*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 / ( c² - v²) = 4Aω / ( c² - v²)

Where A = πR² and v = ωR

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

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

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htmMathpages 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, 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.**Here is how to correctly calculate the orbital Sagnac effect:

Earth's radius = 6357 km; r² = 40411449

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r² = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR²ω/(c²-v²)

or

I use the linear velocity.

∆t = 4πRv/( c² - v² ), 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.pdfFor 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, 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.**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.pdfFor 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.htmlhttp://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.htmlHOW 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.htmDr. 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..133.1221Jhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321TIn 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.pdfIn 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.