that.

FOG, PCMs, RLGs, LISA are all light interferometers.
Which behave in fundamentally different ways and thus can have fundamentally different formulas.

Multiple arguments, amply evidenced throughtout these years during the debates.
Yes, and you just then just reject it all, by appealing to the same authorities you reject and blatantly misrepresent what the papers say.

You repeatedly asserting the same fictional garbage will not make it true.

Like I said, go back to any of the countless threads you have already been repeatedly refuted in and try and actually provide a derivation.

All the evidence shows you are wrong and that there is only one shift, one effect that will be detected by a FOG or the like, regardless of where the centre of rotation is.

Either accept the authorities entirely accepting that Earth is a round, rotating planet, which orbits Sol, or stop bringing them up and provide your own derivation.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 19, 2020, 02:51:12 AM
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity. NO area.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf

(https://i.ibb.co/6FR2NM3/cosag.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/nDpvsfM/cosag2.jpg)



https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

Formula: 2VL

Exactly as I claimed.


All of you here have to deal with the TWO FORMULAS for the same interferometer, published by ESA and CALTECH.

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

Published in the Physical Review D

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.

The formula used for the ORBITAL SAGNAC (difference in path lengths) is 2VL/c, V = RΩ.


Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

(https://image.ibb.co/b2YMyn/lis2.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

TWO FORMULAS: ONE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE AREA (CORIOLIS), THE OTHER ONE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE VELOCITY (SAGNAC).

THE RATIO OF THE FORMULAS IS R/L.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 03:05:21 AM
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity.
Yes, that particular one, only a SINGLE velocity, so it clearly isn't describing a FOG rotating about a point outside its geometric centre, as if it was there would not just be a single velocity.

Instead it is describing one rotating about its geometric centre, where the 2 formulae are identical and which proves nothing like you claim.

Again, there are plenty of references, including plenty that you have provided, which clearly shows the formula is based upon the area and angular velocity.

In fact, that includes the paper you just cited, which you have dishonestly cut off.
What is the first formula presented in the paper (the actual paper, not the abstract which discussing the FOC)?
Deltat=4*A*Omega/c^2.

So are you going to accept your reference which clearly shows it is based upon an  area and an angular velocity? Or will you continue to reject it?

But as I said before, if you want to use any of those references, first admit that Earth is a round, rotating planet orbiting the sun.

If you aren't willing to do that, stop appealing to authorities you are blatantly misrepresenting, effectively lying about them (and some times directly lying about them).

Now like I said, if you wish to disagree, go back to the countless threads you have already been refuted on and show an actual problem with my derivation (not just ridiculing it) and provide your own from first principles.
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 19, 2020, 03:41:02 AM
Modern science can no longer ignore the calculations performed for the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

University of Cambridge

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0392.pdf

The influence of Earth rotation in neutrino speed measurements between CERN and the OPERA detector

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."

Dr. Ruyong Wang presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf

Exactly as the calculations performed at ESA/CALTECH.

Exactly as did Dr. Rizzi and Dr. Ruggiero.

Things have changed, they are no longer the same.

Now it dawns on those who study the field of light interferometry that there will always be TWO EFFECTS to deal with for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation: CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 19, 2020, 04:20:13 AM
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity. NO area.

And it's also not a Sagnac Fibre Optic Gyroscope and Wang does not call it one.
He calls it a Fiber Optic Linear Motion Sensor (FOLMS) and NOT a Sagnac FOG.
And if you look at its layout you can readily see that it is NOT a Fiber Optic Gyroscope and it does not measure any absolute linear motion.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s9s9jfa9m9f1z23/Generalized%20Sagnac%20Effect%2C%20Ruyong%20Wang%2C%20Yi%20Zheng%2C%20and%20Aiping%20Y%20-%20Figure%203a.png?dl=1)
Dr. Ruyong Wang's Fiber Optic Linear Motion Sensor (FOLMS), NOT a Sagnac FOG

Quote from: sandokhan
Generalized Sagnac Effect by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf)

(https://i.ibb.co/6FR2NM3/cosag.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/nDpvsfM/cosag2.jpg)

<< LISA omitted because it is irrelevant to the rotation of the Earth on its axis >>
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 19, 2020, 04:42:56 AM
For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."
Why is that such a mystery?
The southerly component involves no rotation, just a change in surface velocity so is the Coriolis effect.
The easterly component involves no change in the surface velocity but does involve rotation can be looked on as a Sagnac effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Ruyong Want presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).
Generalized Sagnac Effect by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf)
Who is "Dr. Ruyong Want"? I'll assume that you mean Dr. Ruyong Wag?
Sure Dr. Ruyong Wang presents"TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY)."
But the one that features an area is a Fiber Optic Gyroscope and the other one that does not (only a velocity is NOT a FOG but is a Fiber Optic Linear Motion Sensor (FOLMS).


Quote from: sandokhan
Exactly as the calculations performed at ESA/CALTECH.

Exactly as did Dr. Rizzi and Dr. Ruggiero.

Things have changed, they are no longer the same.

Now it dawns on those who study the field of light interferometry that there will always be TWO EFFECTS to deal with for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation: CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.
But it's a pity that you seem to have no clue as to the difference between them.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: sandokhan on January 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
The difference has been spelled out very clearly by the physicists working at ESA on the LISA project.

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

FOR LISA, THE SAGNAC PHASE IS 30 TIMES LARGER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.

Which means you haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.

Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 12:48:25 PM
Modern science can no longer ignore the calculations performed for the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.
Which in no way support your claims. You are blatantly lying about what it says.

Again, try to find where it clearly declares that there are 2 separate forces, the Coriolis force and the Saganc effect, both of which contribute.

Dr. Ruyong Wang presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).
Which are equal. Not 2 magically different shifts, but 2 ways to express the same thing.

But before you just claimed that it was velocity, completely ignoring the fact that your own references provide a formula featuring an area.

The important part you repeatedly overlook is that this is for a FOG rotating about its centre, where there is a single speed for the fibre.
It clearly is not being applied to a ring interferometer rotating about a point away from its centre as then you have multiple velocities to deal with.

As the paper is about FOC, it makes sense that they want to use the form with velocity. But that is not any absolute velocity.

Again, it clearly does not back you up.

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
You mean just like has been pointed out before, THEY ARE THE SAME THING!

Notice how they aren't saying that it is a fundamentally different effect with a different formula?
NO! They are saying the 2 are the same, that the Coriolis effect for objects is known as the Sagnac effect for light.

i.e. they are showing you are wrong, yet again. But you don't care. Even while directly quoting them for all to see your lie, you still blatantly lie about what they are saying and act like they back you up.

Now it dawns on those who study the field of light interferometry that there will always be TWO EFFECTS to deal with for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation: CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Again, find a single citation from a reputable source which shows that.
So far all we have to indicate that is yourself.
Meanwhile, the very references you cite instead indicate that they are the same phenomenon.

Again, you are blatantly lying about your own references.

Perhaps a more simple question:
How would you expect such phenomenon to manifest?

Starting nice and simple with experiments everyone can agree on, a circular ring interferometer rotating about its centre.
What shift should be observed?
Is it the Sagnac shift, repeatedly reported to have been observed, with a formula of Deltat=4*A*Omega/c^2, which is equal to 2*v*l/c^2?
Is it the Coriolis effect, with a formula of Deltat=2*v*l/c^2, which is equal to 4*A*Omega/c^2?
Is it both, because they are the same thing?
Or it is both, with both effects manifesting so you have the Sagnac shift, PLUS the Coriolis effect giving a total shift of 8*A*Omega/c^2 = 4*v*l/c^2, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED?

A related question is what effect does the geometry of the loop has?
Does changing it from a circle to a square effect the shift? No.
So does that mean the formula you claim is for the Sagnac effect is actually variable and dependent upon the shape of the loop such that it always equals the formula you claim is just for the Coriolis effect?
Title: Re: The earth rotation
Post by: rabinoz on January 19, 2020, 02:32:36 PM
TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

FOR LISA, THE SAGNAC PHASE IS 30 TIMES LARGER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.

And what are your expressions for the Sagnac delay (or phase) and the "Coriolis effect"?
Your own reference has "(https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pdckzeb10560ri/Sagnac%20Phase%20-%20Algebraic%20Approach%20.%20.%20.%20.%20.%20Orbiting%20LISA.png?dl=1)" for the Sagnac Phase, which seems to agree with everybody else but you.
Quote from: K. Rajesh Nayak and J-Y. Vinet
Algebraic Approach to Time-Delay Data Analysisfor Orbiting LISA (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe)The Rigid rotation of LISA triangle with period one year about its own axis results in Sagnac Phase (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pdckzeb10560ri/Sagnac%20Phase%20-%20Algebraic%20Approach%20.%20.%20.%20.%20.%20Orbiting%20LISA.png?dl=1).

And this is the expression for the Coriolis force: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e4eb6b9a1018b1ffbdf7bdf9883a8b4e8bd7f8fb). Note this is a vector cross product whereas the Sagnac effect is proportional to the dot (or inner) vector product, quite different!

But none of the papers I've searched have mentioned "Coriolis". Including the above and:
The Effects of Orbital Motion on LISA Time Delay Interferometry by Neil J. Cornish and Ronald W. Hellings (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306096.pdf).

The only link I've found so far, even between the words is this, which is clearly:
Quote from: Padmanabhan Thanu
World Scientific Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics: Volume 8 "An Invitation to Astrophysics": p11 (https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6010)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyitrim4mljyz4x/LISA%20Coriolis%20%E2%80%93%20p11%20in%20An%20Invitation%20To%20Astrophysics%20by%20Padmanabhan%20Thanu.png?dl=1)

So why do you try to assert that the wel known Sagnac effect is the Coriolis effect?