The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk

  • 127 Replies
  • 5393 Views
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #60 on: October 30, 2017, 01:35:54 PM »
By the way, you forgot to mention that I discovered the global natural logarithm formula:
Discovered, or just copied from elsewhere?

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.
However, it requires a square root function, more technically a nth root function. Making it no better than just saying ln(x)=ln(x).

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2017, 01:36:46 PM »
The links provided by altspace reveal the superficiality of his research, and the fake science he is so fond of.

Again, are you capable of dealing with the OP?
Making a rational argument yourself (not just copying and pasting massive loads of crap), to provide how the aether produced these contradictory results?
If not, SHUT UP!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2017, 01:44:27 PM »
Discovered, or just copied from elsewhere?

I provided the link to the derivation.

No one else has ever published such a formula.

This was the dream of Gauss, Jacobi, and even Ramanujan, an explicit formula for the logarithm.

Here is the explicit final formula:

LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)


jack, everybody here feels very sorry for you.

You made the worst blunder in the history of this forum.

Of course, no one else could have done such a thing, it is all of your own making.


jack has committed a monumental error in his derivation.

Of course, nothing else could have been expected of him.

jack's own words:

And thus:
dto/dtr=k*wo/k*wr=wo/wo=1/365.

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


jack claims that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac, and that, read carefully: "I also backed up this formula with my own derivation."

Using his own very words, jack is telling us that his derivation leads directly to this figure: 1/365.


Here is another quote now:

This is the correct calculation:
Δto/Δt r=[4Aiωo/( c˛ - vo˛)] / [4Aiωr/( c˛ - vr˛)]

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.

No where in any derivation did the area of Earth's orbit come into it.

So to continue:
Δto/Δt r=[4Aiωo/( c˛ - vo˛)] / [4Aiωr/( c˛ - vr˛)]
Obviously, ( c˛ - vo˛) and ( c˛ - vr˛) are very close to the same number, so let's lave them off.
=4Aiωo/ 4Aiωr
Then to simplify:
o/ ωr

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

Just like we claim.



A very clear claim based on jack's derivation.

These are his own very words.


He claims that the derivation, as shown above, leads to the figure 1/365.


And he says that he bases his entire derivation on this: Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth.

This hypothesis, in turn, jack claims leads to this conclusion:

=1/365

Just like we claim.



jack simply threw out the basic requirement that the orbital Sagnac is a circular loop, and reached the conclusion that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.


Let us put jack's claims to a real test.


Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one 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/

More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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



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, 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.


The author PROVED that the orbital Sagnac is 10,000 times greater than the rotational Sagnac, and the peer reviewers agree totally.


It was published in one of the most respected journals in the world.


Both claims cannot be true at the same time, right?


The derivation's conclusion is that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.

The mainstream papers published by these respected journals prove that the orbital Sagnac is 10,000 greater than the rotational Sagnac.



That is what is totally wrong with your derivation.


You are off by a factor of 3,650,000!


Why are you off by such a huge factor?

Because of the wrong application of the Sagnac formula.


∆t = 4πRv / ( c˛ - v˛) = 4Aω / ( c˛ - v˛)

Where A = πR˛ and v = ωR

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.



Our friend jack brushed aside this requirement to impose his will on everybody else:

Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth. (jack's own very words)

In this particular case, the orbital path of the Earth, YOU MUST USE THE CORRECT RADIUS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A CORRECT RESULT.


jack's dismissal of basic scientific facts led to this monumentally erroneous conclusions, using his own words:

=1/365

Just like we claim.



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.



PUBLISHED BY THE BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most respected journals in the world.


Dr. C.C. Su proves that the correct figure is at least 10,000.


jack's catastrophic interpretation of the Sagnac effect leads to a figure of 1/365.


Let us see by how much jack went wrong.


10,000/(1/365) = 3,650,000

A huge margin of error, just what we would expect of someone like jack: he practically disregarded the most basic requirement of the Sagnac effect applied to the orbital case.

A horrendous error, signed jackblack, but to him it is no problem. He shrugs his shoulders and tells his readers that an error of a magnitude of 3,650,000 is fine.

There is nothing else to discuss here.

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2017, 01:58:06 PM »
Discovered, or just copied from elsewhere?
I provided the link to the derivation.
Which you could have copied from elsewhere or rephrased from elsewhere.

Providing a derivation doesn't mean you discovered it.

Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If you want to discuss it, take it elsewhere.

jack has committed a monumental error in his derivation.
Nope. That would be you, comparing 2 hypothetical interferometers, one the size of Earth and the other the size of Earth's orbit, to conclude that the orbital Sagnac effect is much greater.
So no, you were the one repeatedly committing a "monumental error" and getting your ass handed to you.


But again, that is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Either deal with the OP, or shut up.

Explain how the aether can produce completely contradictory results.
Explain how the aether can be both stationary w.r.t. Earth and moving w.r.t. Earth.

If you are unable to do this your aether BS remains refuted.

*

rabinoz

  • 19974
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2017, 03:20:35 PM »
And all analyses end up with results where only the area appears.
Exactly.
Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r˛ = 22500000000000000
Irrelevant!

Quote from: sandokhan
∆t = 4πR˛ω/(c˛-v˛)
Yes, but nowhere does Mathpages, 2.7 say that R is the radius of the earth's orbit around the sun.

Quote from: sandokhan
Please show exactly where Mathpages, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect claims that!
The equation for the sagnac is:
4Aω/( c˛ - v˛)
One must calculatate the area swept out by the path and that is A = πR˛, where R is measured from the Sun to the center of the Earth (radius of the orbital path loop).
No, no, no! A is the area of the optical path and your repeating a wrong does not make it right!

Quote from: sandokhan
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R...
Mathpages says one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.
It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.
Only because Mathpage is using a circular loop for simplicity - go and read E.J. Post again!

Stop repeating the same incorrect rubbish! Mathpage never anywhere says, "one must use the center of rotation which is the sun."
Quote
Both pulses begin with an initial separation of 2πR from the end point, so the difference between the travel times is
where A = πR2 is the area enclosed by the loop.

Quote from: sandokhan
Sagnac also established that the effect does not depend on the shape of the loop or the center of rotation.
Certainly there are cases where this theory applies, but the rotational Sagnac and the orbital Sagnac effects are NOT two of them.
Both the rotational and the orbital Sagnac effect use the definition provided in mathpages:
"circular loop of radius R"
One must use the center of rotation which is the sun.
It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.
The light path does not go around the sun. It goes a short distance around, then back again.

Quote from: sandokhan
You haven't read the paper by E.J. Post.
Really? I included a quote from, E.J. Post!
 
You, yourself, totally ignore this bit of what E.J. Post quite clearly ans unambiguously states!
You might also read:
          Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) – Published 1 April 1967
Where Post 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
Quote
Summarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.

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

Now stop re-posting the same old complete crap.  Your pages and pages of repeated garbage don't impress anyone.
Please explain to me, in words a child can understand, just what these words mean:
Quote
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
What else can
"does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" mean but "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation"?
So, please shut up about your orbital Sagnac effect. Sure "orbital Sagnac" is real and about 1/365 of "rotational Sagnac".
But if one were to use the correct rotational period for the earth of a sidereal day, there would be no separate "orbital Sagnac" only "rotational Sagnac".

Since you do not believe the earth is a Globe, rotates or orbits the Sun you are being totally hypercritical to quote all these people who all most certainly believe in a Heliocentric Globe. Take Dayton Miller for example:
Dayton Miller did some experimental work with Michelson, then carried on with more and more precise measurements which seemed to indicate a definite motion for the earth.
Go and read it yourself.
But Dayton Miller most certainly believed in the Heliocentric Globe.
He came to the conclusion the the whole solar system was moving "sort of north" at roughly 10 km/sec.
This paper is worth reading too A Dynamic and Substantive Cosmological Ether, James DeMeo, Ph.D..
It pictures Miller's ideas a little more clearly with:

Figure: 3 Earth Spiral Motion Around the Moving Sun.
Now, I'm hardly competent to judge the reliability of Dayton Miller's results and they have been queried as in:
I am presenting this just to assert very strongly that all these scientists most certainly accept the Heliocentric model.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2017, 10:06:53 PM »
And you of course are much smarter that Dr Dayton Miller, because his results seem to show that earth is not stationary, but moving like this:

When are you going to learn to do some basic research before posting?


"But we must pause at this juncture to critique Miller’s thinking process, for
he, being a Copernican, is basing his interpretation of data on his belief that
the Earth is moving at least 30 km/sec through space. Interestingly enough, it
is precisely because of this presupposition that Miller runs into some
unexplained difficulty, since his observations begin to conflict with his
mathematical calculations. The one anomaly in all past interferometer
experiments that Miller discovered was the experimenters assumed they knew the
precise velocity of the Earth through the ether in combination with the solar
system’s supposed motion toward the constellation of Hercules, but did they
really know? The geocentrist, of course, would answer that they did not know.
In any case, Miller’s 1925 experiment took into account this “anomaly” and he
made his calculations accordingly. Since he assumed the Earth was moving 30
km/sec, he combined this with the four positions (February, April, August,
September) that he examined of the Earth’s orbit around the sun and then used
Pythagorean geometry to determine the speed of the Earth toward the
constellation Draco, which came to 208 km/sec.[2] In other words, 208 km/sec is
what Miller believed to be the Earth’s absolute speed through the ether. Of
course, being a heliocentrist, Miller is assuming that the ether is motionless
and that the Earth is moving through it. In any case, Miller’s 1933 paper
reveals that his Pythagorean calculations do not match what he observed in the
fringe shifts. As we will recall, his experimental fringe shifts showed a
maximum of 10 km/sec, but this figure is less than his computed value by a
factor of twenty! Miller did not have an answer for this problem, and it is
left as an open-ended question in his 1933 paper. The answer, of course, is
that Miller’s Pythagorean calculations were based on a faulty premise (i.e.,
that the Earth was moving). If that factor were eliminated, his calculations
would be in accord with his observations. The same can be said of recent
experiments performed by Stefan Marinov, in the late 1970s, using
coupled-mirror interferometry.

Miller configured the four interferometer readings in the form of a
parallelogram (February, April, August, September), which assumes the Earth is
in orbit around the sun. The diagonal of each of the four parallelogram points
represents the apex of that period, while the long side represents the motion,
which is coincident with the center of orbit; the short side of the
parallelogram represents Earth velocity of 30 km/sec. Hence, knowing the
direction of the three sides of the triangle, and the magnitude of one side,
allows one to calculate the magnitude of the other sides, which for Miller was
208 km/sec toward Dorado."


Please mail your beliefs concerning the Sagnac effect, as they apply to the heliocentric orbital path of the Earth/GPS satellites, to the SAME journals that did publish Dr. C.C. Su's papers on the subject:

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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


If and when your views on the subject will be accepted and published, then and only then you can come back here and make your opinion known.

Until then you are going to have to shut the frell up.

You are going to have to accept that mainstream science accepts the fact that the orbital Sagnac is missing and that also it is larger than the rotational Sagnac.


« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 10:08:27 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2017, 10:26:42 PM »
That would be you, comparing 2 hypothetical interferometers, one the size of Earth and the other the size of Earth's orbit, to conclude that the orbital Sagnac effect is much greater.

Not me, but mainstream science.

The entirety of the supposed heliocentric path around the Sun IS THE ACTUAL INTERFEROMETER.

This orbital loop is centered at the Sun.

This is what mainstream science accepts as scientific fact.

Please inform yourself.

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.


Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one 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.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is greater than the rotational Sagnac.

Here is how to correctly calculate the orbital Sagnac effect:

Earth's radius = 6357 km; r˛ = 40411449

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r˛ = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR˛ω/(c˛-v˛)
or

I use the linear velocity.

∆t = 4πRv/( c˛ - v˛ ), where v is the linear velocity.

For the earth's rotation, it is 0.4638333 km/ sec and the orbit v = 30km/sec.

∆t = 0.62831852628 for the earth's orbit.
Total path of the orbit is 2πr=2π(150,000,000 km) = 942,477,780km

Hence, the sagnac effect for a 1 km path, that means light source in the center and two receivers placed at .5km is:
0.62831852628 / 942,477,780km = 6.6666667 e-10 sec / km

Now, for the earth's rotation.
∆t = 4.1170061 e-7 seconds
Total path of the rotation is 2πr=2π(6357 km) = 39942.21 km


4.1170061 e-7 seconds / 39942.21 km = 1.0307407 e-11 sec / km


The sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation.



The orbital Sagnac, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered by GPS satellites.


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.

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

The arrival time of light to a receptor is influenced by the motion of
the receptor relative to the earth: this is the basic discovery of G. Sagnac.

This fact has to be incorporated into the lunar laser ranging calculations.

Here is a basic reference which confirms this fact:

Ring-laser tests of fundamental physics and geophysics, G.E. Steadman, 1997, pg 15



One needs both the orbital and rotational Sagnac to calculate the correct timing, there is no way around that.


Dr. Daniel Gezari emitted a pulse of photons from a point on earth, bounced those photons off a reflector on the moon, and then recorded the photons’ arrival time at that same point on earth.


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

Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

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

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.


THE SMALL (~3M/S) SECOND ORDER RESIDUAL IS THE ORBITAL SAGNAC.


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 co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.


Dr. Daniel Gezari:


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


3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

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

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

Dr. Daniel Gezari's calculations prove otherwise: even in the diluted two way averaging form, the orbital Sagnac amounts for a 3/8.4 = 0.357 (35.7%) percentage of the rotational Sagnac.



Here you won't get a second chance.

I have already debunked your piece of shit analysis.

If you think that your views on the orbital Sagnac have scientific merit you know what you have to do.

PLEASE MAIL/EMAIL YOUR PIECE OF SHIT ANALYSIS TO THE SAME SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS THAT PUBLISHED DR. C.C. SU'S PAPERS ON THE SUBJECT.

Those papers clearly state that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac and that it is based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun.

Only when at least one of the journals will publish your piece of shit analysis, then and only then you can come back here and express your opinion on the subject.

Until then you are going to have to shut the frell up and accept what mainstream science tells you is correct.

Which you could have copied from elsewhere or rephrased from elsewhere.

It is my discovery: the formula had not been published anywhere else before 1998.

Since this is the level of scrutiny that you are applying to my own messages, the same will be applied to your messages.

If and when any of the following journals agree to publish your view on the orbital Sagnac, you are going to have to provide the following proofs:

-a copy of your ID clearly stating your name
-a copy of the actual letterhead of the journal informing you of its acceptance to publish your article
-the number of the issue where your article will be published
-a copy of the journal, each and every page, where your article will be published

Please mail your beliefs concerning the Sagnac effect, as they apply to the heliocentric orbital path of the Earth/GPS satellites, to the SAME journals that did publish Dr. C.C. Su's papers on the subject:

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978


If you want anybody to even look in your direction, concerning the orbital Sagnac, you are going to have to follow the same steps followed by Dr. C.C. Su.

Until then please shut the frell up.


« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 10:38:54 PM by sandokhan »

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2017, 11:29:21 PM »
When are you going to learn to do some basic research before posting?
Good question.
When will you?
Just mass spamming a bunch of crap which you clearly do not comprehend is not doing research.
You are completely incapable of making a rational argument, clearly showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

Not me, but mainstream science.
No. Just you. Mainstream science accepts that it is the area of the interferometer, not the orbit of Earth around the sun.
Regardless, I set up a new topic for you to discuss your ignorance in this area. So go there to discuss your stupidity, not here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.0

The entirety of the supposed heliocentric path around the Sun IS THE ACTUAL INTERFEROMETER.
Really? Who built such a device?
Most interferometers are quite small, easily fitting on a desk. Some scientific ones are much larger, extending up to a few km.
NONE ARE THE SIZE OF EARHT'S ORBIT.

So no, mainstream science does not accept your delusional garbage.

Until then please shut the frell up.
No. You deal with the OP, or shut up.
Explain how the aether can be moving w.r.t. Earth and stationary w.r.t. Earth. Until you do so, your aether stands refuted.

If you wish to discuss your ignorance regarding the Sagnac effect, do so following this link, not here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.0

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2017, 11:42:22 PM »
Explain how the aether can be moving w.r.t. Earth and stationary w.r.t. Earth.

You have a very short memory.

This is what you wrote yesterday:



Can you explain how Earth is both stationary w.r.t. the aether and moving w.r.t. the aether?

I did provide an answer:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977609#msg1977609

The orbital Sagnac effect is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.

The solar gravitational potential effect upon the GPS clocks is also missing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


This means that the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT are totally fulfilled:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721


The Ruderfer experiment, one of the most important experiments in physics carried out in the 20th century, proves the existence of ether, if its hypotheses are fulfilled.


Faced with the Ruderfer experiment, the relativists resorted to one last stand, the MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory): the Earth rotates against the spherical shell of ether, while at the same time both the Earth and the ether orbit the Sun.


However, the results of the classic 1881 Michelson experiment show very clearly that the Earth does not rotate with respect to the spherical shell of ether.


The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136


Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2017, 11:48:59 PM »
Explain how the aether can be moving w.r.t. Earth and stationary w.r.t. Earth.
You have a very short memory.
This is what you wrote yesterday:
Can you explain how Earth is both stationary w.r.t. the aether and moving w.r.t. the aether?
I did provide an answer:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977609#msg1977609
No. You just provided a bunch of irrelevant crap and links to crap.

Your ignorance on the orbital Sagnac effect is irrelavent.
DEAL WITH THE OP OR SHUT UP!

If you want to discuss your ignorance of the orbital Sagnac effect and have your ass handed to you yet again, do so in the topic at this link:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.0

Here is not the place for it.

Here is the place to discuss how your magic aether can be moving w.r.t. Earth and stationary w.r.t. Earth.

If you can't answer that, then shut up.

(and if you start going off on tangents I will just ignore the rest of your post, assuming it to be more irrelevant BS).

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #70 on: October 30, 2017, 11:59:27 PM »
You just provided a bunch of irrelevant crap and links to crap.

Martin Ruderfer's classic experiment is a fact of science.

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

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


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


The Ruderfer experiment, one of the most important experiments in physics carried out in the 20th century, proves the existence of ether, if its hypotheses are fulfilled.


Faced with the Ruderfer experiment, the relativists resorted to one last stand, the MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory): the Earth rotates against the spherical shell of ether, while at the same time both the Earth and the ether orbit the Sun.


However, the results of the classic 1881 Michelson experiment show very clearly that the Earth does not rotate with respect to the spherical shell of ether.


The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128


Go ahead and mail YOUR piece of crap to the same scientific journals listed in my previous messages and see what kind of response you will receive.

Then and only then you can come back and express your opinion on the orbital Sagnac effect.

Until then you are going to have to shut the frell up.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2017, 12:02:06 AM »
Damn, Sandokhan looks like he is getting desperate by constantly posting and and mentioning me, or wait, is that normal for Sandokhan? Maybe.
Anyways, you posted a bunch of irrelevant stuff, so no dealing with it here.

You have resorted to using the T. Roberts paper which has already been debunked thoroughly by Dr. James DeMeo.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977156#msg1977156

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977157#msg1977157 (issues related to temperature)
Nope, the same exact repeated copy-paste doesn't make it any more true.

(skipping over more copy-paste irrelevance)

Quote
The orbital Sagnac effect is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.

altspace, now you are going to have to deal with the Ruderfer experiment.

So far you have failed to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
Which has been debunked, and irrelevant here.

Quote
altspace, it seems that your trying to make sense of curved space, has only warped your mind.

Now, I am going to rip into shredds your favorite subject: the spacetime continuum hoax.
Irrelevant again and has also been debunked, we can start another thread on it and watch that get refuted again, but not here. It's simply a distraction which I have had enough of.

Quote
I always provide proofs for my statements.

No you don't, you rely on hiding behind your mountains of dumps you constantly repeat here. It's called 'spam' when you do it over and over in the same thread and is irrelevant.

Quote
The links provided by altspace reveal the superficiality of his research, and the fake science he is so fond of.

According to a study done with telescopes observing radio waves bear the sun, the deflection of radio waves by the sun precisely, and it confirmed the general relativity prediction of bent space time to a high degree (within 0.03 %), here it is as published in the Astrophysical journal:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992

But the team of Kopeikin and Fomalont committed a huge error in a similar study.

Irrelevant again and I already addressed that before.


So, Sandokhan, EXPLAIN HOW YOUR EXAMPLES PROVIDE NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE MGP EXPERIMENT BY ASSUMING AETHER.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2017, 12:06:49 AM »
You just provided a bunch of irrelevant crap and links to crap.
Martin Ruderfer's classic experiment is a fact of science.
Which doesn't help you at all in the discussion at hand.
As such, it is a bunch of irrelevant crap.

If you really wanted to discuss it, it just helps disprove you.


Now then, CAN YOU PROVIDE A RATIONAL RESPONSE TO THAT? Or are you just capable of repeating the same ignorant crap because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?

However, the results of the classic 1881 Michelson experiment show very clearly that the Earth does not rotate with respect to the spherical shell of ether.
The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.
But the Sagnac effect and stellar aberration shows the opposite, that Earth MUST be moving w.r.t. the aether.

That is the issue you need to explain.
How can Earth be moving w.r.t. the aether but not moving w.r.t. the aether?
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!

Go ahead and mail YOUR piece of crap to the same scientific journals listed in my previous messages and see what kind of response you will receive.
I already told you the kind of response I will recieve. They will say who gives a shit as this already well established, it is not novel in any way and thus it does not merit publication.
Scientific journals don't just publish things because they are correct. If it is already well established there is no reason to publish it.
The scientific literature firmly agrees with me and shows you to be full of shit.

If you wish to appeal to the authority of science, it shows you are wrong.
So until you get your pathetic bullshit published in a journal it would be you that can't say anything here.
So do you really want to try using that standard?

Until then you are going to have to shut the frell up.
Like I said, you are the one that needs to justify your bullshit.
Until you can justify how Earth can be moving and stationary w.r.t. aether, it is you that needs to shut up.
You need to explain the contradictory experiments.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2017, 12:19:04 AM »
But the Sagnac effect and stellar aberration shows the opposite, that Earth MUST be moving w.r.t. the aether.

The orbital Sagnac effect is missing.

The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

The 1881 Michelson experiment proved the following:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

Then, it is the ether which rotates w.r.t. to the Earth.

See how easy it is?


I already told you the kind of response I will recieve. They will say who gives a shit as this already well established, it is not novel in any way and thus it does not merit publication.

But it is NOT well established.

Nobody in the scientific community gives a frell about your piece of shit analysis.

Here IS what is well established:

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one 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.


Mainstream science accepts that the orbital Sagnac is greater than the rotational Sagnac.

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978


Your view is the VERY OPPOSITE of what mainstream science accepts as well established science.

Go ahead and mail YOUR piece of crap to the same scientific journals listed in my previous messages and see what kind of response you will receive.

Then and only then you can come back and express your opinion on the orbital Sagnac effect.

Until then you are going to have to shut the frell up.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2017, 12:32:00 AM »
Which has been debunked, and irrelevant here.

But you have not debunked anything at all.

Let me refresh your memory.

I don't even have to calculate to know your "the sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation" is wrong. The orbital vs rotational sagnac has the same speed of light and same area enclosed by the path, the only think left is the angular velocity of the rotation and you get dt.

Then you have a poor understanding of physics, in particular you do not understand the Sagnac effect.

Let me explain.

The orbital Sagnac and the rotational Sagnac DO NOT and CANNOT have the same area enclosed by the path.

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

Here is the equation.

∆t = 4πRv / ( c˛ - v˛) = 4Aω / ( c˛ - v˛)

Where A = πR˛ 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 one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.

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.


Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one 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.


Here is how to correctly calculate the orbital Sagnac effect:

Earth's radius = 6357 km; r˛ = 40411449

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r˛ = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR˛ω/(c˛-v˛)
or

I use the linear velocity.

∆t = 4πRv/( c˛ - v˛ ), where v is the linear velocity.

For the earth's rotation, it is 0.4638333 km/ sec and the orbit v = 30km/sec.

∆t = 0.62831852628 for the earth's orbit.
Total path of the orbit is 2πr=2π(150,000,000 km) = 942,477,780km

Hence, the sagnac effect for a 1 km path, that means light source in the center and two receivers placed at .5km is:
0.62831852628 / 942,477,780km = 6.6666667 e-10 sec / km

Now, for the earth's rotation.
∆t = 4.1170061 e-7 seconds
Total path of the rotation is 2πr=2π(6357 km) = 39942.21 km


4.1170061 e-7 seconds / 39942.21 km = 1.0307407 e-11 sec / km


The sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation.



The orbital Sagnac, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered by GPS satellites.


So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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



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.



You do understand English, do you not?

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.

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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



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.


Irrelevant again and has also been debunked

You haven't debunked anything at all my friend:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977623#msg1977623


Irrelevant again and I already addressed that before.


So, Sandokhan, EXPLAIN HOW YOUR EXAMPLES PROVIDE NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE MGP EXPERIMENT BY ASSUMING AETHER.


BUT IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT THAT YOU PROVIDED LINKS WHICH LEAD TO FAKE SCIENCE.

YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT YOUR OWN LINKS CONTAINED.

HOW DO YOU EXPECT ANYBODY HERE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?

altspace showed that he has no knowledge of REAL SCIENCE.

This lensing effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general relativity.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/amp/

The title of the article is:

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Again, here are altspace's own words:

This lensing effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general relativity.

But BOTH the 1919 and the 1922 solar eclipses investigations WERE FAKED to promote Einstein.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

There can be no more clear definition of hoax than what went on in the Tropics back in May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.


But altspace informed his readers that: "...verifying the predictions of general relativity."


Next altspace confirmed that he has no real knowledge of the links he provides to his readers.

Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this by  comparing clocks of planes flying east and west and a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and found an inconsistency. These clocks were cesium beam atomic clocks. Here's where you can obtain the published paper on it:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/166

This is a confirmation of general relativity.

But Hafele and Keating FAKED THEIR ENTIRE SET OF DATA.

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

Dr. A.G. Kelly requested the actual test results that "gave figures that were radically altered from the published results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified."


altspace's own words:

Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this

This is a confirmation of general relativity.


FAKE SCIENCE, in altspace's view, becomes valid data.

Next he proceeded to inform his viewers of more links, this time using light isotropy tests.

How about instead of pointing to a few experiments, address all the others which get the same result, no aether wind.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..133.1221J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T

In the first paper, Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, the authors of the paper committed a grave omission, failing to take into account the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf

In the second paper, signed Trimmer and Baierlein, the authors made a horrendous error, subsequently having to withdraw their article.



And yet altspace told us that: "which get the same result, no aether wind."


YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE PAPERS YOU PROVIDED TO YOUR OWN READERS.

ONE OF THE PAPERS WAS WITHDRAWN AFTER THE AUTHORS REALIZED THAT IT CONTAINED A GROSS ERROR.

YET, YOU USED IT AS A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCE TO TRY TO FOOL YOUR READERS.


"To eliminate the effects of air, Michelson and Gale reassembled
the mile-long, one-foot-wide watermain pipe. The second abstract reads:
Experimental Test of Theory: Air was exhausted from a
twelve-inch pine line laid on the surface of the ground in the
form of a rectangle 2010 × 1113 feet. Light from a carbon arc
was divided at one corner by a thinly coated mirror into direct
and reflected beams, which were reflected around the rectangle
by mirrors at the corners. The two beams returning to the
original mirror produced interference fringes. The beam
traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction was
retarded. The observed displacement of the fringes was found
to be 0.230 ∀ .005, agreeing with the computed value 0.236 ∀
.002 within the limits of experimental error.

The tests were made on thirteen different days with a total of 269
observations, almost always with the same results. The lowest value for
the displacement in the fringes was 0.193 while the highest was 0.255
with the mean displacement coming in at 0.230. Thus, right before
Michelson’s own eyes, the 1913 Sagnac results were confirmed and his
1887 interpretation was put in question, as was Relativity. Here was
further proof, to the order of ten times the power of the Sagnac
experiment, that there is, indeed, an absolute space in which absolute
rotation occurs. Something was affecting the light in order for it to
consistently produce the fringe displacement.

Michelson-Gale detected the ether moving past the Earth’s
surface at 2% of the rotation speed. While the Michelson-Morley
experiment detected no heliocentric movement, the Michelson-Gale
experiment measured either the effect of the Earth’s rotation or the
ether’s rotation around the Earth.



Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2017, 12:32:53 AM »
The orbital Sagnac effect is missing.
Take that here and answer what JackBlack has asked of you: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.0


Now, do you got an answer to my OP here, or are you gonna refuse to answer and dump more spam?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2017, 12:35:33 AM »
But the Sagnac effect and stellar aberration shows the opposite, that Earth MUST be moving w.r.t. the aether.
The orbital Sagnac effect is missing.
No it's not (like I said, if you want to discuss it I made a thread just for that, which you seem to be too cowardly to comment in, is that because you know you are full of shit?), and that is irrelevant. The Sagnac effect is still observed and shows that Earth MUST be moving w.r.t. any aether that exists.
As such, you have a contradiction.

The 1881 Michelson experiment proved the following:
I know what it proved. It proved that Earth must be stationary w.r.t. the aether if it exists.
Again, this is a contradiction, something you need to explain.
Until you can explain that, your argument is moot.

Stop going off on rants of BS and deal with this FACT!!!

So I ask again:
How can Earth be moving and stationary w.r.t. the aether?
If you can't answer that, your aether model remains refuted BS.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #77 on: October 31, 2017, 12:40:12 AM »
Are you and jackblack alts of each other?

Tag team partners?

Take that here and answer what JackBlack has asked of you

Here is my answer:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977836#msg1977836



No it's not

Your piece of shit analysis has already been debunked.

Go ahead and mail your analysis to the journals listed above, and see what kind of response you will receive.

Mainstream science accepts a very different point of view.

All I have to do is to remind of this fact each and every time.

You owe to yourself to see how the peer reviewers will react to your piece of shit analysis.


Again, this is a contradiction, something you need to explain.

The orbital Sagnac effect is missing.

The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

The 1881 Michelson experiment proved the following:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

Then, it is the ether which rotates w.r.t. to the Earth.

See how easy it is?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #78 on: October 31, 2017, 12:59:56 AM »
altspace you need to understand something which should be painfully obvious to you.

Absolute BS and a lie

IT IS NOT DETECTABLE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE EARTH ORBITS THE SUN!


If you want anybody to look in your direction you are going to have to follow the SAME STEPS followed by Dr. C.C. Su.

His articles, which show that the orbital Sagnac is greater than the rotational Sagnac, have been published in some of the most prestigious journals in the world.

More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

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



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.


This is an established fact of science.

All I have to do is to remind of this each and every time the subject comes up.


If you disagree, then please mail/email your findings to the SAME JOURNALS LISTED ABOVE.


NO YOU DON'T, YOU USE ANGULAR VELOCITY!^

altspace, are you scientifically illiterate?

For a circular path of radius R, the formula: ∆t = 2vl/c2, where v = ω R is the speed of the circular motion and l=2πR is the circumference of the circle.


Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #79 on: October 31, 2017, 01:17:41 AM »
Here is my answer:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977836#msg1977836
Doesn't answer it at all, and like I said, DO IT OVER THERE!!! Not here!
Here is where you need to explain how something can be both stationary and moving w.r.t. something else.

Until you can do that you fail.

See how easy it is?
Yes, it is quite easy to contradict yourself and show yourself to be full of shit.

You have indicated that the aether needs to be stationary w.r.t. Earth, but also needs to rotate (i.e. move) w.r.t. Earth, an impossibility.

So do you have an answer for it yet?
if not, SHUT UP!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #80 on: October 31, 2017, 01:32:49 AM »
You have indicated that the aether needs to be stationary w.r.t. Earth, but also needs to rotate (i.e. move) w.r.t. Earth, an impossibility.

I have indicated NO SUCH THING.

The Earth together with the rotating field of ether is enclosed in a dome.

The ether field/subquark strings rotate WITHIN this enclosed space, above the flat surface of the Earth.


By the way jackblack...did you know that the solar gravitational potential IS NOT BEING RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES?


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20120800006_80885197.pdf (pg. 718-720, 744)

Another observation that also clearly conflicts with the
constancy and isotropy of the velocity of light was discovered
during the implementation and calibration of
set-ups for Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)
radio astronomy observations. The resolution of optical
and radio astronomy observations can be improved by
orders of magnitude by analyzing the data recorded in
different observatories over the earth surface using interferometric
methods. The condition is that these data be
synchronous. The method consists in superposing coherently
the data recorded in different observatories with the
help of computers taking into account the instantaneous
position of the antennas etc. For the (VLBI) radio astronomy
observations clock synchronization at intercontinental
distances via the GPS achieve 0.1 ns. Nevertheless,
on testing the so synchronized clocks by confronting
them with the arrival of the wave fronts from distant
pulsars, which according to the TR may be synchronous,
it was observed that the pulsar signal reaches the foregoing
side of Earth 4.2 μs before the rear side along the
orbital motion of Earth. This discrepancy exceeds
the time resolution by more than four orders of magnitude.
Nevertheless along the transverse direction the arrival
of the pulsar signal was synchronous. This apparent
discrepancy in the GPS clock synchronization is again
raising very hot debates about the nature of space. Some
people speak of scandalous clocks that are biased
along the Earth’s orbital motion, others see in these
facts definitive prove that the velocity of light along different
directions within the solar system is not the same.


Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed. This is the
well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.

In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS
works better than expected from the TR.



Obviously the gravitational
slowing of the atomic clocks on Earth cannot be due to
relative velocity because these clocks rest with respect to
the laboratory observer. What is immediately disturbing
here is that two completely distinct physical causes produce
identical effects, which by it alone is highly suspicious.
GR gives only a geometrical interpretation to the
gravitational time dilation. However, if motions cause
time dilation, why then does the orbital motion of Earth
suppress the time dilation caused by the solar gravitational
potential on the earthbased and GPS clocks? Absurdly
in one case motion causes time dilation and in the
other case it suppresses it. This contradiction lets evident
that what causes the gravitational time dilation is not the
gravitational potential and that moreover this time dilation
cannot be caused by a scalar quantity. If the time dilation
shown by the atomic clocks within the earthbased
laboratories is not due to the gravitational potential and
cannot be due to relative velocity too then it is necessarily
due to some other cause.
This impasse once more
puts in check the central idea of the TR, according to
which the relative velocity with respect to the observer is
the physical parameter that rules the effects of motions.
The above facts show that the parameter that rules the
effects of motions is not relative velocity but a velocity
of a more fundamental nature.


See also http://www.hrpub.org/download/20150510/UJPA2-18403649.pdf (pg. 147)


On the other hand, the time dilation effect of the solar
gravitational field on the atomic clocks orbiting with
Earth round the Sun, which is predicted by GR but not
observed, is a highly precise observation. It exceeds by
orders of magnitude the experimental precision and
hence is infinitely more reliable. If the orbital motion of
Earth round the Sun suppresses the time dilation due to
the solar gravitational field and moreover does not show
the predicted relativistic time dilation due to this orbital
motion, then it seems reasonable that a clock in a satellite
orbiting round the Earth in a direct equatorial orbit or in a
jet flying round the Earth too should give no evidence of
such a relativistic time dilation. The relativistic time dilation
alleged in both these round the world Sagnac experiments
is in clear and frontal contradiction with the
absence of such a relativistic time dilation effect in the
case of the orbiting Earth round the Sun.


The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

The 1881 Michelson experiment proved the following:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

Then, it is the ether which rotates w.r.t. to the Earth.

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #81 on: October 31, 2017, 01:36:43 AM »
You have indicated that the aether needs to be stationary w.r.t. Earth, but also needs to rotate (i.e. move) w.r.t. Earth, an impossibility.
I have indicated NO SUCH THING.
Oh really? Because this is what you said before:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.
Indicating Earth is at rest w.r.t. the aether.
If Earth was moving w.r.t. the aether, there would be a displacement.

Then, it is the ether which rotates w.r.t. to the Earth.
Indicating Earth is moving w.r.t. the aether.

Now quit with your irrelavent BS and focus on the topic at hand, how the aether is both stationary and moving w.r.t. Earth.

If you can't do that, shut up.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #82 on: October 31, 2017, 03:47:15 AM »
Oh really? Because this is what you said before:

You are not paying attention at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136

The 1881 Michelson experiment was designed SPECIFICALLY to test the 30 km/s speed associated with heliocentricity.

The first interferometer trial was in 1881. After Michelson drew up plans for the device and submitted them to a company in Berlin for construction, Alexander Graham Bell, famous for the invention of the telephone, provided the needed funds. Michelson had not met Edward Morley as yet and thus he worked alone. Lo and behold, when Michelson performed the experiment he did not see a significant shifting of fringes, at least not those he was expecting. Using a 600 nanometer wavelength of light, Michelson expected to see fringe shifts (or, as he called them, “displacement of the interference bands”) of at least 0.04 of a fringe width. The 0.04 figure corresponds to an Earth moving at 30 km/sec around the sun. If this was combined with what Michelson believed was the solar system’s apparent movement toward the constellation Hercules, the fringes should have shifted on the order of 0.10 of a fringe width. But Michelson didn’t see any fringe shifting close to either value.


NOTHING CLOSE TO THE 30KM/S AROUND THE SUN SPEED WAS DETECTED.

HOWEVER, THE EXPERIMENT DID DETECT THE ETHER DRIFT.

This prompted Michelson to declare:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

Unfortunately for the heliocentrists, Michelson only confirmed Airy’s results and, in the process, overturned the hypothesis of Fresnel and Fizeau, who claimed that the Earth moved through space at 30 km/sec and was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against a light beam pointed in the same direction, and which would thus decrease the speed of the light beam.

Michelson’s experiment, as he says himself, also overturned the idea that “the Earth moves through the ether.” On the surface, this is a rather amazing admission by Michelson. Perhaps he did not realize what he had said; nevertheless, there it is. He did not say that the ether did not exist; rather, he said Earth does not move through the ether. Fresnel had “presupposed” that the Earth moved at 30 km/sec through ether, but Michelson’s results said no. At this point Michelson was being very honest with his own results.


The 1881 experiment put to rest the idea that the Earth was moving against the ether.

However, it did detect the ether drift.

This means that it is the ether field above the surface of the Earth which rotates.


You conveniently failed to notice the fact that the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.

This alone proves that the Earth is stationary.


There was a displacement, but nothing close to the 30km/s value. Much closer to the value expected of an ether field which rotates above a stationary earth.

Read Michelson's own statement again.

Not the area of the orbit, the light path.

The area of the orbit IS the light path.

Please learn.

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.

The papers provided by me right here do agree with the fact that one must use the center of rotation which is the sun, for the orbital Sagnac.

Do you have any papers agreeing with you? None whatsoever right?

You owe it to yourself to mail your ideas on the subject TO THE SAME JOURNALS LISTED ABOVE, and see what kind of response you will receive.




I don't care, prove it to me

But you should care. You posted links to articles which included FAKE SCIENCE: one of the papers had to be withdrawn by the authors due to a huge error (as shown right on this page). But you don't care.

Walk me and others through it.

I have already done this plenty of times:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886058#msg1886058

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911899#msg1911899


Take that here and answer what JackBlack has asked of you

This has already been done, using the graphic provided by jack:

https://imgur.com/NEacN3P

Here is the total demolition of this piece of shit provided by jack:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977714#msg1977714




*

rabinoz

  • 19974
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #83 on: October 31, 2017, 03:49:12 AM »
For instance, GR predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth, of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time display, which would be recovered along the half of the orbit farthest from the Sun.
Incorrect!
Quote from: Neil Ashby, University of Colorado
The weak principle of equivalence finds expression in the presence of several sources of large gravitational frequency shifts. Also, because the earth and its satellites are in free fall, gravitational frequency shifts arising from the tidal potentials of the moon and sun are only a few parts in 1016 and can be neglected.

From: General relativity in the global positioning system, Neil Ashby, University of Colorado

Quote from: sandokhan
Such an oscillation exceeds the resolution of the measurements by more than two orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily observed.
Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed. This is the well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.

Really! I choose to believe Neil Ashby, University of Colorado over your Jacob Schaff

Quote from: sandokhan
In fact observations show that the rate of the atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS works better than expected from the TR.
Nope, the GPS works just as expected.

And you can look for a better source for your copy pasta than, The Nature of Space and of Gravitation, Jacob Schaff.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #84 on: October 31, 2017, 04:00:08 AM »
Neil Ashby has committed some huge errors in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The very fact that you chose to bring his ideas on the subject as a bibliographical reference speaks volumes of your catastrophic knowledge about what we are discussing here.

Please learn.


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf

It is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the
receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one
another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the
chosen frame of reference—in this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial
frame.

N. Ashby tried to make a similar claim.

Ashby’s claim is equivalent to the claim
found elsewhere [22] that the local frame rotates with the
orbit and that the sun’s differential gravitational potential
is canceled by “centripetal acceleration,” i.e. by the
differential velocity with respect to the sun. In other
words, it is claimed that the inertial frame indeed rotates
once per year. However, the GPS clocks clearly show
this argument is not valid. The orientation of the GPS
orbital planes does not rotate to maintain the same angle
with respect to the sun, so there is no differential velocity
orthogonal to the orbital plane. And there can be no
differential velocity within the orbital plane or else
Kepler’s laws would be violated. Thus, GPS clocks do not
suffer centripetal acceleration. Furthermore, if this
argument were correct, the differential gravitational
potential would be canceled in the sun’s frame as well.
The JPL reference document [7] and the Hill pulsar
document [19] clearly show that such a cancellation does
not occur.


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf

This is a paper which deals exclusively with the huge mistakes made by N. Ashby as they relate to the Sagnac effect and the solar gravitational potential. It was written by the greatest expert on GPS technology in the world, Ronald Hatch.

Here is another paper dealing with Ashby's errors:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf


The GPS satellites DO NOT register/record the solar gravitational potential at all, which means the Earth is stationary.



Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2017, 04:08:32 AM »
Oh really? Because this is what you said before:
You are not paying attention at all.
Nope, that would be you.
I have been paying attention all along. Although I am starting to ignore most of your crap now.

The 1881 Michelson experiment was designed SPECIFICALLY to test the 30 km/s speed associated with heliocentricity.
No, it was to test to see what the velocity of the aether was w.r.t. Earth, with them expecting the sun to be stationary and Earth to be moving through it.
It showed that the aether was not moving w.r.t. Earth.

There have seen been vast improvements all of which have failed to detect any anisotropy in the speed of light, i.e. which have failed to detect any linear motion w.r.t any aether.

HOWEVER, THE EXPERIMENT DID DETECT THE ETHER DRIFT.
No, it didn't.
Some people wanted to use aether drift as an excuse for why no motion was detected.
Regardless, this would indicate that Earth is stationary w.r.t. the aether.
Meanwhile you have another experiment indicating it is moving w.r.t. the aether.
These are direct contradictions.
The only way to remove the contradiction is to discard aether.

Unfortunately for the heliocentrists, Michelson only confirmed Airy’s results
Airy didn't get results. He got a complete failure with his method completely unable to determine what he wanted.
His test was also based upon the previously detected relative motion of the aether.
So no, these didn't confirm Airy's results, they contradicted them.
Airy's results indicate that Earth is moving w.r.t. the aether.
MM indicates it isn't.

That is not a confirmation. Do you understand what that word means?

Michelson’s experiment, as he says himself, also overturned the idea that “the Earth moves through the ether.”
Yes, that is correct. A proper analysis of all the experiments shows there is no aether for Earth to move through.

Perhaps he did not realize what he had said
He did. Perhaps what he didn't realise is that liars like you would try to blatantly manipulate their results to lie and pretend Earth is stationary.

You conveniently failed to notice the fact that the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.
Again, quit with the relevant BS. If you wish to discuss that do it in it's own thread, not here.

And as you have brought up irrelevant BS yet again, I will assume the rest of your post is the same.

I also see that you have gone to the other thread and are viewing the posts there, yet are too afraid to comment there because you know you can't address the OP at all and I will keep hounding you for it.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2017, 05:13:12 AM »
No, it was to test to see what the velocity of the aether was w.r.t. Earth

You don't even know what you are talking about.

The 1881 experiment was designed SPECIFICALLY  to detect if the Earth was moving
through ether.

Designed to measure Earth's velocity in the ether.


Lo and behold, when Michelson performed the experiment he did not see a significant shifting of fringes, at least not those he was expecting. Using a 600 nanometer wavelength of light, Michelson expected to see fringe shifts (or, as he called them, “displacement of the interference bands”) of at least 0.04 of a fringe width. The 0.04 figure corresponds to an Earth moving at 30 km/sec around the sun.

Michelson's own conclusion:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no
displacement of the interference bands. The result of the
hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect,
and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is
erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation
of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and
which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the
latter remaining at rest.

Very simple.

The Earth does NOT move through the ether. It is the ether which rotates above the Earth, and the displacement of the fringes recorded precisely this effect.


There have seen been vast improvements all of which have failed to detect any anisotropy in the speed of light, i.e. which have failed to detect any linear motion w.r.t any aether.

Go ahead and bring to the attention of your readers any such experiments.

I will debunk them in less than 15 seconds.

Meanwhile you have another experiment indicating it is moving w.r.t. the aether.

The Ruderfer experiment combined with the 1881 Michelson experiment tells us very clearly that the Earth is completely stationary and that it is the field of ether which rotates above a stationary Earth.


Airy didn't get results.

Let's put your word to the test.

Airy Experiment

George Airy belonged to the exclusive Astronomer Royal of England, thus he was a well-respected scientist and had quite a reputation and audience for his endeavors.

Airy had to figure out some way of determining whether the light from a star was affected by Earth’s supposed motion. Whereas Bradley used only one kind of telescope, Airy had the ingenious idea of using a second telescope filled with water. Since Arago/Fresnel/Fizeau had already shown that light’s speed was slowed by glass or water, Airy assumed that if a telescope was filled with water then the starlight coming through the water should be slower than it would be in air, and thus bend the starlight outward toward the upper side of the telescope and away from the eyepiece (just as we see light bent when we put a pencil in water). In order to compensate for the outward bending of the starlight, Airy assumed he would have to tilt his water-filled telescope just a little more toward the lower end of the star so that its light would hit his eyepiece directly rather than hitting the side of the telescope.

Although Airy had suspected the outcome prior to the actual experiment, indeed, he soon discovered that he was not required to tilt his water-filled telescope toward the star to any greater degree than his air-filled telescope. These results indicated that Earth wasn’t moving, since if there is no additional adjustment necessary for a water-filled telescope toward the direction of the starlight, it means the starlight is coming into both telescopes at the same angle and speed, that is, directly overhead. If Earth were moving, then a water-filled telescope would have to be titled toward the starlight a little more acutely than an airfilled telescope: in the heliocentric model, the Earth is moving sufficiently against the incidence of distant starlight upon it, and thus the water-filled telescope would not be able to catch all of the starlight in the slower medium of water. It would have to be titled slightly ahead of the air-filled telescope to make up for light’s slower speed in water.

In other words, if Earth were moving, it would be moving against the ether, and thus the ether wind, as it were, would be expected to push the starlight past the telescope. Airy showed that the ether was not pushing the starlight faster through one medium than the other since both of his telescopes could view the star from the same angle.

(from Galileo Was Wrong)

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871)

'Airy's failure' (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's 'speed around the sun'. Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120206194913/http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm


A proper analysis of all the experiments shows there is no aether for Earth to move through.

The Ruderfer experiment proves the existence of ether drift.


and I will keep hounding you for it.

You are the one who has been pounded to a pulp.

You posted A SECOND THREAD, using the same graphic:

https://imgur.com/NEacN3P

Here is the total demolition of this piece of shit provided by you:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977714#msg1977714


*

rabinoz

  • 19974
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #87 on: October 31, 2017, 05:41:31 AM »
Go ahead and bring to the attention of your readers any such experiments.

I will debunk them in less than 15 seconds.

I know it's only Wikipedia, but I couldnt be bothered chasing up better references.

You are allowed to spend 0nly half a second debunking each! Get onto it!
Though they, of course, include Michelson and Morley as well as Dayton Miller.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments

And from Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments


Just remember that small-minded ignorant people ridicule what they cannot understand,
While Oscar Wilde wrote, "I am not young enough to know everything."
And Einstein wrote,  "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
Have fun with your  ;D ;D ;D Preposterous Pepperoni Pizza Planet!  ;D ;D ;D


Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #89 on: October 31, 2017, 01:29:56 PM »
No, it was to test to see what the velocity of the aether was w.r.t. Earth
You don't even know what you are talking about.
The 1881 experiment was designed SPECIFICALLY  to detect if the Earth was moving
through ether.
Seems to match what I just said.

It detected no motion w.r.t. the aether.

This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.
Very simple.
Yes, very simple.
A direct contradiction which the aether model can't solve.

You need to explain how Earth is moving w.r.t. the aether (to explain stellar aberration and the Sagnac effect) while simultaneously being stationary w.r.t. the aether (to explain MM).

Now quit bitching around and explain how this happens.

The Earth does NOT move through the ether. It is the ether which rotates above the Earth, and the displacement of the fringes recorded precisely this effect.
It doesn't matter if you have Earth moving with the aether stationary, the aether moving with Earth stationary or both moving. They would both be relative motions which MM would detect.
This was not detected, indicating Earth was not moving w.r.t. the aether. That is what MM recorded.

It did not detect any motion of Earth w.r.t. the aether.

Go ahead and bring to the attention of your readers any such experiments.
There is already enough here for you to completely fail. Why would I try and distract the readers for your pathetic failure?

The Ruderfer experiment combined with the 1881 Michelson experiment tells us very clearly that the Earth is completely stationary and that it is the field of ether which rotates above a stationary Earth.
No, it doesn't.
MM shows that Earth IS NOT MOVING W.R.T. THE AETHER!!!
That means if Earth is at rest, so is the aether. It means that if the aether is moving, so is Earth.

Under the aether model, both were completely unable to determine Earth's absolute motion, just its motion through a hypothetical aether.

All MM did was show that Earth was not moving w.r.t. the aether.
Just like all Bradley and Airy and Sagnac did was show that Earth must be moving w.r.t. the aether (if it exists).
Neither demonstrated any absolute motion.

But together they produce a contradictory result. You have Earth both stationary and moving w.r.t. the aether, something no one has been able to explain while keeping the aether.
The only solution is to discard the aether and find an alternative (like relativity, in which all the results make sense).


Airy didn't get results.
Let's put your word to the test.
By results I clearly mean any useful result where he was able to improve upon the current understanding rather than having a fundamentally flawed experiment which wouldn't yield any useful information.

And sure, put it to the test, just don't go spouting a bunch of BS like you always do.

Airy had to figure out some way of determining whether the light from a star was affected by Earth’s supposed motion.
No. It was already well established by Bradley that if an aether existed, Earth was moving w.r.t. the aether. So it was already established that Earth had motion through the aether.

What Airy wanted to determine is if this motion was a moving Earth through a stationary aether, a stationary Earth with aether moving around it (which makes no sense due to the variation in the aberration) or a moving Earth through a moving aether.

Airy had the ingenious idea of using a second telescope filled with water.
You mean the completely stupid idea which has an impossible requirement.

You would need a telescope filled with a medium which interacted with light to slow light down, but which does not interact with light so that light can follow its previous course.

Notice the contradiction? (although you seem to be fine with them when it supports your BS)

This is why Airy's experiment was doomed to fail from the start.
The results would be the same regardless of if Earth was moving, the aether was moving, or both.

If Earth was moving, as the light entered the water, the water would interact with it and drag it along.

It wasn't a failure because it showed Earth was motionless. It was a failure because it was fundamentally flawed and didn't show anything.

So no, the "results" don't indicate anything, except that if an aether exists, Earth MUST be moving w.r.t. it, unlike the results of MM, which show the exact opposite.

So my words pass the test. (And I'm pretty sure we have had this discussion before)

Now stop just repeating the same refuted BS.

A proper analysis of all the experiments shows there is no aether for Earth to move through.
The Ruderfer experiment proves the existence of ether drift.
No it doesn't.

and I will keep hounding you for it.
You are the one who has been pounded to a pulp.
Nope.
I am one of the several that has been pounding you to a pulp.

You posted A SECOND THREAD, using the same graphic:
Nope. A different graphic this time, to make it easy to use the same interferometer for the rotation and orbit.

Here is the total demolition of this piece of shit provided by you:
You mean you bitching and moaning and being completely unable to refute a single thing?
You might want to learn what a total demolition is.

Bitching about the conclusion is not a total demolition. You need to show what is wrong with the derivation, something you are completely unable to do, and provide a derivation showing that the Sagnac effect is as you claim, again something you are completely unable to do. This is why I assume you are avoiding this other thread, because you know you can't refute it and need to rely on repeatedly spouting pathetic, refuted BS.

Grow up.