IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, CAN SHE STILL BE ROUND?

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the dynamical ether theory)

Ether is dynamic, not static.

Ether is dynamic, not static.

"In 1899 Georges Sagnac had developed a theory on the behaviour of light in moving bodies, based on the existence of a stationary ether equal everywhere in elasticity and density."

I don't know if aether exists. It could! I don't know if it would be static or dynamic. But if you think it's dynamic, then I still don't understand what all the fuss is about Sagnac. His results are invalid then - he assumed aether was static!

1. The rotational Sagnac effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field above the flat surface of the Earth. This same field causes terrestrial gravity and the antigravitational effects listed here (Allais, DePalma, Kozyrev, Lamoreaux, Biefeld-Brown).

Ring laser gyroscopes are being activated/acted upon by these ether strings/telluric currents.

2. No one has managed to go beyond the first Dome, not even the Nazis with their mercury gyro implosion of the atom UFOs.

I believe that there is a small satellite which orbits right in front the Dome, matching the exact orbit of the Moon, and which acts as a mirror in order to account for the lunar laser ranging experiment.

3. It is very possible that the version posted by you is true; Dr. Peter Beter wrote extensively on the secret space shuttle program.

4. Each GPS satellite uses the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit above the flat surface of the Earth. The same goes for the ISS/Atlantis spacecrafts.

5. The Earth is perfectly still: the UA was introduced to the FES by people who had no knowledge of ether theory, by the time I came here in 2007 it was too late, nobody seems to care even now. The orbital Sagnac effect disproves that the Earth has any kind of an upward motion.

6. I have written extensively on the true path of the Sun: each and every topic raised was addressed many times. In fact, I was the only FE who has done this, I introduced by bipolar map which features both northern and southern circumpolar orbits for the stars.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64997.0

7. I have never commented on the zigzag argument, given the responses from the RE you are on the right path to demonstrate a major fallacy of the heliocentrical theory.

8. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.270

9. Solid disks, covered by plasma clouds, using the double torsion/Schauberger implosion to orbit above the first Dome.

10. Terrestrial gravity: pressure exerted by the dextrorotatory subquark strings upon matter. Planetary/stellar gravity: rotational pressure exerted by a very dense field of ether/aether which keeps the planets/stars in orbit.

Thanks for your reply with which i am mostly pleased (agreed).

However, regarding the path of the sun, i have one additional question for you :

Look at this picture :



The full moon is north of our cameraman who is positioned in Lamaire channel (Antarctica).

The sun is south of him (behind his back)

So, if the sun (which is behind his back) was visible in Norway (in the moment of taking this picture by our cameraman in Norway was NOON), then how in the world the earth can be flat?

Another picture of the same kind :



EDIT : One correction : In the moment of taking first picture (above) the NOON was somewhere around Japan (not Norway)...however, it doesn't make any difference regarding the essence of my question which concerns geometrical impossibility...

I don't know if aether exists.

There is no need to have any doubts.

Dr. Yuri Galaev, the most extensive ether drift experiments ever undertaken:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


A contemporary of Sagnac, one of the greatest American physicists of all time, Dr. T. Henry Moray, discovered the dynamical nature of ether waves:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.


Dr. Moray's story:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal_lanterns.htm

He invented one of the most fantastic free energy devices which provided 50 KW:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/moray.htm


Sunrise in Patagonia:



Sunset in Japan:



Norway sunset timelapse:




Here is the global Piri Reis map with latitudes:



Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica (just like in the Black Sun photographs taken by F. Bruenjes).

Then, it rises again to complete its orbit over the other half of the semicircle (approximately).

This is the correct description for the Sun's orbit on a Flat Earth.


Solar/lunar orbits on a flat Earth, book of Enoch:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_70 (chapters 71-73, 77)

Sunrise in Patagonia:



Sunset in Japan:



Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica (just like in the Black Sun photographs taken by F. Bruenjes).

What do you mean by "rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23,5 degrees"?

Can you show us some sketch (preliminary drawing) of your version of the map of the earth (of what you are trying to convey to your readers)?

What i've tried to convey to you and to my readers (in my previous post) is this :

That's the wrong map. It is not a FE map.

This is the correct FE map:



As for photos showing the rising/setting Sun in Antarctica...

@ Sandokhan, you can't be serious, this map is utter stupidity :

1. According to this map the shorter route between Sydney and Cape Horn would be going WESTWARD from Sydney to Cape Horn than going EASTWARD from Sydney to Cape Horn. Not only that it would be shorter route, going WESTWARD from Sydney to Cape Horn would cut the journey between these points FOR MORE THAN TWICE!!! The truth is that the shorter route between these points is if you go EASTWARD traveling from Sydney to Cape Horn.

2. Africa is much bigger than South America, and in your map we see the opposite situation regarding the dimensions of these continents.

3. Regarding the path of the sun, your map doesn't offer any kind of meaningful answer, look :

I anticipated your next message.

However, you labeled the Piri Reis global FE map in the wrong way.

Lamaire Channel is right next to the southern tip of South America.

Now, the sun behind his back means that the sun is positioned somewhere above Australia, (noon in Japan), something like that.

The sun sets and then rises again from somewhere beyond Antarctica just like in the Fred Bruenjes photographs.


As for the Cape Horn-Sydney round trip, take a look at the map: you can either go north of Antarctica, going one way, or go south of Antarctica, very close to the edge of the Dome, both routes look like they have the same distance.

I'm curious what all this discussion about Sagnac interference is for? Its results aren't evidence for aether anyway.

Sandy is claiming that if Earth is moving along an orbit we should be able to detect a massive orbital Sagnac effect, because he doesn't understand that the Sagnac effect is proportional to the size of the loop, not the size of the orbit.

6. I have written extensively on the true path of the Sun: each and every topic raised was addressed many times. In fact, I was the only FE who has done this, I introduced by bipolar map which features both northern and southern circumpolar orbits for the stars.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64997.0

The Sun does rise and set.

Most of the "facts" presented in the section devoted to the data relating to the Sun are plain wrong.

That is why a big change is needed: the FAQ must be written by those who do actually know flat earth theory very well, and have been able to defend it for all these years successfully.

It's a pity it doesn't explain anything except sunrises and sunsets.

Please explain how that fiction explains how different parts of the earth experience very different sunrise and sunset times?

I'll bet the poor aether did it. That poor old fictional aether gets blamed for everything in your fantasies.

Ever thought of writing Science Fantasy? You could make a mint describing a new Universe where these things really happened.

6. If the earth is flat how do you explain southern summer path of the sun? How do you explain southern circumpolar stars? How do you explain sun's direct path along the equator during the equinoxes?

YAY, you accepted Earth is round. Good job.

7. How come you have never referred to my ZIGZAG argument? Do you consider it wrong? If yes, then would you be so kind to point out what is wrong with this argument?

I consider it wrong as you have applied it due t completely ignoring the scale of the system.
However it does work as a good argument against a FE which has a much closer sun.

Sandy, you are just repeating the same refuted crap.
Like I said, point out what is wrong with my analysis or derive your own.
All your other spam will be ignored.

No peer reviewed publication is going to discuss my analysis other than saying that the Sagnac effect is proportional to the area of the loop, as I have been saying.
Similarly, none will discuss your analysis.
As such, appealing to them is pointless.

All I did was derive what was already known, that the Sagnac effect is proportional to the area of the detector, and thus has nothing to do with how large the rotating system is.
Your derivation is not supported by any referenced papers: you are all on your own.
That is why I told you to please mail this piece of thrash to your local university.

Yes, that is typically what happens when you derive them yourself. You go from the basics which typically don't need to be referenced and then show what the result is.
This shows I understand it and don't just need to rely upon the work of others like you do.

Again, the only reason it would be considered a piece of "thrash" is because it is already well known. It isn't novel at all.
If I went to the uni they would just say who cares, it was already known. If I told them you baseless crap they would just say you are a moron.

Go ahead and mail your analysis to any peer review, just as the above authors had to do: everybody will be laughing at your poor understanding of the Sagnac effect.

No, they will laugh at thinking it is worth publishing when it has already been known for quite some time.
You are the one with piss poor understanding here.

What the frell is this?
http://i.imgur.com/NEacN3P.png
Is this supposed to be a bloody joke?
Have you ever published any kind of a scientific paper?
How is that diagram related to what you wrote earlier?
there is a detector made of 4 pieces, one is an arc along Earth's orbit with radius R1 another is a similar arc with radius R2, both subtend and angle of alpha, and both ends are joined by a line that would be colinear with the centre of the orbit.

Yes, I have published scientific papers.
Typically the figure caption goes below the figure rather than being embedded in it.
It is exactly what you asked for, a diagram of the system in question. I just didn't bother putting in the orbital part.
You even quoted the section describing it.
You have a detector (technically I have shown the interferometer) shown in red, which I will get to in a second.
You have the centre of rotation, shown as the orange dot.
Concentric with that you have 2 circles, one of radius R1 and one of radius R2 (both shown on the diagram).
But we are not dealing with an interferometer that goes the entire length of Earth's orbit. We are dealing with a small one on Earth. Thus we are only able to use a small section of the circle. We will use 2 arcs, just like I said, one with radius R2 and one with radius R1 (both basically on Earth's orbit).
These arcs subtend an angle of alpha (also shown on the diagram).
That means our interferometer loop is built of 4 pieces, the big arc, of radius R2, the little arc, of radius R1 and the 2 lines joining them, just like I said.

Was that too difficult for you to understand?
Do I need to colour code the 4 pieces separately?
Do I also need to show the motion of the system?

I have derived the Sagnac effect for this system.
Now can you show what is actually wrong with my derivation rather than bitching and moaning?
Can you derive the Sagnac effect for this system?

What four pieces? Is R1 the distance to a satellite? R2 the distance to the surface of the Earth? Nobody knows what you are saying.

The R values are the distance from the centre of rotation (the sun in this case) to the section of the interferometer. Both values are roughly 150 000 000 km.

You are the only one that has no idea what I am saying.

Note: the a is the big arc, the b is the little arc, this is to make it simpler later on
So, one beam of light will propagate in the same direction as the big arc and the opposite direction as the little arc.
What this means is its trip along the big arc will be longer than if it was stationary and shorter along the little arc.
The distance it has to travel is alpha*R2+omega*R2*t1a+alpha*R1-omega*R1*t1b, where t1a is the time taken to go along the big arc and t1b is the time taken to go along the little arc.
You are not making any sense. No FE/RE/neutral has any idea what you mean.  What big arc/little arc? Are you kidding us?

The big arc, the one with the bigger radius, R2, as clearly shown on the diagram, and the little arc, with radius R1, clearly shown on the diagram.

ARE YOU USING TWO DIFFERENT RADII TO DESCRIBE THE SAGNAC EFFECT? IF SO YOU ARE VIOLATING THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

Yes, I am using 2 different radii as the loop is composed of 2 different radii elements.
This is not a violation of the definition at all.

"If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R" - standard definition

Yes, this is the simple definition which is nice an easy to derive and requires the centre of the ring to be stationary, and the ring to be rotating about its centre.
That definition does not apply in this case as we are dealing with a ring on Earth, very far away from the centre of rotation of the system.

Please note the radius R is the same for both pulses of light (one cannot use two different radii: R has to be the same).

Again, for the specific case of a ring which is simply spinning, not orbiting anything. As such, unless you are constructing an interferometer that is a ring the size of Earth's orbit centred on the sun, this does not apply.
The important part is the physical loop is the same, which is in my case.
You have one pulse of light going around in one direction (forward along arc at R2, in, backwards along arc at R1, then out) and one going the other way (backards along arc at R2, in, forward along arc at R1, then out).
So no, my one works just fine and I have derived it just fine and come to the same conclusion as any serious scientist, that the shift is proportional to the area of the loop.

Until then please note that I have offered you not one but two MAINSTREAM PAPERS which directly refute your analysis.

No where in any of your linked papers did they discuss my analysis at all, so no, they have not directly refuted my analysis.

Now, the standard/correct derivation of the Sagnac effect formula.

Again, this applies when you have a spinning circular ring.
This woudl require your interferometer to be the size of Earth's orbit and centred on the sun.

As such, this derivation does not apply to the situation we are talking about and thus is useless unless you are accepting its general conclusion that the shift is proportional to the area of the loop (which is not the orbital radius of Earth unless your loop is the size of Earth's orbit).

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R
Please note the radius R is the same for both pulses of light (one cannot use two different radii: R has to be the same).

It is light propagating around the centre of rotation at a distance of R, so again, this only applies to an interferometer the size of Earth's orbit.
For the system we are discussing, the interferometer is on Earth (or quite close to it), and thus R CANNOT be constant. Instead R MUST CHANGE AS IT GOES ALONG THE LOOP!

As such, this analysis does not apply to the system in question at all.

Now, you could try to analyse a system like this, but actually matching the system in question, where you have a ring of radius r, fixed on a spinning disc, with the centre of the ring located a distance of R from the centre of rotation of the disc, but that will be quite difficult due to the distance from the centre of rotation varying all the way.
That is why I used a much simpler example, having 2 arcs. In that case while the distance from the centre varies between the arcs, it will not vary along the arc and thus you can find the shift for each arc and add them up.

So care to try again?
This time make sure you derive it for the system in question, not this crap. Bonus points if you actually do it yourself rather than just copying and pasting crap.

rabinoz, you know better than to try to use tricks like these with me.

No, no tricks. But it is getting to the point where we should no better than expect you to be able to understand anything.

There is no "far outside the Sagnac ring".

So you are saying the sun, the centre of rotation for the orbit, is inside the Sagnac ring, with the Sagnac ring centred on the the sun and thus size of Earth's orbit?

Can you give us an example of such a system?

Or are you saying that is why we don't measure the orbit, because the centre of rotation is outside the ring?

The equation for the sagnac is:
4Aω/( c² - v²)

One must calculatate the area swept out by the path and that is A = πR², where R is measured from the Sun to the center of the Earth (radius of the orbital path loop), for the orbital Sagnac.

No. R is measured from the centre of the ring to the edge of the ring.
So again, that only works if your interferometer is the size of Earth's orbit.
If it is a small one on Earth, then R is much smaller.

And I believe you will still find that it is the area of the Sagnac loop and not the area swept by the radius of the earth that determines the time difference.
I invite you to send your beliefs to your local university and see what kind of a response you will receive.

Have you tried doing that?
Again, the response to us would be something along the lines of:
Wow, that's amazing!
What will you tell us next, people need oxygen to live?[/sarcasm]
It isn't anything new. It has been known about for quite some time.

If you sent your beliefs in, they would laugh at you, call you a moron (potentially not to your face) and point out that the area in question is the area of the loop not based upon the distance from the centre of rotation.

1. The rotational Sagnac effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field above the flat surface of the Earth. This same field causes terrestrial gravity and the antigravitational effects listed here (Allais, DePalma, Kozyrev, Lamoreaux, Biefeld-Brown).

And how do you know it isn't caused by Earth rotating in a stationary aether?

6. I have written extensively on the true path of the Sun: each and every topic raised was addressed many times. In fact, I was the only FE who has done this, I introduced by bipolar map which features both northern and southern circumpolar orbits for the stars.

No, you wrote pure bullshit about the path of the sun which doesn't match reality at all.

7. I have never commented on the zigzag argument, given the responses from the RE you are on the right path to demonstrate a major fallacy of the heliocentrical theory.

No. This zigzag argument doesn't work at all against REers, but it works quite well against the FE with a close sun.

As for the Cape Horn-Sydney round trip, take a look at the map: you can either go north of Antarctica, going one way, or go south of Antarctica, very close to the edge of the Dome, both routes look like they have the same distance.

No, they have massively different distances.
One is basically a straight line.
The other is a massive curve going around Antarctica.
So why do they go the long way?

Or, rather than getting side tracked with this crap, how about we get back to your ignorance on the Sagnac effect?

Can you derive the expected shift (dt) for the system I described, or some other system consisting of small interferometer on Earth, well away from the sun, such that the centre of rotation is well away from the centre of the loop?
Can you point out what was wrong with my derivation?
No bullshit bitching and moaning, point out explicitly what part is actually wrong, why it is wrong and what the correct version is (if you know it).

If you like, I can also add in the 2 last bits, the time taken to travel along the sections connecting the arcs.

Or perhaps this would be easier, do you believe this system:
http://i.imgur.com/NEacN3P.png
with an interferometer shown in red, which is rotating about the central orange point, will have a shift?
If not, why not?
If so, will this be categorised under the Sagnac effect?
If so, what will the sift be? Can you derive it?
If it is using your formula, what is A, the area of the loop or the area of the orbital path?
If the latter, which R do you use, R1, R2 or their average, and why?

jack, you have no basic knowledge of the Sagnac effect.

You have just rendered your "experiment" totally useless.

That is why YOU FAILED originally to offer your readers the necessary details, since by making everything obvious, the catastrophic errors you made would become readily discernible.


http://i.imgur.com/NEacN3P.png

Sorry, that is no longer the Sagnac effect.

Your calculations are useless.

That means our interferometer loop is built of 4 pieces, the big arc, of radius R2, the little arc, of radius R1 and the 2 lines joining them, just like I said.

That is not how the Sagnac works.


http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (most referenced paper used by the relativists themselves)

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R

Please note the radius R is the same for both pulses of light (one cannot use two different radii: R has to be the same).


Do you understand that now YOU HAVE VERTICAL PORTIONS OF THE LOOP (R2 - R1) WHERE THE SAGNAC NO LONGER APPLIES?

The R values are the distance from the centre of rotation (the sun in this case) to the section of the interferometer. Both values are roughly 150 000 000 km.

You specified NO SUCH DETAILS in your original message: you left everyone guessing as to what you were trying to convey.

It is only when I insisted that you provide these details, that the bizarre setting of your experiment becomes discernible.


Yes, I am using 2 different radii as the loop is composed of 2 different radii elements.
This is not a violation of the definition at all.

But it is a total violation of the very definition used by the relativists themselves (your friends).


http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (most referenced paper used by the relativists themselves)

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R

Please note the radius R is the same for both pulses of light (one cannot use two different radii: R has to be the same).


Yes, this is the simple definition which is nice an easy to derive and requires the centre of the ring to be stationary, and the ring to be rotating about its centre.
That definition does not apply in this case as we are dealing with a ring on Earth, very far away from the centre of rotation of the system.
Again, for the specific case of a ring which is simply spinning, not orbiting anything. As such, unless you are constructing an interferometer that is a ring the size of Earth's orbit centred on the sun, this does not apply.
The important part is the physical loop is the same, which is in my case.

The interferometere IS ORBITING THE SUN ON A CIRCULAR PATH.

As such, the Sagnac formula applies immediately, using the classic definition.

This is how mainstream science applies the orbital Sagnac.

Please mail your analysis to any scientific journal and they will be laughing their asses off when they read your piece of shit analysis.


DO YOU HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW?

You have none, right?

So you are saying the sun, the centre of rotation for the orbit, is inside the Sagnac ring, with the Sagnac ring centred on the the sun and thus size of Earth's orbit?

Can you give us an example of such a system?

Here are two mainstream papers which agree with me totally: you are wrong.

CORRECT ORBITAL SAGNAC CALCULATION


Biography of Dr. Daniel Gezari:

https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/daniel.y.gezari

Dr. Gezari joined the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland in 1978.  He has been a pioneer in the the development of several new fields of observational astronomy, including:

1. First application of speckle interferometry (measuring diffraction-limited stellar diameters
        in images blurred by the Earth's atmosphere).
2. First 350 µm observations, and the study of cool star forming clouds.
3. Pioneered the use of array detectors for infrared astronomical imaging, especially at thermal
        infrared wavelengths (5-25 µm).
4. Produced the only infrared astronomical catalog in the field of observational astronomy.
5. In addition, Dr. Gezari has developed several useful compendia of astronomical research resources.

Research Areas

infrared astrophysics
star formation/interstellar medium
Galactic Center
infrared array camera development
optical spatial interferometry
astronomical database management
propagation of light in space
invariance of the speed of light


Positions and Appointments

Post Doctoral Research Fellow - California Institute of Technology (1974 - 1976)
Resident Research Associate - National Research Council (1976 - 1978)
Astrophysicist - NASA/Goddard (1976 - 2008)
Astrophysicist (Emeritus) - NASA/Goddard (2008 - present)
Research Associate - American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysics Dept. (2008 - present)

Education

A.B. (Physics), Cornell University, 1966
M.S. (Physics), New York University, 1969
Ph.D. (Astronomy), S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook, 1973
Robert A. Millikan Research Fellow in Astriohysics, California Institute of Technology, 1974-1976


Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center by Dr. Daniel Gezari:

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


There is only one correct way to calculate the Sagnac (be it rotational or orbital).


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



Go ahead and mail your version of reality to the same IOP journal: see if they will publish it.

Then, and only then, you can come back here and have a debate on it.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915700#msg1915700

But now we have a huge problem.



Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.


Since the orbital Sagnac is not being picked up, and also the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded either, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer ether drift experiment are fulfilled.

THE SOLAR ORBITAL GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES NOT SHOW UP, IT IS NOT BEING REGISTERED EITHER BY THE GPS SATELLITES.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

http://i.imgur.com/NEacN3P.png
Sorry, that is no longer the Sagnac effect.
Your calculations are useless.
That means our interferometer loop is built of 4 pieces, the big arc, of radius R2, the little arc, of radius R1 and the 2 lines joining them, just like I said.
That is not how the Sagnac works.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (most referenced paper used by the relativists themselves)
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R
Please note the radius R is the same for both pulses of light (one cannot use two different radii: R has to be the same).
Do you understand that now YOU HAVE VERTICAL PORTIONS OF THE LOOP (R2 - R1) WHERE THE SAGNAC NO LONGER APPLIES?

So you are now saying we should not be able to detect any orbital Sagnac effect unless we build a ring interferometer with the sun at the centre, with the radius of the ring being the radius of Earth's orbit?

Deal with this before we go any further.

There is NOTHING to deal with "any further".

You have to mail your analysis to the same IOP scientific journal, and see if they will publish it.

Mail it to some other mainstream scientific journals.

It is only when they publish your analysis that you can come back here and have a debate.

That is what the author of the paper did: he published it in an IOP journal.

It was peer reviewed.

The calculation of the orbital Sagnac is performed exactly as I have described.


Please read:

CORRECT ORBITAL SAGNAC CALCULATION

Biography of Dr. Daniel Gezari:

https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/daniel.y.gezari

Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center by Dr. Daniel Gezari:

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.



http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915700#msg1915700

But now we have a huge problem.



Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.


Since the orbital Sagnac is not being picked up, and also the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded either, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer ether drift experiment are fulfilled.

THE SOLAR ORBITAL GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES NOT SHOW UP, IT IS NOT BEING REGISTERED EITHER BY THE GPS SATELLITES.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

Europhysics Letters Journal

http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0295-5075/page/For%20Authors

EPL publishes original, high-quality Letters in all areas of physics, ranging from condensed matter topics and interdisciplinary research to astrophysics, geophysics, plasma and fusion sciences, including those with application potential. Articles must contain sufficient argument and supporting information to satisfy workers in the field, and must also be of interest and relevance to wider sections of the physics community. In order to comply with general interest, special care should be directed to the introduction and conclusion sections of the articles. Both should be clearly written in a style comprehensible to the general physics community.

By publishing your work with EPL you can benefit from:

High standards of peer review – articles are sent to external reviewers (usually two) selected by EPL's co-editors, a truly international team of active research scientists in your field


PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915700#msg1915700

But now we have a huge problem.



Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.


Since the orbital Sagnac is not being picked up, and also the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded either, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer ether drift experiment are fulfilled.

THE SOLAR ORBITAL GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES NOT SHOW UP, IT IS NOT BEING REGISTERED EITHER BY THE GPS SATELLITES.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

The only one there is no going further for is you Sandy.

I have provided a model for a Sagnac effect interferometer on or near Earth to measure the Sagnac effect of Earth's orbit.
I even provided a derivation of such, which you have simply dismissed.

You had the following to say:

http://i.imgur.com/NEacN3P.png
Sorry, that is no longer the Sagnac effect.
Your calculations are useless.
That means our interferometer loop is built of 4 pieces, the big arc, of radius R2, the little arc, of radius R1 and the 2 lines joining them, just like I said.
That is not how the Sagnac works.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (most referenced paper used by the relativists themselves)
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R
Please note the radius R is the same for both pulses of light (one cannot use two different radii: R has to be the same).
Do you understand that now YOU HAVE VERTICAL PORTIONS OF THE LOOP (R2 - R1) WHERE THE SAGNAC NO LONGER APPLIES?

This derivation requires that the ring is spinning about its centre with a radius of R.
This would mean for the orbital Sagnac effect you would need a ring the size of Earth's orbit.

So you are now saying we should not be able to detect any orbital Sagnac effect unless we build a ring interferometer with the sun at the centre, with the radius of the ring being the radius of Earth's orbit?

And yes, I know the "vertical" portions of my loop do not have the Sagnac effect applying. So what? That just makes the math simpler.

Any real, decent scientist would still accept that the Sagnac effect applies to this system, and like all cases, the magnitude is dependent upon the area of the system.

jack, you have no basic knowledge of the Sagnac effect.

You have just rendered your "experiment" totally useless.

That is why YOU FAILED originally to offer your readers the necessary details, since by making everything obvious, the catastrophic errors you made would become readily discernible.


http://i.imgur.com/NEacN3P.png
Sorry, that is no longer the Sagnac effect.
Your calculations are useless.

Incorrect!

That means our interferometer loop is built of 4 pieces, the big arc, of radius R2, the little arc, of radius R1 and the 2 lines joining them, just like I said.
That is not how the Sagnac works.

Incorrect!

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (most referenced paper used by the relativists themselves)

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R

Sure, I don't have any problem with Mathpages, just with your reading something into it that simply is not there.

where A = pR² is the area enclosed by the loop. The corresponding phase difference for light of frequency n radians/second (in the rest frame of the center of rotation) is simply Df = nDt, and since n = 2pc/l, the phase difference can be written as (8pAcw/l)/(c² – v²).

Just note, "where A = pR² is the area enclosed by the loop".

Another paper
          Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) – Published 1 April 1967
reviews some of the Sagnac experiments and states:
Note that this too states, "in which A is the area enclosed by the loop"

And further on in Section III. General Aspects of the Theory, near end p. 478

Summarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features  of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.

Please note that he specifically states, "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"

Now stop posting complete crap.  Your pages and pages of repeated garbage don't impress anyone.

rabinoz, you are useless here.

You have no knowledge of the Sagnac effect: you are quoting at random without having any clue as to what you are doing.

The papers referenced in my previous message render your drivel worthless. Mainstream science calculates the orbital Sagnac exactly as I have described. Please mail your view of reality to the same IOP journal and see the response you will receive.


I have provided a model for a Sagnac effect interferometer on or near Earth to measure the Sagnac effect of Earth's orbit.

Your model amounts to nothing at all UNTIL YOU MAIL IT TO THE SAME IOP JOURNAL and see if they publish it.


Do you understand this?


I have at my disposal a scientific paper PUBLISHED BY THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL STATING THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.

It was peer reviewed.

The IOP thought enough of it to have it published.


Any real, decent scientist would still accept that the Sagnac effect applies to this system

MAIL YOUR ANALYSIS TO THE IOP JOURNAL: I GAVE YOU ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



HERE IS A SECOND PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE SAME IOP JOURNAL BY DR. CHING CHUAN SU ON THE SAME SUBJECT:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226767191_A_local-ether_model_of_propagation_of_electromagnetic_wave

This local-ether model has been adopted to account for the effects of earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the Sagnac pseudorange correction in GPS (global positioning system), the time comparison by intercontinental microwave link, and the echo time in interplanetary radar.


FOR A SECOND TIME, THE IOP JOURNAL (INCLUDING THE PEER REVIEWERS) AGREE THAT THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC, AND THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR IT NOT BEING RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES A LOCAL ETHER MODEL HAS TO BE ADOPTED.

The calculations proceed exactly as I have described.

On the other hand you have nothing at your disposal supporting your view.

You are going to have to mail your analysis to this journal, and see if they will publish it.

Until then, your analysis is rendered worthless by the papers referenced above which contradict your view.


HERE IS A THIRD ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY DR. CHING CHUAN SU, ON THE SAME SUBJECT:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208082.pdf

Local-Ether Wave Equation of Electric Field

Again, in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC, A LOCAL ETHER MODEL IS PRESENTED.

There is no other way around this.

Mainstream science published his articles and agrees with the calculations performed.

The articles were peer reviewed.

If any of the RE here have a different view, they will have to follow the same path, and mail their thoughts/analysis to the same IOP ournal (Europhysics Letters Journal) to attempt to have them published.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915700#msg1915700

But now we have a huge problem.



Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.


Since the orbital Sagnac is not being picked up, and also the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded either, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer ether drift experiment are fulfilled.

THE SOLAR ORBITAL GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES NOT SHOW UP, IT IS NOT BEING REGISTERED EITHER BY THE GPS SATELLITES.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

rabinoz, you are useless here.
You have no knowledge of the Sagnac effect: you are quoting at random without having any clue as to what you are doing.

No. We both have shown a decent knowledge.
I have provided a derivation of it (which you have been unable to refute) and Rabinoz even provided a paper that agreed with me, that the shift is proportional to the area of the detector (not the orbit) and that it is irrelevant where the centre of rotation is.

The papers referenced in my previous message render your drivel worthless. Mainstream science calculates the orbital Sagnac exactly as I have described. Please mail your view of reality to the same IOP journal and see the response you will receive.

The only one providing meaningless drivel here is you.

They do not do it as you have described. STOP LYING.

Your model amounts to nothing at all UNTIL YOU MAIL IT TO THE SAME IOP JOURNAL and see if they publish it.

No. My model amounts to the correct derivation until you refute it.
Your model and baseless claims amount to nothing until you can derive it, which you seem completely unable to do.

I have at my disposal a scientific paper PUBLISHED BY THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL STATING THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.

NO! YOU DON'T.
You have a paper that you don't understand which you are spouting pure bullshit about.
Prove your understanding by deriving it yourself, something you have so far been completely unable to do.
Your only attempt was a completely pathetic failure and would only work on a completely different system.

While you are at it, show what is wrong with my derivation, again, something you are completely unable to do.

On the other hand, we have actual peer reviewed publications which actually agree with us, stating quite explicitly that it is based upon the area of the loop and that the location of the centre of rotation is irrelevant.

You are the one without backing, not us.

Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

No it doesn't. You are yet to provide a single example of this.
The closest you have come is blatant misrepresenting a paper discussing the translation motion and pointing out that that doesn't actually produce a sagnac effect, that if it did, it would be much larger.

It is not saying it exists. In fact it is concluding the exact opposite, that no sagnac effect is produced from translation and instead it is produced by rotation and thus you can just consider the rotation of Earth as the Sidereal day to determine the correction.

So again, STOP LYING.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

No. He doesn't. He treats the orbit as a translation instead of a rotation and notes that that means it doesn't have a Sagnac effect.
He was discussing the hypothetical possibility where translation could also give rise to one.
So again, STOP LYING.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:
Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.

Yes, they did. You are the one that doesn't.
What this is stating is that if the translation motion gave rise to a Sagnac effect it would be easier to detect.
But translation motion doesn't, so no such effect exists.


Now then, are you going to quit with all the bullshit and point out where my derivation is wrong and providing a correct derivation?
Or are you going to go down the path of complete insanity and say you only get the Sagnac effect in a circular system centred on the centre of rotation (i.e. we would need a circular ring the size of Earth's orbit to measure it for the orbit of Earth and it wouldn't show up in anything else)?

Or, will you surprise us all by acting like a rational adult for once and admitting you were wrong?

rabinoz has no idea what he is doing.

Here is a quote from the same paper published in 1967 by E.L. Post:

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


The random quotes provided do not agree with your view at all.

On the contrary.

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

Sagnac showed experimentally that the centre of rotation can be away from the geometric centre of the apparatus, without affecting the above result.


Your derivation is rendered USELESS AND WORTHLESS BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE.

If you want anybody to look in your direction, you must mail your analysis to the very same IOP journal, and see if they will publish it.

Until then there is nothing to discuss here any further.


I have at my disposal a scientific paper PUBLISHED BY THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL STATING THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.

It was peer reviewed.

The IOP thought enough of it to have it published.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



HERE IS A SECOND PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE SAME IOP JOURNAL BY DR. CHING CHUAN SU ON THE SAME SUBJECT:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226767191_A_local-ether_model_of_propagation_of_electromagnetic_wave

This local-ether model has been adopted to account for the effects of earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the Sagnac pseudorange correction in GPS (global positioning system), the time comparison by intercontinental microwave link, and the echo time in interplanetary radar.


FOR A SECOND TIME, THE IOP JOURNAL (INCLUDING THE PEER REVIEWERS) AGREE THAT THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC, AND THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR IT NOT BEING RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES A LOCAL ETHER MODEL HAS TO BE ADOPTED.

The calculations proceed exactly as I have described.

On the other hand you have nothing at your disposal supporting your view.

You are going to have to mail your analysis to this journal, and see if they will publish it.

Until then, your analysis is rendered worthless by the papers referenced above which contradict your view.

Also, should I point out that you aren't even bothering to read your linked papers properly.
Here is another quote from it:

It is of the essence to note that the
measurement data in the high-precision interplanetary radar echo time show excellent agreement
with those based on the classical propagation-range formula (2) in a heliocentric inertial
frame [6, 11, 12].

i.e. those ones only makes sense if Earth's orbital (translational) and rotational motion is considered with any classical aether model.
It even further emphasises this:

More importantly, a significant implication is that the
wave propagation is referred uniquely to this heliocentric inertial frame. Accordingly, both
the rotational and the orbital motions of the Earth and the orbital motion of the target planet
contribute to this two-way Sagnac effect.

So there your paper says that both orbit (translation) and rotation needs to be taken into account, completely refuting your bullshit claims.

What this paper actually shows is that the aether is pure bullshit and no classical aether based model can account for all observations. Only relativistic models can account for all phenomenon.

But they provide an insane alternative, where Earth drags aether along with it in its orbit, but importantly, IT STILL HAS EARTH ORBITING THE SUN.
It is not saying Earth is stationary. It is saying Earth is moving through space, dragging some aether along with it which strangely doesn't spin with it.

So cut the crap, it doesn't back you up at all.

What this is stating is that if the translation motion gave rise to a Sagnac effect it would be easier to detect.

The author plainly states that the rotational Sagnac is being recorded while the orbital Sagnac, calculated to be much larger, is not.

that no sagnac effect is produced from translation and instead it is produced by rotation and thus you can just consider the rotation of Earth as the Sidereal day to determine the correction.

The author could not possibly have stated such an erroneous statement since it is well known that the Sagnac effect is produced by translation/linear motion.





He treats the orbit as a translation instead of a rotation and notes that that means it doesn't have a Sagnac effect.
He was discussing the hypothetical possibility where translation could also give rise to one.

Please read the above quotes, which show you have no idea of what you are talking about.


The author states clearly that since the orbital Sagnac is missing, and since it is larger than the rotational Sagnac, a local ether model has to be adopted.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



HERE IS A SECOND PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE SAME IOP JOURNAL BY DR. CHING CHUAN SU ON THE SAME SUBJECT:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226767191_A_local-ether_model_of_propagation_of_electromagnetic_wave

This local-ether model has been adopted to account for the effects of earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the Sagnac pseudorange correction in GPS (global positioning system), the time comparison by intercontinental microwave link, and the echo time in interplanetary radar.


FOR A SECOND TIME, THE IOP JOURNAL (INCLUDING THE PEER REVIEWERS) AGREE THAT THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC, AND THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR IT NOT BEING RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES A LOCAL ETHER MODEL HAS TO BE ADOPTED.

The calculations proceed exactly as I have described.

What this paper actually shows is that the aether is pure bullshit and no classical aether based model can account for all observations. Only relativistic models can account for all phenomenon.

But they provide an insane alternative, where Earth drags aether along with it in its orbit, but importantly, IT STILL HAS EARTH ORBITING THE SUN.

THE PEER REVIEWERS THOUGHT ENOUGH OF THIS PAPER TO HAVE IT PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL.

It contradicts your miserable calculations immediately and totally.

Take a look at the word you used "insane".


Europhysics Letters Journal

http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0295-5075/page/For%20Authors

EPL publishes original, high-quality Letters in all areas of physics, ranging from condensed matter topics and interdisciplinary research to astrophysics, geophysics, plasma and fusion sciences, including those with application potential. Articles must contain sufficient argument and supporting information to satisfy workers in the field, and must also be of interest and relevance to wider sections of the physics community. In order to comply with general interest, special care should be directed to the introduction and conclusion sections of the articles. Both should be clearly written in a style comprehensible to the general physics community.

By publishing your work with EPL you can benefit from:

High standards of peer review – articles are sent to external reviewers (usually two) selected by EPL's co-editors, a truly international team of active research scientists in your field



For your knowledge, the LOCAL ETHER MODEL, THE MLET, is the latest viewpoint in modern physics: something has to be done to account for the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

But the local ether model means friction, which leads to the orbital RE equations in need of a drastic modification.


Moreover, we have at our disposal the Ruderfer experiment.

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.


Since the orbital Sagnac is not being picked up, and also the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded either, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer ether drift experiment are fulfilled.

THE SOLAR ORBITAL GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES NOT SHOW UP, IT IS NOT BEING REGISTERED EITHER BY THE GPS SATELLITES.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

jack, you are showing signs of instability.
A sure sign of cognitive dissonance.
rabinoz has no idea what he is doing.

Can you cut it with the insults. It is just you showing how pathetic your argument it is.

I have repeatedly refuted your bullshit and all you can do is just spout a bunch of copied and pasted crap.
GROW UP.

Again, deal with the example I provided before spouting more and more bullshit.

Can you point out an error in my derivation and show the correct derivation?

Sagnac showed experimentally that the centre of rotation can be away from the geometric centre of the apparatus, without affecting the above result.

So you accept that the orbital Sagnac effect will be based upon the area of the detector rather than the area of the orbit?

Here is a key part of that:

A is the area enclosed by the light path

So just like I have been saying, A is the area enclosed by the loop. It has nothing to do with the radius of Earth's orbit.
As such, for a given interferometer (with a fixed area of the light path), treating Earth's orbit as a rotation and Earth's daily rotation as a rotation where one revolution is 24 hours, the orbital Sagnac effect will be approximately 1/365 that of Earth's rotation, as the area is the same, the only thing that changes is the angular velocity which for the orbit is roughly 1/365 that of the day.

So thanks for providing that paper which agrees with me and Rab entirely and goes completely against you.

With that paper in mind will you accept that your claim, that the Area is the area of Earth's orbit instead of the interferometer (the light path) is pure bullshit?
Will you admit that you were wrong?

Your derivation is rendered USELESS AND WORTHLESS BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE.

Yes, because they already had it and thus it has no use as I didn't find anything new.

Until then there is nothing to discuss here any further.

Yes there is.
You need to show what is wrong with my derivation and show a correct derivation for the system we are discussing, a small Earth based interferometer which is just turning as a result of Earth's orbit, treated as a rotation rather than translation.

Are you capable of doing so?

I have at my disposal a scientific paper PUBLISHED BY THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL STATING THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.

No. You don't.

You have a paper that you are blatantly lying about.

It was peer reviewed.

Yes, but your bullshit claims about it were not.

Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

No, they don't.
You have been unable to provide a single valid citation which claims that.

Now then, do you have any error with my derivation or the correct derivation which doesn't show the result I (as well scientific publications) claim, where it is proportional to the size of the interferometer, not the orbit?

What this is stating is that if the translation motion gave rise to a Sagnac effect it would be easier to detect.

Are you all there jack?

The author plainly states that the rotational Sagnac is being recorded while the orbital Sagnac, calculated to be much larger, is not.

No, he is stating that a shift due to translation through the non-existent aether would be much larger but isn't recorded. Try again.

No, he is stating that a shift due to translation through the non-existent aether would be much larger but isn't recorded. Try again.

He is not any discussing any translation (the word "translation" does not appear in the paper anyway).

He cannot describe the aether as "non-existent" since his paper is devoted to the presentation of this LOCAL ETHER MODEL.

See how your cognitive dissonance is affecting your view of reality?


So just like I have been saying, A is the area enclosed by the loop. It has nothing to do with the radius of Earth's orbit.
As such, for a given interferometer (with a fixed area of the light path), treating Earth's orbit as a rotation and Earth's daily rotation as a rotation where one revolution is 24 hours, the orbital Sagnac effect will be approximately 1/365 that of Earth's rotation, as the area is the same, the only thing that changes is the angular velocity which for the orbit is roughly 1/365 that of the day.

But the orbital Sagnac has to do with the radius of the Earth's orbit.

Your drivel is rendered useless by not one but two mainstream papers.

Please read.

Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



HERE IS A SECOND PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE SAME IOP JOURNAL BY DR. CHING CHUAN SU ON THE SAME SUBJECT:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226767191_A_local-ether_model_of_propagation_of_electromagnetic_wave

This local-ether model has been adopted to account for the effects of earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the Sagnac pseudorange correction in GPS (global positioning system), the time comparison by intercontinental microwave link, and the echo time in interplanetary radar.


FOR A SECOND TIME, THE IOP JOURNAL (INCLUDING THE PEER REVIEWERS) AGREE THAT THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC, AND THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR IT NOT BEING RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES A LOCAL ETHER MODEL HAS TO BE ADOPTED.

The calculations proceed exactly as I have described.


Mainstream science agrees with me, not with you.

Please mail your analysis to the Europhysics Letters Journal and see if they will publish it.

Until then, your analysis is rendered useless and worthless by the above referenced papers.

jack, you are showing clear, worrying signs of cognitive dissonance.

No, he is stating that a shift due to translation through the non-existent aether would be much larger but isn't recorded. Try again.

He is not any discussing any translation (the word "translation" does not appear in the paper anyway).

He cannot describe the aether as "non-existent" since his paper is devoted to the presentation of this LOCAL ETHER MODEL.

He doesn't describe it as non-existent, modern science does.

Now then, as you provided a paper that agreed with me regarding the Sagnac effect, are you planning on showing any flaw in my derivation and/or doing your own derivation for the system we have discussed?
If not, I'm going to keep skipping all your spam, and only discuss things relating to that.

So just like I have been saying, A is the area enclosed by the loop. It has nothing to do with the radius of Earth's orbit.
As such, for a given interferometer (with a fixed area of the light path), treating Earth's orbit as a rotation and Earth's daily rotation as a rotation where one revolution is 24 hours, the orbital Sagnac effect will be approximately 1/365 that of Earth's rotation, as the area is the same, the only thing that changes is the angular velocity which for the orbit is roughly 1/365 that of the day.
But the orbital Sagnac has to do with the radius of the Earth's orbit.

NO! It doesn't.
As your paper stated, it is dependent upon the area of the close light path, the area of the interferometer. That is the radius we use. It is independent upon the centre of the rotation.
So it doesn't matter if the interferometer is right at the centre of the rotation, right on the sun or all the way out at Earth's orbit, the Sagnac effect is the same. Your own paper backs me up.

Your drivel is rendered useless by not one but two mainstream papers.

No, your drivel is, as shown by the paper you provided.
It clearly states that the Sagnac effect is based upon the area of the closed light path, i.e. the interferometer, not Earth's orbit.

Try again.

jack, you seem to be unable to deal with reality, with the facts of life, with mainstream science.

He doesn't describe it as non-existent, modern science does.

You are denying what you stated previously: you told your readers that it is the author himself who described it as "non-existent".

Europhysics Letters Journal IS MODERN SCIENCE.

It totally agrees that since the orbital Sagnac effect is missing (and it is being described as much larger than the rotational Sagnac), a local ether model has to be adopted.


Now then, as you provided a paper that agreed with me regarding the Sagnac effect,

My advice to you is to visit a local physician: you really need some urgent treatment.


The two mainstream papers presented DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU, ON THE CONTRARY, THEY RENDER YOUR ANALYSIS TO BE TOTALLY USELESS AND WORTHLESS.

As your paper stated, it is dependent upon the area of the close light path, the area of the interferometer. That is the radius we use.

Let's see what those papers state.

Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.

PUBLISHED IN THE EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


I repeat: this is an IOP article, the highest standard of mainstream science.

The paper was peer reviewed and published.

Each and every scientist working at that journal understood the meaning of these words:

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.



HERE IS A SECOND PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE SAME IOP JOURNAL BY DR. CHING CHUAN SU ON THE SAME SUBJECT:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226767191_A_local-ether_model_of_propagation_of_electromagnetic_wave

This local-ether model has been adopted to account for the effects of earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the Sagnac pseudorange correction in GPS (global positioning system), the time comparison by intercontinental microwave link, and the echo time in interplanetary radar.


FOR A SECOND TIME, THE IOP JOURNAL (INCLUDING THE PEER REVIEWERS) AGREE THAT THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC, AND THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR IT NOT BEING RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES A LOCAL ETHER MODEL HAS TO BE ADOPTED.

The calculations proceed exactly as I have described.


Mainstream science agrees with me, not with you.


Your useless and worthless analysis is shown to be totally erroneous by these mainstream papers.

They agree that the orbital Sagnac is calculated exactly as I have described, the correct way, and also that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, and also that it is missing.