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

rabinoz, shut the **** up.

You are useless here.

Your pathetic bravado is no substitute for direct calculations which disprove your failed interpretation of the orbital Sagnac.

Please read and learn.

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.

As with almost 100% of your posts....

tl;dr

Who put Sandy in overdrive?

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

You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to justify that claim.

Can you show anything wrong with my analysis?
If not, why say it is wrong?

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

No. They don't.
They say nothing about my correct 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.

No. They don't.
They prove that assuming a non-local aether based model, we would see an effect.

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

Which completely agrees with me.
It is based upon the area of the loop.

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.

There you go ignoring relativity. Good job.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS.

That's right, because the aether isn't real.

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

Because unlike linear motion, you cannot use relativity to cancel out rotational motion.
This is because the speed of light is only constant in INERTIAL reference frames.
Translating reference frames are inertial.
Rotating ones are not.

This is exactly what these three papers prove.

No, it isn't.

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

And you are still completely unable to show these calculations and what the orbital Sagnac is meant to be.
That isn't surprising considering this paper has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

You lose.

Nope. Once again, you lose.
You have been completely unable to defend your claim that the Sagnac effect for Earth's orbit is based upon the area of the orbit. You have been completely unable to refute my derivation.

All you have been able to do is provide references backing me up, one which uses an aether model and one which discussing the invariance of the speed of light.

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

No it doesn't.
Remember, the Sagnac effect is a fringe-shift between 2 counterpropagating beams of light around a rotating loop.

If it doesn't have that, it isn't the Sagnac effect.
We are discussing the Sagnac effect.

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

Instead they treat Earth's orbit as translation, so no rotation so no orbital Sagnac effect. Instead Earth's rotation is considered a Sidereal day, being slightly shorter than a solar day.
Guess what factor relates them?
1/(1+1/365)

That means you are wrong.

No. It means, like usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

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

Well partly right. My derivation is not a joke, and it is somewhat useless and worthless as it was already known.
But that doesn't stop my derivation being a solid piece of math which correct derives the orbital Sagnac effect when orbits are treated as rotations. This is something you are yet to refute and yet to do yourself.

Please read.

NO!

You want me to read something, provide a derivation of the orbital Sagnac effect or provide a refutation of mine. Show what is actually wrong with mine and what needs to be done to correct it.

I have already dealt with that article numerous times.
All you have been able to do is repeat the same baseless, bullshit claims about it.

Since the orbital Sagnac is missing, regardless of any ether/nonether model

No. IT IS MISSING BASED UPON AN AETHER MODEL

Do you understand that?

That is all the paper is discussing.

For non-aether based models, which instead obey relativity, the orbital Sagnac effect, with the orbit considered as a translation would equal 0, as translations do not produce it, with the orbit considered as rotation, then it is detected at its expected amount of 1/365th of the rotational one.

the author provides a local-ether model, which was accepted not only by the peer reviewers, but also by the IOP journal.

No. The conclusion that any aether based model would need to use a local aether was accepted.

The missing orbital Sagnac has nothing to do with a particular physical model

Yes it does.
In the ballistic theory of light, there is no Sagnac effect.
In the non-local aether model, you would expect a shift due to linear motion, which you are pretending is the Sagnac effect.
In relativity, you would only expect it for rotational motion, and it would be dependent upon the area of the loop.

So yes, the physical model used is very important in determining if this alleged effect is missing or not.

The papers conclusions also back this up, with the local-aether model not missing it.

: it is all over mainstream science, as documented here, that GPS satellites do not register/record the much larger orbital Sagnac.

No it isn't. You are yet to show it should be much larger.

As a consequence, relativists are forced to adopt the local ether model in order to account for the missing orbital Sagnac.

No they aren't.
Only people who use aether are forced to accept a local aether based model.
"Relativists" can keep on using relativity just fine.

A total refutation of your failed derivation.

No where have you provided a refutation of my 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.

No, they agree a larger effect would arise due to Earth's orbit in an aether based model.

This does not mean they accept the aether based model is true, nor do they accept that the orbital Sagnac effect is missing or should be larger.

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.

Again, these have nothing at all to do with my derivation.

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

In that case YES, that is because both are 0. Although they didn't use the same loop so it still isn't the Sagnac effect.

End of our discussion.

If you want to run away like a pathetic child like normal, go ahead.
But that means you admit you are wrong.

If you want this discussion to end you need to provide your own derivation and show what is wrong with mine.

Until then, my derivation stands correct, and your baseless, bullshit claim stands as a pile of refuted BS.

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

No. You are yet to show that there is anything at all wrong with my derivation.
But your claims have been shown for what they really are, a bunch of baseless, delusional bullshit.
Grow up.

rabinoz, shut the **** up.
You are useless here.
Your pathetic bravado is no substitute for direct calculations which disprove your failed interpretation of the orbital Sagnac.

Once again, you are describing yourself.
Remember, I have provided direct calculations, calculations you have been completely unable to refute.

Meanwhile all you can do is paste mountains of crap or link to crap.
You seem to have no idea how to do any of it yourself.

So thank's for confirming that you are useless here.

Who put Sandy in overdrive?

I believe that may have been me, doing a complete derivation of why he is full of shit instead of just appealing to the facts that were already known.
He doesn't seem to like it when people do that.

Here is a link to the post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915658#msg1915658

I don't think he liked how I responded with a wall of math in response to his baseless claim.

Perhaps he was hoping everyone here is too stupid to do the math themselves as he has no idea how to do it and he is "one the smartest people alive", or is it just Inky that claims that?

jack, please come to your senses.

Your derivation has been shown to be a total piece of thrash.

Based on your derivation, you made some claims, which are totally refuted by these mainstream papers.

And you are still completely unable to show these calculations and what the orbital Sagnac is meant to be.
That isn't surprising considering this paper has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

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.

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


A total and direct refutation of your failed derivation.


Instead they treat Earth's orbit as translation

See how little you know about the Sagnac?




The Sagnac effect is not due to rotation, but instead is a linear effect due to a true anisotropic light speed in a moving frame.

In 1938 Ives showed by analysis that the measured Sagnac effect would be unchanged if the Sagnac phase detector were moved along a cord of a hexagon-shaped light path rather than rotating the entire structure. Thus, he showed the effect could be induced without rotation or acceleration."


See how easy it is to refute your claims?


For non-aether based models, which instead obey relativity, the orbital Sagnac effect, with the orbit considered as a translation would equal 0, as translations do not produce it,

You have just been shown that you are wrong: the Sagnac effect applies equally well to translational motion as well.

Furthermore, STR has nothing to do with the Sagnac.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

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

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

page 8

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


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


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


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



You have no clue as to what the Sagnac means.


The following paper was published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journal in the world.

It thrashes your piece of shit derivation.


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/










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.



A total refutation of your failed piece of garbage analysis.


Both the IOP journal and the APS agree with me.

They published the fact that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, and that it is missing.

Then, they accepted the local aether model, since the missing orbital Sagnac has to be explained.

It is as simple as this.


Please mail your piece of shit derivation to the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY or EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL, and see if they will publish it.

Until then, the above referenced papers thrash your piece of shit analysis.

I believe that may have been me

You really think that you are that important?

Your bumbling interventions have become the laughing stock of this forum.

You have no idea what you are writing, no correlation to real science.


Both the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL deny and thrash your failed beliefs.

Nobody gives a flying frell about you jack. Believe me.

rabinoz, shut the fuck up.
You are useless here.
Your pathetic bravado is no substitute for direct calculations which disprove your failed interpretation of the orbital Sagnac.

You keep saying that we cannot calculate he Sagnac effect correctly, well YOU show us how it should be done.

No more of you ridiculous copy-pasta! You show your own calculations.
You referred to Mathpages, it says:

where A = πR² is the area enclosed by the loop. The corresponding phase difference for light of frequency n radians/second (in the rest frame of the center of rotation) is simply Df = nDt, and since n = 2πc/l, the phase difference can be written as (8πAcw/l)/(c² – v²).

Just note, "where A = πR^2[/sup[/font] is the area enclosed by the loop".[/b]

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

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

Please note that 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?

So quit your miles of wasted copying and show your analysis proving that Mathpages, E. J. POST and we are wrong.

I don't want references or copies, only your analysis showing that the Sagnac delay  is not ∆t = (4.A.ω)/(c² – v²),
"where A = πR² is the area enclosed by the loop".

I'll just finish with a bit from the Mathpages paper you keep referring us to

Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said,
         "We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis,
           a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
. . . . . . . .
Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".

Michelson certainly was sure that the "earth rotates on its axis".

But somehow, the great and mighty, Sandokhan, manages to disagree with Michelson.

rabinoz, you do not know frell about the Sagnac effect.

Don't you understand that your silly questions are meant to provoke only laughter?


You keep bringing up the "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" quote from E.L. Post.

But it was G. Sagnac himself, some 50 years earlier, who proved this very point.


But that is not how the Sagnac is to be applied to the orbital calculation.


"in which A is the area enclosed by the loop"

Exactly.

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.



Now, let us put your word to the test against mine.

PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY AND EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL.

Two of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

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/










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.



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.



A total refutation of your failed piece of garbage analysis.


Both the IOP journal and the APS agree with me.

They published the fact that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, and that it is missing.

Then, they accepted the local aether model, since the missing orbital Sagnac has to be explained.

It is as simple as this.



They agree that the orbital motion IS A LOOP and that also the calculation IS NOT to be performed as described by you as being independent of the center of location.


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.

Michelson certainly was sure that the "earth rotates on its axis".

What?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

You are here to learn, please do so.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1780340#msg1780340

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 05, 2017, 01:48:46 AM

Who put Sandy in overdrive?

I believe that may have been me,

Well try not to do that again, he will never ever stop now and the thread will become unreadable.

jack, please come to your senses.
Your derivation has been shown to be a total piece of thrash.

No it hasn't.
You keep spouting that same baseless claim, but you are yet to refute it.

Go back, read my derivation and show what is wrong with it and provide your own derivation.

Until you do, my derivation stands as correct.

Based on your derivation, you made some claims, which are totally refuted by these mainstream papers.

No, they aren't.
Try again.

I'm just going to skip the rest of your spam now.

Sorry, your derivation is shown to be a total piece of thrash by the papers published both by THE BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and by EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL.

Your claims are proven to be useless and worthless.


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/


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


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.



Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.


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 peer reviewers at the APS, one of the most prestigious journals in the world, agree with this analysis.

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.


Mail your analysis to the same journals: APS and EPL, and see if they will publish it.


Until then, your derivation is totally refuted by these papers.


The Sagnac effect is a nonrelativistic effect.


COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

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

t_o = t'γ

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

t_o = t'(1 + v²/2c²)


dt_R = (t_o - t')/t_o = v²/(v² + 2c²)

dt_R = relativity time ratio



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

dt' = t_o - t' = t_ov/(c + v)


dt_S = (t_o - t')/t_o = v/(v + c)


dt_S = Sagnac ratio


dt_S/dt_R = (2c² + v²)/v(v + c)

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

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


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


Since the orbital Sagnac is missing, and since it is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled:

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

Sorry, your derivation is shown to be a total piece of thrash by the papers published both by THE BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and by EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL.

No, they don't.
They do not discuss my derivation at all.

Here is my derivation again:
Now lets try 2 arcs, one at R1 and one at R2, where the sections connecting the 2 arcs are along the radii.
What this means is that going between them is the same for both directions.
In each one you have it going to the inner arc along a radii, and going to the outer arc along a radii, so the path length and time taken will be equal for those sections.
The only thing giving rise to a difference will be the sections along the arc.

So now lets let alpha be the angle subtended by the arcs, and omega be the angular velocity.
So, one beam of light will propagate in the same direction as the big arc and the opposite direction as the little arc.
What this means is its trip along the big arc will be longer than if it was stationary and shorter along the little arc.
The distance it has to travel is alpha*R2+omega*R2*t1a+alpha*R1-omega*R1*t1b, where t1a is the time taken to go along the big arc and t1b is the time taken to go along the little arc.
This is because in t1a, the arc will have moved along a bit, and the light needs to travel the length of the arc and that bit it has moved along, while for t1b (from the perspective of the light) the arc has travelled back a bit, shrinking the distance.

Meanwhile, the light going the other way has to travel a distance of alpha*R1+omega*R1*t2b+alpha*R2-omega*R2*t2a, for similar reasons.

(Note: the a is the big arc, the b is the little arc, this is to make it simpler later on).

The total time for each will be the sum of the a and b part, so now we need to figure out what they are.
Well, in t1a, the light (travelling at speed c) travels a distance alpha*R2+omega*t1a.
Thus t1a*c=alpha*R2+omega*R2*t1a
Thus t1a=alpha*R2/(c-omega*R2).
Similarly, t2b=alpha*R1/(c-omega*R1).
And t1b*c=alpha*R1-omega*t1b
Thus t1b=alpha*R1/(c+omega*R1)
and t2a=alpha*R2/(c+omega*R2).

Now as I said, the total time for each one is given by:
t1=t1a+t1b.
t2=t2a+t2b.
And then we find the difference as (note: may give minus sign, I haven't checked, but the important part is the magnitude)
dt=t1-t2
=(t1a+t1b)-(t2a+t2b)
=t1a+t1b-t2a-t2b
=t1a-t2a+t1b-t2b
=(t1a-t2a)+(t1b-t2b)

Rather than try to solve it all at once, for simplicity we break it into 2 parts:
dta=t1a-t2a
And dtb=t1b-t2b.
And thus dt=dta+dtb

Now then:
dta=t1a-t2a
=alpha*R2/(c-omega*R2)-alpha*R2/(c+omega*R2)
=alpha*R2*(1/(c-omega*R2)-1/(c+omega*R2))
=alpha*R2*((c+omega*R2)/(c-omega*R2)*(c+omega*R2)-(c-omega*R2)/(c+omega*R2)*(c-omega*R2))
=alpha*R2*((c+omega*R2)-(c-omega*R2))/(c+omega*R2)*(c-omega*R2))
=alpha*R2*(c+omega*R2-c+omega*R2)/(c²-(omega*R2)²)
=alpha*R2*2*omega*R2/(c²-(omega*R2)²)
=2*omega*alpha*R2²/(c²-(omega*R2)²)
And then if we assume omega*R2=v<<c (i.e. our system is moving much slower than the speed of light, and 30 km/s is still much slower than the speed of light at roughly 300 000 km/s, then we can simplify (c²-(omega*R2)²) to c²
And thus we end up with dta=2*omega*alpha*R2^2/c²

Now we do the same for dtb.
dtb=t1b-t2b
=alpha*R1/(c+omega*R1)-alpha*R1/(c-omega*R1)
=alpha*R1*(1/(c+omega*R1)-1/(c-omega*R1))
(combining some steps from before for brevity, and noting that omega*R1 will be tiny compared to c just like omega*R2)
=alpha*R1*(c-omega*R1-c-omega*R1)/c²
=-2*omega*alpha*R1²/c²

Thus dt=2*omega*alpha*R2²/c²-2*omega*alpha*R1^2/c²
=2*omega*alpha*(R2²-R1²)/c²

Now, can we simplify this any more?
I know, lets work out the area.
Note that alpha has always been in radians.
A circle has an area pi*r².
This circle is a circular sector which subtends an angle of 2*pi.
If it only subtends an angle of alpha, then it will only have an area of alpha/(2*pi) of the circle.
Thus A (for a circular sector) is (alpha/(2*pi))*pi*r²
=alpha*r²/2
This means from the center to the outer arc you have an area of:
A2=alpha*R2²/2.
And for the inner one you have an area:
A1=alpha*R1²/2.
Thus the area between them is:
A=alpha*R2²/2-alpha*R1²/2
=alpha*(R2²-R1²)/2
Thus 2*A=alpha*(R2²-R1²).

Notice that was in the formula above?
That means we can sub it in.
As a reminder we had:
dt=2*omega*alpha*(R2²-R1²)/c²
By subbing in the above we get:
dt=2*omega*2*A/c²
And thus:
dt=4*A*omega/c²


Thus the Sagnac effect, even that for Earth's orbit (when you treat it as a rotation) is proportional to the area of the detector, not the area of the orbit.

Now then, are you capable of pointing out any error in this derivation?
Are you capable of providing your own derivation for this system or one like it?

If not, my derivation stands as correct.

Remember, we are not discussing the Sagnac effect in classical physics vs relativity or anything like that. We are discussing the Sagnac effect for orbits vs rotations.

As such, all your spam is entirely worthless.

jack, you are behaving like a spoiled brat: "unless you disprove my derivation, it stands correct".

Your derivation came together with some claims you made: in your view, the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.


These claims are shown to be wrong by mainstream papers published in some of the best scientific journals in the world.

They directly refute your claims.

Your entire derivation is shown to be false.


Please read and learn.

PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY AND EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL.

Two of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

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/










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.



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.



A total refutation of your failed analysis.


Both the IOP journal and the APS agree with me.

They published the fact that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, and that it is missing.

Then, they accepted the local aether model, since the missing orbital Sagnac has to be explained.

It is as simple as this.



They agree that the orbital motion IS A LOOP and that also the calculation IS NOT to be performed as described by you as being independent of the center of location.


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.

jack, you are behaving like a spoiled brat: "unless you disprove my derivation, it stands correct".

No. I am acting like a rational human being.

CAN YOU POINT OUT ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY DERIVATION??
YES OR NO???

Michelson certainly was sure that the "earth rotates on its axis".
What?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Michelson certainly didn't think it was a joke in

The Sagnac EffectAs mentioned above, as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Focault’s pendulum). Nevertheless, he (along with Gale) agreed to perform the experiment in 1925 (at considerable cost) at the urging of "relativists", who wished him to verify the shift of 236/1000 of a fringe predicted by special relativity. This was intended mainly to refute the theory of an ether fully dragged around with the spinning earth, as well as the only physically plausible ballistic theory of light propagation, both of which predict zero phase shift (for a circular device). Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said,
         "We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis,
          a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
 
As Harvey lime wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".

From: MathPages 2.7  The Sagnac Effect

Note that, "as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Foucault's pendulum)"

Yes, Michelson himself said,
"We . . . . . . shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."

Michelson certainly knew that the earth is a rotating Globe.

Maybe you should actually read the references that you quote.

You are here to learn, please do so.

Yes, I am learning quite a lot, thanks to you.
Especially the final realisation that the great wonderful Sandokhan is full of bluster but empty of substance!

Now, please stop repeating the same old stuff over and over. It does not help your case.

PS Just because something is published, even in a refereed journal does not mean that I accept all of it.

rabinoz, you do not know frell about the Sagnac effect.
Don't you understand that your silly questions are meant to provoke only laughter?

You keep bringing up the "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" quote from E.L. Post.
But it was G. Sagnac himself, some 50 years earlier, who proved this very point.

Yes, move the centre wherever you like and it has no effect on the Sagnac delay.

But that is not how the Sagnac is to be applied to the orbital calculation.

You really mean "that is not how Sandokhan applies Sagnac to the orbital calculation."

"in which A is the area enclosed by the loop"
Exactly.

The only loop spoken about is the Sagnac loop and that is "the area enclosed by the loop" referred to - nothing else.

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.

That is your interpretation, but clearly not Michelson's or anybody elses.

Even in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, the centre of rotation was the axis of the earth, but the area enclosed by the loop was just the 0.2 sq mile Sagnac loop, not the area swept by the radius from the axis.

So, show us your analysis of why the analyses in all these references are wrong!

as it seams to me Sandy brings everything back to the Sagnac-Effect, everytime.

i must admit i did not look to much in that experiment. but is there any other "evidence" that sandy can bring up to support his believe in a stationary flat earth?

i see a lot of other evidence that supports the global earth, and than i think if there is so many evidence that supports a global rotating earth that i think that the conclusion that the Sagnac Experiment proves a stationary earth is wrong.
Especially as i read that Einstein can explain the effect that the Sagnac Experiment shows.

Sandy: can you show any other evidence that is testable and confirmed that also supports you claim of a stationary earth and also can you explain what would than be wrong with the experiments that shows a rotating earth.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 04, 2017, 12:44:01 PM

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?

Sorry for the typo, i hope this is going to suit all your needs :

CAN YOU POINT OUT ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY DERIVATION??

Sure.

Here is what you wrote earlier:

As such, for a given interferometer (with a fixed area of the light path), treating Earth's orbit as a rotation and Earth's daily rotation as a rotation where one revolution is 24 hours, the orbital Sagnac effect will be approximately 1/365 that of Earth's rotation, as the area is the same, the only thing that changes is the angular velocity which for the orbit is roughly 1/365 that of the day.

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.

Let us put your claims, and implicitly your derivation to the test.


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.


Remember, Dr. Daniel Gezari is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology, and Astrophysicist (Emeritus) - NASA/Goddard (2008 - present).


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

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 c_o and 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


A total refutation of your claims, and thus your derivation.





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.


The peer reviewers acknowledge that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, and that it is missing.


Another direct refutation of your claims and thus your derivation.


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, 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.


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.


Your claims are refuted for a third time, and your derivation is rendered to be worthless.


See how easy it is?


The orbital Sagnac is 10,000 times greater than the rotational Sagnac, a fact acknowledged by the Bulletin of American Physical Society, one of the top scientific journals in the world today.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 04, 2017, 04:00:44 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 04, 2017, 12:44:01 PM

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?

Sorry for the typo, i hope this is going to suit all your needs :

http://i.imgur.com/7qJuc7t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Hz7OAr7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8uuivi4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eMMYX0b.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UPJodSe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RI2bOTN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cgwtdQ8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KGEGIFi.jpg

The first of those images is page 666. Nice!

It seems like sister Lucy saw the spectacular aurora borealis and decided, based on nothing but her own opinion, that it was not the aurora borealis, but a message from God. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that she would be predisposed to think that.

It does sound like a spectacular show! Never mind that it was around the sunspot maximum, when the strongest auroras would be expected, of solar cycle 17.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 05, 2017, 05:52:56 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 04, 2017, 04:00:44 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 04, 2017, 12:44:01 PM

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?

Sorry for the typo, i hope this is going to suit all your needs :

http://i.imgur.com/7qJuc7t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Hz7OAr7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8uuivi4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eMMYX0b.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UPJodSe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RI2bOTN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cgwtdQ8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KGEGIFi.jpg

The first of those images is page 666. Nice!

It seems like sister Lucy saw the spectacular aurora borealis and decided, based on nothing but her own opinion, that it was not the aurora borealis, but a message from God. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that she would be predisposed to think that.

It does sound like a spectacular show! Never mind that it was around the sunspot maximum, when the strongest auroras would be expected, of solar cycle 17.

Never mind that Alpha2Omega is another word for God!

The Jewish Revolutionary, top Freemason, and top Communist operative
who used the name "Christian G. Rakovsky" was born Chaim Rakover, according to some sources, into a very wealthy Jewish family in Bulgaria. He became a physician. He was one of the key figures in the internecine Communist struggles between Stalin and Trotzky. Rakovsky was one of two among 21 Trotzkyites who had escaped execution in Stalin's 1938 show trials. The show trials were held to make examples of Trotzky's secret supporters in Moscow who had been surrounding Stalin and waiting for an opportunity to overthrow him, until they were exposed in 1937-38. (Some sources say that when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 in Operation Barbarossa, Rakovsky was shot at age 68 on Stalin's orders along with Olga Kameneva, Trotzky's sister, and over 150 other political prisoners; other sources say that Rakovsky was allowed to take on another identity and live out the rest of his life in anonymity.) This struggle within Communism between the followers of Stalin and Trotzky continued until the Trotzky faction won with the collapse of Stalinism in 1989, which was presented to the West as the end of the Cold War. In fact, the Trotzkyites simply pretended to be "Social Democrats" in Russia and Europe, or "Democrats" and "Republicans" in the USA, where the struggle against Christianity and the white peoples of Europe continues. The long memory of the top Russian Trotskyite Jews behind Communism, behind the central banks from 1913 to the present, and behind the so-called War on Terror and the current push for World War III between Arabs and Europeans, was demonstrated when the Soviet government cleared Rakovsky and his co-defendants posthumously of all charges during Perestroika in 1988. (!)

The Rakovsky Interrogation, theBeginning of World War II, and the ‘Unknown Light’ of Fatima : http://www.realnews247.com/rakovsky_interrogation.htm

Here is a fourth reference, this time from the famous Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.


The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.

i must admit i did not look to much in that experiment. but is there any other "evidence" that sandy can bring up to support his believe in a stationary flat earth?
i think that the conclusion that the Sagnac Experiment proves a stationary earth is wrong.

It is wrong.
In fact, the Sagnac effect was one of the effects which proves Earth is moving.

Sandy tries to fix this by instead fixing Earth and having his magic aether move instead.

He then uses this magic spinning aether to try to pretend that is the cause of everything else that shows Earth is moving like Foucault's pendulum.

Sorry for the typo, i hope this is going to suit all your needs :

It really isn't anything all that magical.
It is just a solar storm.
A period of increased solar activity resulting in more charged particles being ejected from the sun.

CAN YOU POINT OUT ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY DERIVATION??
Sure.
Here is what you wrote earlier:

Quote from: JackBlack on June 03, 2017, 11:47:37 PM

As such, for a given interferometer (with a fixed area of the light path), treating Earth's orbit as a rotation and Earth's daily rotation as a rotation where one revolution is 24 hours, the orbital Sagnac effect will be approximately 1/365 that of Earth's rotation, as the area is the same, the only thing that changes is the angular velocity which for the orbit is roughly 1/365 that of the day.

That is not my derivation.

I will ask again:
CAN YOU SHOW ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY DERIVATION?

Stop repeating the same baseless crap that has nothing at all to do with my derivation.

What we are discussing is your claim that it should be proportional to the area of the orbit vs my derivation which clearly shows it is proportional to the loop.

Stop just making pathetic, ignorant appeals to authority where you blatantly lie about these authorities and misrepresent what they say.

Instead FOCUS ON MY DERIVATION!!!

CAN YOU SHOW ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY DERIVATION???
CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR OWN DERIVATION???
If you need to, feel free to use a different loop geometry, but remember, it needs to be a small loop located well away from the centre of rotation (e.g. a small loop on Earth, which is only moving as a rotation due to Earth's orbit).

Until you do that, showing what is actually wrong with my derivation, it stands as correct.
Until you provide your own which agrees with what you say, you claim remains as baseless, delusional bullshit.

Here is a fourth reference, this time from the famous Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

That paper is primarily concerned with "FIZEAU’S EXPERIMENT" and a "WITH MOVING MEDIUM".
Where is the relevance here?
Though even in that paper we find:

If the minute variation in the path velocity due to the one in
the geocentric position is taken into account, the last term in the preceding formula leads to another consequence of the Sagnac effect demonstrated in the Michelson-Gale experiment. In that experiment the closed optical path is formed by a beam splitter and a series of mirrors, which is similar to the one in Fizeau’s experiment, except for the flowing water. It is known that the corresponding phase variation is proportional both to the rate of earth’s rotation and to the area enclosed by the path.

Please note again: "is proportional both to the rate of earth’s rotation and to the area enclosed by the path."
It is always "the area enclosed by the path"!

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

Sure "For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well."
Who's arguing with that? The "Sagnac loop" also involves the orbital motions of Earth and the spacecraft or other planet.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.

Please show what they actually said, not your interpretation!

But on the aether, from the Mathpages section:

As Harvey lime wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".

What makes me take all of you writings with the proverbial "grain of . . . " is that you are trying to use all this to prove a stationary earth, yet clearly that is the last thing that any of your sources. Those I have seen take many of these experiments as proving a rotating earth orbiting the sun. As Michelson himself said
          "We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis,
           a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
One would think that if these experiments provided evidence of a stationary flat earth at least one of these authors might have twigged to that!

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.

If the orbital Sagnac had been 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac then nobody would have bothered with adopting a local aether model.

It is only because the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, and also missing, that the author and the peer reviewers agreed that a local aether model is needed.