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

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.

The quote you posted itself makes it clear that the Sagnac effect is due to earth's rotation, while another effect, "the omitted correction due to orbital motion," is a separate effect. The quote claims this separate effect might exist. But this argument over the Sagnac effect is unwarranted.

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.

Again, the quote refers to "effects of earth's orbital motion." It does not say "orbital Sagnac effect" because, as the other part of your quote said, the orbital effect is separate and different from the rotational Sagnac effect.

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

The author never said orbital Sagnac effect. There is still some unnamed effect there you can talk about. But none of this affects any conclusions; you're just looking for things to argue about. You're all arguing over nothing!

The quote you posted itself makes it clear that the Sagnac effect is due to earth's rotation

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846888#msg1846888

Again, the quote refers to "effects of earth's orbital motion." It does not say "orbital Sagnac effect" because, as the other part of your quote said, the orbital effect is separate and different from the rotational Sagnac effect.

The context of the article is the Sagnac effect in relationship to GPS satellites.

effects of earth's orbital motion = orbital Sagnac effect

The author never said orbital Sagnac effect.

Let's see what Dr. C.C. Su has to say on the subject:

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.

The rotational Sagnac is acknowledged as being recorded by the GPS satellites, while the orbital Sagnac effect, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered.

As such, the author presented the local ether model, which was accepted by the IOP Europhysics Letters Journal.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846888#msg1846888

This is unrelated, but I'm curious, have you considered the non-simultaneity of time in this situation? Yes there is a time delay in the frame where the fiber is moving, but now every point along the fiber corresponds to a shifted time in the reference frame of the fiber itself. This changes what the fiber would measure if, say, it had measurement devices attached to it.

Again, the quote refers to "effects of earth's orbital motion." It does not say "orbital Sagnac effect" because, as the other part of your quote said, the orbital effect is separate and different from the rotational Sagnac effect.

The context of the article is the Sagnac effect in relationship to GPS satellites.

effects of earth's orbital motion = orbital Sagnac effect

I implore you to go over the string of logic in those 3 lines again.

The author never said orbital Sagnac effect.

Let's see what Dr. C.C. Su has to say on the subject:

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.

The rotational Sagnac is acknowledged as being recorded by the GPS satellites, while the orbital Sagnac effect, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered.

As such, the author presented the local ether model, which was accepted by the IOP Europhysics Letters Journal.

Ok, that sounds fine. So it's just the local ether model, instead of the Sagnac effect. But I have never seen any article use the entire phrase orbital Sagnac effect, because I think the orbital effect is someone else's - not Sagnac's. I don't see what the argument is over.

jack, you are undergoing a very severe case of cognitive dissonance.
As such, you are unable to deal with reality, with the facts of life, with mainstream science.

No. That would be you.
Staying on topic, here is a link to that article again:

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

Notice what it says:
dt=4Aw/c²
A is the area enclosed by the light path.
The centre of rotation can be away from the centre of the loop.

All three of these points agree with me and Rab, but not with you.

You stated that for the orbital Sagnac effect A should be the area of Earth's orbit.

Are you going to admit that was a mistake?
Are you going to show anything wrong with my derivation which shows for a particular shape interferometer the Sagnac effect is proportional to the area of the interferometer and not the radius of Earth's orbit?
Are you going to provide your own derivation showing how a small, Earth based interferometer should record an orbital Sagnac effect that is proportional to the area of Earth's orbit?

If not, you are the one showing cognitive dissonance and regardless are going directly against modern science which states the Sagnac effect is based upon the area of the interferometer.

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

No, I didn't. Please provide the quote where I said that.

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.

No. It agrees that as the orbital Sagnac effect, due to translation, is non-existent, any aether model must be one which has a local aether which moves with the planet translating along its orbit.

It does not indicate the aether exists.

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

No, they don't.
You are yet to show how they indicate a single thing wrong with my analysis, you just keep baselessly asserting crap.

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

Again, they do not discuss my model at all.
Your pathetic misquoting doesn't help your case.

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.

No, they don't.
You are yet to provide a single example of where they say that.

The context of the article is the Sagnac effect in relationship to GPS satellites.

No it isn't.
The context of the article is discussing the light passage through the aether at a fixed speed relative to the aether.
It only matches the Sagnac effect when discussing rotating systems, not the translation motion of Earth's orbit.

effects of earth's orbital motion = orbital Sagnac effect

No. Effects of earth's orbital motion = Earth's speed relative to the aether.

As such, the author presented the local ether model, which was accepted by the IOP Europhysics Letters Journal.

No. There is no indication that that model is accepted as true by the journal.

I was finally able to obtain a copy of the A local-ether model of wave propagation article written by Dr. C.C. Su, and published in the European Physical Journal (https://www.epj.org/about-epj / http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_rec_journals ).









The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c ²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c ²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.

.

You do not know what you are saying anymore.

You seem to be very fond of the ACME patented Mark II Bullshitomiter and certainly seem to be very busy adjusting the scale switch upwards to keep up with the flow.

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

This is the very reference which proves that the Sagnac effect is non-relativistic effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915720#msg1915720

A is the area enclosed by the light path.
The centre of rotation can be away from the centre of the loop.

Certainly the center of rotation can be away from the center of the loop, but that is not how the orbital Sagnac is being calculated in mainstream science.

What is the center of rotation for the orbit of the earth?

Here is the equation.

∆t = 4πRv / ( c² - v²) = 4Aω / ( c² - v²)

Where A = πR² and v = ωR

So, it is easy to calculate the orbital sagnac is more than 60 times that of the rotational.

But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".

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

Mathpages says you must use the center of rotation which is the sun.


It agrees that as the orbital Sagnac effect, due to translation, is non-existent, any aether model must be one which has a local aether which moves with the planet translating along its orbit.

It does not indicate the aether exists.

Are you well jack?

How can it be non-existent and at the same time require a LOCAL ETHER BASED MODEL?

If it was non-existent, then nobody would care to account for it.

But that is not what the author said, who by the way, never mentions the word "translation" in his paper.



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.

THE PAPER MENTIONS THE WORD ETHER SOME 19 TIMES.

The discrepancy in the unique propagation frame can be solved by the
local-ether model of wave propagation recently presented [13]. In this new classical model, it is supposed that electromagnetic waves propagate via a medium like the ether.

How then can you write:

It does not indicate the aether exists.

Since the orbital Sagnac, which is much greater than the rotational Sagnac, is missing, the author presents a local-ether model, totally agreed upon by the peer reviewers: Europhysics Letters Journal, an IOP journal, is mainstream science at its best.

There is no indication that that model is accepted as true by the journal.

The article was peer reviewed and the IOP board thought enough of it to have it published in one of their most respected journals. As such, they must agree with it.

The article directly contradicts your piece of shit analysis.

Now, you must do the same thing: mail your analysis to the very same journal, and see if they will publish it.

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.

Please show us your analysis of this geometry Sagnac loop.
Just remember these bits that I quoted earlier!

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.[/size]

Please note that E. J. POST specifically states,
          "does not depend on the shape of the surface A;"
          "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"
Care to explain in your own words what 
"does not depend on the shape of the surface A" and  "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" mean?

rabinoz, make yourself useful and stop posting nonsense.

That is not how the orbital Sagnac is being calculated.

If you want anybody to take into consideration your beliefs, please mail them to the Europhysics Letters Journal, and see if you will receive a response.

The above referenced paper, published by the IOP journal, directly contradicts your piece of shit analysis.

Please read my previous message which addresses each and every one of your "points":

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1916103#msg1916103

Please learn how to calculate the orbital Sagnac.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v^2/c^2
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v^2/c^2∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.

Mainstream science, as evidenced by the IOP article, calculates the orbital Sagnac exactly as I have described.

The article directly contradicts the miserable piece of confusing crap authored by jack and rabinoz.

It is as simple as this.

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.

So, both routes look like they have the same distance, AND THE SAME DIRECTION (WESTWARD)!!!

If the sun is positioned somewhere above Australia it means that the sun is EAST of him, not NORTH of him.

In order to be NOON in Japan and Australia (in the same time) the earth has to be globe!

All you have to do is to designate cardinal directions on your map :



You see, your map is basically some kind of a globe presented on a flat sheet of paper...

Africa is too small, Australia is almost as big as Africa which is nonsense!

How come someone intelligent and educated (as you are) is able to promote such stupid concept of the map of the earth?

Everything you know worth double if you choose not to say something stupid when the silence is the best choice.

This last sentence JackBlack should learn by heart, but it doesn't mean that Sandokhan shouldn't be aware of the significance of these words, also!

I was finally able to obtain a copy of the A local-ether model of wave propagation article written by Dr. C.C. Su, and published in the European Physical Journal (https://www.epj.org/about-epj / http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_rec_journals ).

Really? You were unable to obtain one before and thus were just spouting pure bullshit about it with no idea what it said?
Thanks for showing your honesty.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

No, we don't.
It is based upon an aether model, in which translational motion would cause a shift.

Based on the local-ether model

And until you show this model is real, it it quite irrelevant as it is not what we are discussing.

jack, you have lost touch with reality.
You do not know what you are saying anymore.

Again, that would be you.
You claimed the Sagnac effect for Earth's orbit should be calculated using the area of Earth's orbit, yet provided sources which state the exact opposite, that it should be based upon the area of the interferometer.

Are you planning on admitting that error?

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf
This is the very reference which proves that the Sagnac effect is non-relativistic effect:

No. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing at the moment.
We are discussing which area to use, the area of Earth's orbit, or the area of the interferometer.

Once you admit your mistake we can move on.

This is the very reference which states that it is the area of the interferometer which determines it, not the area of the orbit.
It even states that the centre of the ring can be away from the centre of rotation, once again going directly against what you said.

That is the reference which backs me and Rab up, not you.

A is the area enclosed by the light path.
The centre of rotation can be away from the centre of the loop.
Certainly the center of rotation can be away from the center of the loop, but that is not how the orbital Sagnac is being calculated in mainstream science.
What is the center of rotation for the orbit of the earth?
Here is the equation.
∆t = 4πRv / ( c² - v²) = 4Aω / ( c² - v²)
Where A = πR² and v = ωR
So, it is easy to calculate the orbital sagnac is more than 60 times that of the rotational.

No. It is easy to calculate that the orbital sagnac is a mere 1/365th that of the rotational.

That is because the 2 interferometers are the same and thus have the same R and the same A and thus it is entirely dependent upon ω

Again, the location of the centre of rotation is irrelevant.
All that matters is the area of the loop and its angular velocity.

But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".

Yes, that is correct. A is based upon R, the radius of the circular loop.
That is the radius of your interferometer.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Mathpages says you must use the center of rotation which is the sun.

That is for that simple derivation, not the case in general. That requires the radius of the loop to be the radius or Earth's orbit.
That is not the case.

It agrees that as the orbital Sagnac effect, due to translation, is non-existent, any aether model must be one which has a local aether which moves with the planet translating along its orbit.
It does not indicate the aether exists.
How can it be non-existent and at the same time require a LOCAL ETHER BASED MODEL?

Still having trouble with simple comprehension?
Any model which tries to use aether needs a local aether. That is all this proves.
It does not prove that the aether model is correct.

i.e. IF aether is real, then it must be a local aether.
That doesn't mean aether is real.

If it was non-existent, then nobody would care to account for it.

People like discussing hypotheticals.

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

Again, it is only missing in aether based models, not in reality.

There is no indication that that model is accepted as true by the journal.
The article was peer reviewed and the IOP board thought enough of it to have it published in one of their most respected journals. As such, they must agree with it.

No. That means they found no fault in the article.
As the article is not saying this aether model is real, the journal is not saying it is.

Try again.

The article directly contradicts your piece of shit analysis.

No, it doesn't.
You are yet to show where it does.
Find the section of it which discusses my claims and analysis and point it out.

Now, you must do the same thing: mail your analysis to the very same journal, and see if they will publish it.

Again, there is nothing novel about my analysis. It only shows already known results.
You mail your piece of shit to the journal and see what they say.

If the sun is positioned somewhere above Australia it means that the sun is EAST of him, not NORTH of him.

You seem to be a bit confused.

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

The sun is south of him (behind his back)

This was your original message.

So, you are confusing the position of the moon with that of the sun.

Moreover, you were not very sure as to the whereabouts of your cameraman: you first mentioned noon in Norway, then you switched to Japan...

You see, I have provided a very simple and direct explanation of the entire situation described by you.

What I need now from you is SWORN TESTIMONY with proofs, that the cameraman's back WAS NOT turned toward Australia, while he was located in the Lamaire Channel.

It is my belief that his back was toward Australia and not toward the south.

It is easy to calculate that the orbital sagnac is a mere 1/365th that of the rotational.

Let's put your word to the test.

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.


You lose.











The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c ²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c ²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


You lose again.


And until you show this model is real, it it quite irrelevant as it is not what we are discussing.

The missing orbital Sagnac proves that it is real.


That is for that simple derivation, not the case in general. That requires the radius of the loop to be the radius or Earth's orbit.

But that is exactly how the orbital Sagnac is being calculated by mainstream science.

Please learn.


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.

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.

Go ahead and mail your piece of shit analysis to the Europhysics Letters Journal and see if anybody will look in your direction.

Until then, you are going to have to accept the conclusions of the papers presented above: your analysis fails on all levels, it is deemed to be worthless.

If the sun is positioned somewhere above Australia it means that the sun is EAST of him, not NORTH of him.

You seem to be a bit confused.

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

The sun is south of him (behind his back)

This was your original message.

So, you are confusing the position of the moon with that of the sun.

Moreover, you were not very sure as to the whereabouts of your cameraman: you first mentioned noon in Norway, then you switched to Japan...

You see, I have provided a very simple and direct explanation of the entire situation described by you.

What I need now from you is SWORN TESTIMONY with proofs, that the cameraman's back WAS NOT turned toward Australia, while he was located in the Lamaire Channel.

It is my belief that his back was toward Australia and not toward the south.

During the full moon the sun and the moon are always in opposition, and that is the fact.

In this picture i have designated CORRECTLY the cardinal directions in Lamaire channel :



During the full moon phase, when the sun is NORTH of the observer on the earth, the moon is SOUTH of him, and vice versa.

During the full moon phase, when the sun is WEST of the observer on the earth, the moon is EAST of him, and vice versa.

We all know, that we can see the sun in December and January from Lamaire channel at midnight.

So, if the sun is at midnight above the horizon as seen from  the "Lamaire channel" vantage point, and we can see in the same time in the sky the full moon, then how your funny map can explain (geometrically justify) this situation?

I was finally able to obtain a copy of the A local-ether model of wave propagation article written by Dr. C.C. Su, and published in the European Physical Journal (https://www.epj.org/about-epj / http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_rec_journals )

One other thing to note:
This was not published in the European Physical Journal.
This was published in Europhys letters, a different journal, with potentially different standards.

It is easy to calculate that the orbital sagnac is a mere 1/365th that of the rotational.
Let's put your word to the test.

Sure, lets do.
You already provided the formula:
dt=4*A*w/(c^2-v^2), where A is the area of the closed light path.
v is basically nothing compared to c and thus it can be simplified to:
dt=4*A*w/c^2

Thus 4*A/c^2 is constant, thus you get the relation:
dt=k*w, where k=4*A/c^2.
As such, the shift is directly proportional to the angular velocity.

Thus comparing 2:
dt_o=k*w_o
dt_r=k*w_r
And thus:
dt_o/dt_r=k*w_o/k*w_r=w_o/w_o=1/365.

Just like I said.
I also backed up this formula with my own derivation.

Your turn.
Don't bother linking to a bunch of stuff you which doesn't discuss this, which you do not understand.

Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center by Dr. Daniel Gezari:
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

And can you show exactly where this calculates the orbital Sagnac effect, preferably using the formula you provided before?
Especially as this paper has nothing to do with it.

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.

This paper has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.

You lose.

Nope. Still you.
You have still been unable to defend your baseless claim that you use the area of the orbit.
You have still been unable to derive it yourself.
You have still been unable to show anything wrong with my derivation.

So it is still you who loses.

Based on the local-ether model

Which has nothing to do with reality, so you fail again.

And until you show this model is real, it it quite irrelevant as it is not what we are discussing.
The missing orbital Sagnac proves that it is real.

No it doesn't.
The orbital "Sagnac" effect is only missing for aether based models.

That is for that simple derivation, not the case in general. That requires the radius of the loop to be the radius or Earth's orbit.
But that is exactly how the orbital Sagnac is being calculated by mainstream science.

No it isn't.

The way it is being calculated by mainstream science is by using the area of the loop, not the area of the orbit.

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

Only for an aether model.

Repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again wont magically make it true.

Mainstream science agrees with me, not with you.

No, it doesn't.
Even the reference you provided agrees with me, that it is the area of the loop, not the orbit.

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

No, it isn't.
They haven't mentioned my analysis at all or pointed out anything wrong with it at all.

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.

No, they don't.
No where in these papers do they claim the orbital Sagnac effect is proportional to the area of the orbit.

Until then, you are going to have to accept the conclusions of the papers presented above: your analysis fails on all levels, it is deemed to be worthless.

That is not the conclusion of the papers presented above.
The conclusions have nothing at all to do with my analysis.

So, if the sun is at midnight above the horizon as seen from  the "Lamaire channel" vantage point, and we can see in the same time in the sky the full moon, then how your funny map can explain (geometrically justify) this situation?

I told you that you seem to be confused.

This is the THIRD time that you have changed the story line.

Now the sun is at midnight?

You have already made two mistakes in interpreting the basic situation, that you presented here: I do not trust at all how you labeled that picture.

On my map everything works out fine, as I have explained already.

Now, it is your turn to explain something.

Since you are now a RE: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the exterior surface of a sphere?

You are creating your own version of reality (again, "according to me"), right here in front of everybody, and you do not seem to care what is going on.


This was published in Europhys letters, a different journal, with potentially different standards.

Just take a look at the miserable ways in which you are trying to convince yourself that everything is ok: you tried to slander the author with quotes which did not belong to him, now this.

https://www.epj.org/about-epj

http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_rec_journals

LIST OF RECOGNIZED JOURNALS

The European Physical Journal (EPJ) is a series of peer-reviewed journals indexed in all major citation databases, and covering the whole spectrum of pure and applied physics, including related interdisciplinary subjects. EPJ carries on the tradition begun by European physics publications in the 20th century and aims to offer to the international scientific community a unified platform for the global dissemination of physics and related sciences.

New training plan does its better to engulf students in exploring steps, offering them as lots of plans to get results on because it can. Demands for particular sorts of school paperwork boost each day buy essay Who realized essay article writing could be so really hard. Anyway, at primary amount, it absolutely was practically never strong, but while we increase the instructional stages it will get tougher and tougher
The editorial boards of the EPJ journals consist of distinguished scholars from around the globe who are committed to the highest standards of scientific quality. The boards administer the peer-review process and are responsible for the editorial policies of the journals.

EPJ and EPL - Europhysics Letters maintain a cooperation in the form of an editorial transfer agreement. This mechanism allows the transfer of submissions between journals according to considerations of format and scope, provided the author agrees to such transfer.



Your "calculations" amount to nothing at all: let me teach you how it's done.

You are undergoing a severe case of cognitive dissonance, and are doing everything possible to avoid the harsh facts of reality.


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.


This calculations were done by none other than Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech, Goddard Space Flight Center).

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between c_oand c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

You lose.


Here is how to perform the calculation correctly.

Let Δt _o= the sagnac correction for the earth's orbital path

Let Δt _r= the sagnac correction for the earth's rotational path

RE claim: Δt_o/Δt _r= 1/365

[4A_oω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [4A_rω_r/( c² - v_r²)]
[A_oω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [A_rω_r/( c² - v_r²)]

Obviously, ( c² - v_o²) and ( c² - v_r²) are very close to the same number, so let's lave them off.

A_oω_o/ A_rω_r
A_o = πR_o²
A_r = πR_r²

So, πR_o² ω_o / πR_r² ω_r

R_o² ω_o / R_r² ω_r.


This paper has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.

The author calculated the FULL ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, using a two-way measurement:

Motion of the observatory relative to an absolute frame would result in differences in
the time of flight between the outgoing and return legs, but these would average out
in a two-way measurement and appear only as a second order residual.

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between c_oand c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.


You are embarrassing yourself jack almost to the point of no return.


The orbital "Sagnac" effect is only missing for aether based models.

See how you are trying to fool your readers?

The ORBITAL SAGNAC IS MISSING REGARDLESS OF THE MODEL TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Dr. C.C. Su adopted the local-aether model ONLY AFTER HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MODERN SCIENCE.

And the editors of the EPL journal, an IOP journal, agreed.


Even the reference you provided agrees with me, that it is the area of the loop, not the orbit.

Nobody agrees with you.

The orbital Sagnac is calculated exactly as I have described.


Here is the proof.









The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c ²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c ²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


THE ROUND-TRIP ORBITAL SAGNAC IS CALCULATED TO BE 10,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORRESPONDING ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

Do you understand English jack?


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.

Mainstream science agrees with me, not with you.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH JACK?

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.


THE PEER REVIEWERS OF THE IOP JOURNAL KNEW THAT THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT.

The orbital Sagnac which is much greater than the rotational Sagnac is MISSING.


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.

ALTHOUGH THEY WOULD BE EASIER TO OBSERVE IF THEY ARE IN EXISTENCE.

It would be easier to observe the orbital Sagnac, since its magnitude is much greater than the rotational Sagnac.


I have just presented a mainstream article which does agree totally with me.

This article proves your piece of shit analysis to be worthless and useless.

It is as simple as this.

So, if the sun is at midnight above the horizon as seen from  the "Lamaire channel" vantage point, and we can see in the same time in the sky the full moon, then how your funny map can explain (geometrically justify) this situation?

I told you that you seem to be confused.

This is the THIRD time that you have changed the story line.

Now the sun is at midnight?

You have already made two mistakes in interpreting the basic situation, that you presented here: I do not trust at all how you labeled that picture.

On my map everything works out fine, as I have explained already.

Now, it is your turn to explain something.

Since you are now a RE: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the exterior surface of a sphere?

Sandokhan, i am geocentrist 100 %!

Why?

Because I KNOW FOR SURE that the earth is stationary!!!
How do i know for sure that the earth is stationary?
Well, i personally provided many original "stationary earth" arguments, so my knowledge about this fact (that the earth is at rest) doesn't depend on proofs provided by other people, although all these proofs (provided by other people) are very welcome, also.

Am i FE or RE?

I could say : both!

Why?

Because, as i pointed out (on this forum and elsewhere) there are many reasons which compel us to believe that the earth is round, but in the same time there are many reasons which compel us to believe that the earth is flat, also.

One of these reasons which compel us to believe that the earth is round is the path of the sun.

Now, i have to ask you this : do you really want to be dishonest person (in the same way as HC maniacs are)?

You said that i have changed the story line for the third time?

This claim proves that you (also) suffer from cognitive dissonance... if you really want to take part in the same companionship which famous leader is JackBlack, then all i can say is : suit yourself.

It doesn't even matter if i changed the story line, i proved that the path of the sun is in favor of RET (and i corroborated it with my graphics), that is all that matters.

However, i haven't changed the story line, not even once, let alone three time.

You know what, i am amazed how you could become so much alike to those against who you fought so many battles.

When you spend so much time discussing with people like JackBlack and Rabinoz, sooner or later your personality begins to change for the worse.

Beware of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde sindrom!

If we continue to stick with our own cognitive dissonance (just like they (HC maniacs) do all the time), then there is no hope for the truth to come out, ever.

Be honest person, that is the most important thing, which is much more important than being the winner in some stupid mental game....

Quote from: sandokhan on June 03, 2017, 02:52:30 PM

I anticipated your next message.

...

...

You see, your map is basically some kind of a globe presented on a flat sheet of paper...

Africa is too small, Australia is almost as big as Africa which is nonsense!

How come someone intelligent and educated (as you are) is able to promote such stupid concept of the map of the earth?

Everything you know worth double if you choose not to say something stupid when the silence is the best choice.

This last sentence JackBlack should learn by heart, but it doesn't mean that Sandokhan shouldn't be aware of the significance of these words, also!

You seem to be a bit confused.
...

[Edit to add following posts:]

Because I KNOW FOR SURE that the earth is stationary!!!


Wonderful.

Then you are ready for the next step: the Tunguska event.

<copy of the usual Tunguska stuff>

Ohboyohboy!

Sandokhan,

Have you ever investigated this case :

The Fatima Storm January 25, 1938
Fatima WW2 Sign

"When you see a night illumined by an unknown light* ...

Followed by a description of a strong aurora (which is far from unknown).[nb]But no footnote. [/nb]

It keeps getting better.

Because I KNOW FOR SURE that the earth is stationary!!!


Wonderful.

Then you are ready for the next step: the Tunguska event.

You are going to have to explain the fact that the Tunguska explosion was seen from London, over a distance of over 5,200 kilometers.


JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.





Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.




A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.


https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/582x643q90/203/l6sl.jpg

The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

Dr. C.C. Su,  A local-ether model of wave propagation:










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

https://www.epj.org/about-epj

http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_rec_journals

LIST OF RECOGNIZED JOURNALS

The European Physical Journal (EPJ) is a series of peer-reviewed journals indexed in all major citation databases, and covering the whole spectrum of pure and applied physics, including related interdisciplinary subjects. EPJ carries on the tradition begun by European physics publications in the 20th century and aims to offer to the international scientific community a unified platform for the global dissemination of physics and related sciences.

New training plan does its better to engulf students in exploring steps, offering them as lots of plans to get results on because it can. Demands for particular sorts of school paperwork boost each day buy essay Who realized essay article writing could be so really hard. Anyway, at primary amount, it absolutely was practically never strong, but while we increase the instructional stages it will get tougher and tougher
The editorial boards of the EPJ journals consist of distinguished scholars from around the globe who are committed to the highest standards of scientific quality. The boards administer the peer-review process and are responsible for the editorial policies of the journals.

EPJ and EPL - Europhysics Letters maintain a cooperation in the form of an editorial transfer agreement. This mechanism allows the transfer of submissions between journals according to considerations of format and scope, provided the author agrees to such transfer.

Sandokhan,

Have you ever investigated this case :

The Fatima Storm January 25, 1938
Fatima WW2 Sign

"When you see a night illumined by an unknown light*, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church."

January 25, 1938 The Fatima Storm - The Great Aurora was seen over the whole of Europe and as far south as Southern Australia, Sicily, Portugal and across the Atlantic to Bermuda and Southern California. Crowds in Vienna awaiting the imminent birth of Princess Juliana's baby cheered the aurora as a lucky omen. The immense arches of crimson light with shifting areas of green and blue, radiated from a brilliant Auroral Crown near the zenith instead of appearing as usual in parallel lines. It was also considered to be one of the Fatima Prophesies by Roman Catholics worldwide.
The following are headlines from various newspapers around the world regarding these most rare of southern aurora light shows around the world.

Northern lights disrupt radios in Maine, frighten Europeans" - [Maine Press Herald, January 26, 1938, p. 1]

"AUrora borealis startles Europe. People flee, call fireman" - [New York Times, January 26, 1938, p.25 ]

"Magnetic storms playing heck with news wires" - [Dalas Morning News, January 26, 1938, p.1 ]

"Aurora borealis cutting capers" - [Savanna Morning News, January 26, 1938, p. 1]

"Borealis over Tennessee valey" - [The Kansas City Star, January 27, 1938]

"Blame it on the sun" - [Rocky Mountain Herald, January 29, 1938, p.1 ]

"Europe upset at first aurora since 1709" - [Bismark Tribune, January 26, 1938, p.2 ]

"Aurora borealis glows in widest area since 1709" - [Chicago Daily Tribune, January 26, 1938, p.2 ]

"Northern lights give prize show" - [Boston Globe, January 26, 1938, p.1 ]

"Neon Lights in the sky: Display of aurora borealis viewed on two continents" - [Christian Science Monitor, January 26, 1938, p.1 ]

"Northern lights down south" - [London Times, January 26, 1938, p. 12]

"Aurora borealis abroad" - [London Times, January 27, 1938]

Every time I check a thread in which Sandokhan is involved I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

rabinoz, make yourself useful and stop posting nonsense.

That is not how the orbital Sagnac is being calculated.

If you want anybody to take into consideration your beliefs, please mail them to the Europhysics Letters Journal, and see if you will receive a response.

The above referenced paper, published by the IOP journal, directly contradicts your piece of shit analysis.

Please read my previous message which addresses each and every one of your "points":

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1916103#msg1916103

Please learn how to calculate the orbital Sagnac.

You say "Please learn how to calculate the orbital Sagnac." Well, here's your chance:

You show us how to calculate the orbital Sagnac. Show us your analysis of this geometry Sagnac loop.
The reason for wanting your own analysis is that so often you seem read much more into a paper than is really there.
You also assume that because something is published if a refereed journal is necessarily accepted and correct.

Just remember these bits that I quoted earlier!

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.[/size]

Please note that E. J. POST specifically states,
          "does not depend on the shape of the surface A;"
          "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"
Care to explain in your own words what 
"does not depend on the shape of the surface A" and  "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" mean?


It does look suspicious when you claim that there should be a massive orbital Sagnac effect, mainstream science, JackBlack and I all say the there should not be and no massive orbital Sagnac effect is measured.

Makes one wonder who is right and who is wrong?
This is especially so as there is much other evidence that the earth rotates and orbits the sun.

Sandokhan,

Have you ever investigated this case :

The Fatima Storm January 25, 1938
Fatima WW2 Sign

"When you see a night illumined by an unknown light*, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church."

January 25, 1938 The Fatima Storm - The Great Aurora was seen over the whole of Europe and as far south as Southern Australia, Sicily, Portugal and across the Atlantic to Bermuda and Southern California. Crowds in Vienna awaiting the imminent birth of Princess Juliana's baby cheered the aurora as a lucky omen. The immense arches of crimson light with shifting areas of green and blue, radiated from a brilliant Auroral Crown near the zenith instead of appearing as usual in parallel lines. It was also considered to be one of the Fatima Prophesies by Roman Catholics worldwide.
The following are headlines from various newspapers around the world regarding these most rare of southern aurora light shows around the world.

Northern lights disrupt radios in Maine, frighten Europeans" - [Maine Press Herald, January 26, 1938, p. 1]

"AUrora borealis startles Europe. People flee, call fireman" - [New York Times, January 26, 1938, p.25 ]

...

Was that a cut'n'paste from http://www.solarstorms.org/SS1938.html? Your list even includes the "AUrora borealis startles ..." typo, and most of the intro, word-for-word, including the curious inclusion of "Southern Australia" in Europe. Or did those guys steal it from somewhere else, or somewhere else that you stole it from, stole it from them?

Whoever you copied that from, don't they deserve attribution?

Was there a similar prophesy before the beginning of WWI? That was quite the mess, too.

Where's the footnote for "unknown light*"? Don't you just hate it when someone indicates a footnote with an asterisk ('*'), but there isn't one?

Now the sun is at midnight?

If it was due south, it would be at mid night.

On my map everything works out fine, as I have explained already.

No, it doesn't. I have already pointed out an error and I am sure plenty of other people have.

Regardless, this is not the place to discuss it.

Since you are now a RE: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the exterior surface of a sphere?

Gravity, again, this is not the place to discuss it, and before we discuss anything more on gravity you need to admit your mistake about the double forces you claimed existed.

You are creating your own version of reality (again, "according to me"), right here in front of everybody, and you do not seem to care what is going on.

Nope. That is still you.

This was published in Europhys letters, a different journal, with potentially different standards.
Just take a look at the miserable ways in which you are trying to convince yourself that everything is ok: you tried to slander the author with quotes which did not belong to him, now this.

No. I'm not slandering the author, or the journal. I am just pointing out your dishonesty.
I also never tried attributing quotes to the author, but you seemed quite happy to pretend I said things I never did.

https://www.epj.org/about-epj
http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_rec_journals
LIST OF RECOGNIZED JOURNALS

Yes. Notice what is missing?
Europhys Letters.

EPJ and EPL - Europhysics Letters maintain a cooperation in the form of an editorial transfer agreement. This mechanism allows the transfer of submissions between journals according to considerations of format and scope, provided the author agrees to such transfer.

And there you go, an admission that they aren't the same journal. Good job.

Your "calculations" amount to nothing at all: let me teach you how it's done.

Yet you have been completley unable to point out a single error in them, nor have you been able to show a "correct" derivation.

Instead, all you have been able to do is show the derivation for a different system.

Remember the system we have is one in which there is a small interferometer, much smaller than Earth's orbit, situated well away from the centre of the orbit.

As such, unless you are accepting relativity and thus accepting that the location of the centre of rotation is irrelevant and that it is important is the area of the loop (which would mean you fully accept you are wrong), the derivation of a circular ring centred on the centre of rotation is useless for this case.

You are undergoing a severe case of cognitive dissonance, and are doing everything possible to avoid the harsh facts of reality.

Once again, you are describing yourself.
I have provided a derivation which you have been completely unable to refute.
The only derivation you have provided is one I fully agree with, but is completely inapplicable to the situation at hand.
You repeatedly try to appeal to papers without even understanding what they are saying or by blatantly misrepresenting them.

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

Yet you are completely unable to provide these calculations or how this paper related to the Sagnac effect at all.

Here is how to perform the calculation correctly.
Let Δt _o= the sagnac correction for the earth's orbital path
Let Δt _r= the sagnac correction for the earth's rotational path
RE claim: Δt_o/Δt _r= 1/365
[4A_oω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [4A_rω_r/( c² - v_r²)]

And this is where you fail.
You are using 2 completely different interferometers.

Do it for the same interferometer, which has the same area.

This is the correct calculation:
Δt_o/Δt _r=[4A_iω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [4A_iω_r/( c² - v_r²)]

Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth. It is the area of the interferometer, as my derivation (and your derivation and publication you linked) all showed as well.
No where in any derivation did the area of Earth's orbit come into it.

So to continue:
Δt_o/Δt _r=[4A_iω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [4A_iω_r/( c² - v_r²)]
Obviously, ( c² - v_o²) and ( c² - v_r²) are very close to the same number, so let's lave them off.
=4A_iω_o/ 4A_iω_r
Then to simplify:
=ω_o/ ω_r

And would you look at that? It ends up being just like what we claim.
You have ω_o/ ω_r.
As Earth rotates roughly 365 times for each orbit, ω_r=365*ω_o.
Thus we get:
Δt_o/Δt _r=ω_o/ ω_r
=ω_o/ (365*ω_o)
=1/365

Just like we claim.

In order to do it your BS way you first need to show your derivation of:
Δt=4Aω/( c² - v²)
where A is the area of the orbital path instead of the interferometer loop.

Until you do that, your BS amounts to delusional crap and rejection of reality.

This paper has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.
The author calculated the FULL ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, using a two-way measurement:

No, they didn't.
If you think they do, show where they did, remembering that the Sagnac effect refers to a fringe shift in 2 counterpropogating beams of light around a loop.

You are embarrassing yourself jack almost to the point of no return.

Again, that would be you.
You have provided publications which directly refute you, you have only provided a derivation for a completely different situation, have blatantly lied about publications and been completely unable to refute my derivation.

You are the one continually embarrassing yourself. Not me. I'm embarrassing you but pointing out your errors.

The orbital "Sagnac" effect is only missing for aether based models.
See how you are trying to fool your readers?
The ORBITAL SAGNAC IS MISSING REGARDLESS OF THE MODEL TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

No, it isn't.

Dr. C.C. Su adopted the local-aether model ONLY AFTER HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MODERN SCIENCE.
And the editors of the EPL journal, an IOP journal, agreed.

No, he didn't and they didn't.
He pointed out that an aether model is lacking the orbital Sagnac effect due to Earth's translation motion along its orbit for earth based measurements but long range ones between planets does have it, so an aether based model requires it to be a magic local aether.

Even the reference you provided agrees with me, that it is the area of the loop, not the orbit.
Nobody agrees with you.
The orbital Sagnac is calculated exactly as I have described.

No it isn't.
Remember the publication you provided.
The shift is proportional to the area of the loop (closed light path), and the angular velocity, and the centre of the loop can be placed away from the centre of rotation.
What this means is that for the same interferometer, with the same area of the loop (closed light path), assuming v is negligible, the ratio is exactly as I described, dependent solely upon the ratio of the angular velocity.

That is nothing like what you claim.

Here is the proof.
Based on the local-ether model

Once again, appealing to an aether based model. Try again, this time appealing to reality.

Do you understand English jack?

Yes. Do you?
You seem to be completely unable to understand a single thing I have said and instead you keep on repeating the same refuted bullshit.

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

Once again, only for an aether based model.
Try again.

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

To account for the missing orbital "Sagnac" effect for the non-local aether model.

Mainstream science agrees with me, not with you.

No, it doesn't.
It agrees with me, that the area is the area of the loop, not the orbit.

THE PEER REVIEWERS OF THE IOP JOURNAL KNEW THAT THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT.

Yes, they knew that in aether based models the orbit should be much easier to detect than the rotation.

Once again, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO AETHER BASED MODELS.

Try again.

The orbital Sagnac which is much greater than the rotational Sagnac is MISSING.

Again, only for aether based models.

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.
ALTHOUGH THEY WOULD BE EASIER TO OBSERVE IF THEY ARE IN EXISTENCE.

Yes, the effects of Earth's motion through the aether, once again only applying to an aether based model.

It would be easier to observe the orbital Sagnac, since its magnitude is much greater than the rotational Sagnac.

Again, for an aether based model.

I have just presented a mainstream article which does agree totally with me.

No, it doesn't. It is using linear speeds and thus has nothing at all to do with the Sagnac effect.
No where in it does it claim the Sagnac effect is proportional to the area of the orbit rather than the area of the detector. So no, it doesn't agree with you, and it doesn't refute or go against me.

This article proves your piece of shit analysis to be worthless and useless.

Again, it says nothing at all of my analysis.

Now then, I shall ask again:
CAN YOU POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN MY DERIVATION?
CAN YOU SHOW WHAT THE CORRECT DERIVATION IS?
If not, you have nothing.

Because I KNOW FOR SURE that the earth is stationary!!!
How do i know for sure that the earth is stationary?
Well, i personally provided many original "stationary earth" arguments, so my knowledge about this fact (that the earth is at rest) doesn't depend on proofs provided by other people, although all these proofs (provided by other people) are very welcome, also.

You mean all those ones you provided here which were refute each and every time with you completely unable to defend them?

Because, as i pointed out (on this forum and elsewhere) there are many reasons which compel us to believe that the earth is round, but in the same time there are many reasons which compel us to believe that the earth is flat, also.

Yet no one has been able to provide a single reason to believe Earth is flat other than the pathetic "it looks like it"

Now, i have to ask you this : do you really want to be dishonest person (in the same way as HC maniacs are)?

Most HC people here (well, pseudo HC people) are not dishonest at all

It doesn't even matter if i changed the story line, i proved that the path of the sun is in favor of RET (and i corroborated it with my graphics), that is all that matters.

Not only is it in favour of RET, it is in favour of a HC model.
That is because that actually explains its path, with it going above the tropics or the equator or other parts at various times of the year.
With a geocentric one you need an explanation for why it circles Earth in such a strange way, unless you still have Earth rotating on its axis.

When you spend so much time discussing with people like JackBlack and Rabinoz, sooner or later your personality begins to change for the worse.

I wouldn't call it discussing. It is more akin to repeating the same shit again and again and getting it refuted again and again.
In order for it to be a discussion he would have to actually read what we say and respond to it, such as by accepting my derivation or explaining clearly what is wrong with it.

If we continue to stick with our own cognitive dissonance (just like they (HC maniacs) do all the time), then there is no hope for the truth to come out, ever.

Except those "HC maniacs" don't suffer from cognitive dissonance and have already discovered the truth and allowed it to come out.
The FEers and the like are trying to bury that truth with pure crap and either being extremely dishonest or suffering from some quite severe cognitive dissonance or delusions.

Holy hell, we got 7 pages for a question that only needed a one word answer. Let me do it

Q: IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, CAN SHE STILL BE ROUND?
A: YES

---end thread---

Your derivation is THRASHED by the following mainstream papers.

You simply do not know how to calculate the orbital Sagnac.

Go ahead and mail your derivation to the IOP journal, the Europhysics Letters Journal, just like Dr. C.C. Su did, and see if they publish it.

Until then, my three mainstream bibliographical references destroy your piece of shit derivation.


These papers prove that the motion of the earth's orbit is also a Sagnac effect. We should see light path distance differentials caused by the orbit just like we see if for earth's rotation. The orbital path is simply longer and nothing else.

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

It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth supposedly moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.


"Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Yet, this same logic applies and works with the earth's supposed rotation.


This is exactly what these three papers prove.


Dr. Daniel Gezari must calculate the Sagnac in order to fully account for the shooting of the laser to the mirror on the moon and back.

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.


This calculations were done by none other than Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech, Goddard Space Flight Center).

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between coand c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

You lose.
 
Shooting light to the moon has to do with the behavior of light like GPS.


The lunar laser ranging experiment is an astronomical version of the Sagnac experiment.

However, G. Sagnac used the fringe-shift method to measure indirectly light travel time;
while Dr. Daniel Gezari uses clocks to measure directly light travel time in both directions.

 
Please note the orbital sagnac shows up in these measurements.

Now, because of the vast distance, if you are correct, you should see 1/365 of the rotational sagnac in the measurements and that will show up on this vast distance.

So, if you are correct, then we should see your 1/365 conclusions in the measurements. Guess what. We do not.

That means you are wrong.


Your derivation is not even a joke, it is totally useless and worthless.


Please read.



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.



Since the orbital Sagnac is missing, regardless of any ether/nonether model, the author provides a local-ether model, which was accepted not only by the peer reviewers, but also by the IOP journal.

The missing orbital Sagnac has nothing to do with a particular physical model: it is all over mainstream science, as documented here, that GPS satellites do not register/record the much larger orbital Sagnac. As a consequence, relativists are forced to adopt the local ether model in order to account for the missing orbital Sagnac.


A total refutation of your failed derivation.


IOP published the article indicating they also agree the orbital Sagnac is missing, and is larger than the rotational Sagnac, or this article would never have gotten past peer review.



Again, Dr. C.C. Su, :

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

Published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world: Bulletin of the American Physical Society.











Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.



Three papers written by some of the best physicists in the world today, Dr. Daniel Gezari and Dr. C.C. Su, which directly contradict your failed/miserable derivation.

It is as simple as this.


Please read:

In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


THE ORBITAL SAGNAC, EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ROUND TRIP MM EXPERIMENT, IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.


End of our discussion.


Your failed derivation has been shown for what it really is: a total piece of useless thrash.

Thread already ended buddy and answer was given. Now take your bat and ball and go home!

Holy hell, we got 7 pages for a question that only needed a one word answer. Let me do it

Q: IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, CAN SHE STILL BE ROUND?
A: YES

---end thread---

Finally, something that I can agree with!
Newton was, I believe, the first to realise that the earth rotated it could not be a perfect sphere.
Compare earth with some of the other planets:

Venus rotates very slowly (once in 244 days) and is almost perfectly spherical, on the other hand
Jupiter rotates quite rapidly (once in 9.93 hours) and has the very high oblateness of 6.49%.

So, if the earth were not rotating

Your derivation is THRASHED by the following mainstream papers.
You simply do not know how to calculate the orbital Sagnac.

You don't know the first thing about simple mechanics, you know nothing about your much vaunted orbital Sagnac effect.

I always thought that you were just a big bag of hot-air with no substance, thanks so much for proving it!

Bye bye, total loser.

PS  Maybe this will prompt you into doing something yourself, instead of simply misinterpreting all this mainstream stuff!