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.
There are three aspects of the rotation question.But would any sensible person claim "that ancient history was entirely forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler)"?
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).
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.
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
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.
(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.
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.
That would be an understatement.and this history?
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 the introduction of the Gregorian calendar was spread over centuries: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.
Wright now we can see a real proff of STILL Earth in experiment.The problem with any experiment like this, is that the rotation of Earth is very slow.
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.
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.
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.
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?
From 2:47:00 gyro have precession by the unbalanced gimbal. Author demonstrate this unbalance at the begining.
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?
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. :)
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.
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]
You're biased reference has been noted.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.
And look who wrote what you found: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
• 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
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?
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).
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):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://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
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.
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:And of course "We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days." What a ridiculous suggestion!
(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)Look at the scale!
It looks like they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data.
Zetetic Astronomy, Earth is Not a Globe (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)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.CHAPTER V.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.
THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[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.
of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".
Not so fast!Quote from: rabinozof 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.
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 VirgilioEarth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.
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.
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!
Look what I found: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_GyroscopeYou mean look at what you wrote.
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?
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):Did you read the title?
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?
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.
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!
Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.Rubbish! That graph shows nothing of the sort!
Scale won't help you.I need no scale to help but the scale is vitally important,
Why are you spamming about Rowbotham in a thread about rotation?I'm not spamming!
Not so fast!Quote from: rabinozof 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.
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.
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.
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.
What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.Except the data you are just ignoring.
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.
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?
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!
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":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.
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.
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:Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):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://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.
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%.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":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.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: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:Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):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://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)Quote from: Angela Di VirgilioEarth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.
And why not? That shows how little that raw data deviates from that average.It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":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.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: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:Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):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://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)Quote from: Angela Di VirgilioEarth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10^{−5} radians/secwhich 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.How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!
Read what is written in the title of that graph!Do you understand YET?
(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!
As to your "presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days" claim.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!
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.
QuoteQuote from: Tom BishopHow many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
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)
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!
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.Agreed.
No.
Foucault's pendulum
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.
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.
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.
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 10^{7}.
Read it again then because it says "angular velocity - average value . . . . . Raw data". So where is the no 15 degrees per hour shown!Quote from: rabinozQuote from: Tom BishopJust 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: rabinozRead what is written in the title of that graph!I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl44qnzyl0mwzq/GINGERino%2C%20angular%20velocity%2C%20RAWDATA%20final%20results%20%28heading%29.jpg?dl=1)
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)!Quote from: rabinozThat 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.
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)!
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):Now, look at the raw Sagnac frequency shift.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZPN0aOi.jpg)
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:You have seen both of that because those are your own posts.
(https://i.imgur.com/N3BsIOX.png)
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?
Bunk. The noise displacement in that graph was across 0.05 Hz, yes.And that is tiny compared to the signal.
None of it tells us how small the supposed rotation rate of the earth compares.Again, can you see the clear signal?
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.
That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?No, it is your argument that is complete garbage.
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
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.
Actually, it doesn't say that.While it doesn't use those exact words, that is what it says.
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?
It explicitly says RAW DATA.To indicate that it hasn't been filtered.
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 what is written in the title of that graph!That heading would be meaningless with a "dash".
(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".
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.But when the data is quite legitimately "filtered" the result is:
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?
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
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.No, it is quite clearly a minus sign.
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.
On topics like these there should be multiple sources or quotes which confirm what you are trying to claimYou mean like the other data which clearly show it isn't centred on 0? The data you just like to ignore?
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/secAgain, PURE GARBAGE!
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.
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.
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/secWho says that?
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.True and the Ring Laser Gyroscope is based on the Sagnac effect.
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?
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.No, it is quite clearly a minus sign.
What would the dash even mean?
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.
Looks like these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:Look, the "LISA SPACE ANTENNA" is a quite different to either the GPS of these RLGs so I fail to see the relevance.
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.
TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.So you say but everyone else says that the Coriolis force is ^{(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymhi8efjdujyywm/Coriolis%20Force%20Equation.png?dl=1)}.
One (CORIOLIS EFFECT) is proportional to the area of the interferometer.
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).
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.
The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.What was recorded was the Sagnac effect.
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.
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.
You are trolling the upper forums.
The formula for RLGs and the CORIOLIS FORMULA for LISA are the same.
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.
LISA Space AntennaLike I said, take it back to one of the countless prior threads on the Sagnac effect.
RING LASER GYROSCOPES MEASURE/RECORD THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Countless threads?Well yes, technically you could count them, but I can't be bothered.
Here are the best examples:Yes, where you ran away, after being completely unable to provide any rational justification for your claims.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.0
Another recent example:Yes, where you tried to completely derail the thread after you were completely incapable of defending your claims regarding the sun.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.0
They positively do not register the SAGNAC EFFECT.Again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.
The SAGNAC EFFECT has nothing to do with the area of the interferometer.
As stated before, physicists disagree with your assessment: Earth-bound RLG's measure the Sagnac frequency.I'll only show an extract of that
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:
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 ^{40}Ca 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
F_{Cor} = 2m_{o}v × Ω (3)
acting on a particle of mass m_{o} moving in a uniformly rotating frame, and the Lorentz force
F_{Lor} = (e/c) v × B (4)
acting on a particle of charge e moving in a constant magnetic field B.
The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, 4Aω/c^{2}, 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.Sorry, but Rizzi and Ruggiero seem to disagree with! See above.
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.
Those threads show pretty clearly that I won hands down.Really?
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.
You cannot derive the SAGNAC EFFECT from the CORIOLIS FORCE.Except people have done just that.
Proof:He is not saying there are 2 effects.
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, nothing else, a slight path deviation of the light beams.No, the Sagnac effect is a physical effect, the relative motion of the components of the light path.
By contrast, the Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, a modification of the velocities of the light beams.
RIZZI/RUGGIERO FORMULA #1, AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITYAnd notice what it ends 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.There is no need.
Yes.No, the exact same situation, with the same value obtained by 2 methods.
Two distinct situations:
Stokes' theorem guarantees two formulas for each interferometer.Which produce the same value.
Show me a single "refutation" coming from you.Remember those threads you linked?
Your "arguments" were debunked in less than 60 seconds.You have debunked literally nothing.
You are unable to face reality.Good job projecting, yet again.
As such, you resort to lying on a monumental scale to satisfy what you have left of your sanity.
The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.No, I haven't.
You have just been caught plain lying.
If you don't get the same number, it means you screwed up.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.
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.That means you screwed up.
One is much larger than the other
CALTECH HAS PROVIDED TWO SEPARATE EFFECT/TWO SEPARATE FORMULAS FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.Where?
Your readers are not amused by your worthless try to bamboozle them.Good thing I'm not trying to.
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.
I have already done that, you are not paying attention.No, you haven't, and you aren't even doing that now.
NO, THAT IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA!Then why does it clearly state that it is the Sagnac shift?
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.Again, THEY MUST BE!
NO.
They can't be the same for the interferometer located away from the center of rotation.
RLGs register only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, but never the SAGNAC EFFECT.
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.
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.
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.
How can you have a globe orbit the Sun if the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?
You have been reduced to total silence.When you ignore what is said, it sure must seem like 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.Then you should easily be able to prove that.
However, this is completely wrong.
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.Which in no way says what you are claiming.
Not any reference, but one coming from the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.
Then why does it clearly state that it is the Sagnac shift?The only one it seems to have confused is you.
Because of the confusion created by Albert Michelson in 1925, when he claimed that his formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation.
Stoke's theorem guarantees that they MUST be the same.No, it doesn't. That would be a direct contradiction of stoke's theorem.
This new situation requires the R/L factor evidenced by the calculations put forth for LISA
They prove that there will ALWAYS be two effects to deal with: CORIOLIS and SAGNAC.No, they don't.
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.
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.
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity. NO area.
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 >>
For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.Why is that such a mystery?
"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 Want presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).Who is "Dr. Ruyong Want"? I'll assume that you mean Dr. Ruyong Wag?
Generalized Sagnac Effect by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf)
Exactly as the calculations performed at ESA/CALTECH.But it's a pity that you seem to have no clue as to the difference between them.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.And what are your expressions for the Sagnac delay (or phase) and the "Coriolis effect"?
FOR LISA, THE SAGNAC PHASE IS 30 TIMES LARGER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.
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)}.
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)