sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect

  • 308 Replies
  • 53153 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #210 on: February 06, 2018, 02:21:55 PM »
The Earth is stationary.

The GPS satellites do not register/record the orbital Sagnac effect which is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, as proven by the calculations done for the largest satellite of them all, the LISA space interferometer.

This means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

LISA is an interferometer. It rotates around the Earth. It is estimated to rotate together with the Earth around the Sun.

The GPS satellites are supposed to do exactly the very same thing.

But they are not recording the orbital Sagnac, even though it is much larger than the rotational Sagnac.

Which would be impossible, unless the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The calculation for LISA is extremely relevant.

It uses the VELOCITY and not the angular velocity, the orbital radius of the Earth (and not the rotational radius) to calculate the orbital Sagnac effect.

It proves that the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect.

Yet, the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 02:26:23 PM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #211 on: February 06, 2018, 02:52:10 PM »
The Earth is stationary.
It's so funny that you claim all those sources for your authority in your attempt to prove that the earth is stationary and flat.

But, those sources obviously base their findings on a heliocentric system.

So you Mr Sandokhan claim that all the scientists writing these learned papers are grossly wrong in their interpretation of all this data.

Just as Michelson, Morley, Gale, Dayton Miller and all the others you claim to rely on most certainly accepted the heliocentric model.
Jut look at one 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 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.

Aren't you even smart enough to see the total hypocrisy in your whole position? Or are you claiming that you are smarter than all these?


Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #212 on: February 06, 2018, 03:18:39 PM »
Strange all the experts discuss their knowledge here and not in main stream science.

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #213 on: February 06, 2018, 04:05:08 PM »
Let's remind everyone what I said in that message:
We know what you said.
A bunch of crap which in no way addresses the question that has been asked.

There is no "completely different situation" at all.
Is LISA an interferometer sitting on Earth rotating with Earth?
NO!
Hence it is a completely different situation.
My claim applied to an interferometer sitting on Earth, not a completely different one.

If you wish to discuss GPS satellites, then you need to use their orbital angular velocity around Earth, which is even faster than Earth's angular velocity which would make the "rotational" (i.e. orbit around Earth) Sagnac even greater compared to the alleged orbital (i.e. orbit around sun) Sagnac.

The chatbot just accepted defeat.
Total defeat.
Really?
You are accepting that you have been defeated?

If not, how about you try answering the question that has been repeatedly asked of you?
Why are you so afraid of doing so?

Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #214 on: February 06, 2018, 09:55:21 PM »
The rabbibot has a very short memory.

"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."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #215 on: February 06, 2018, 10:08:10 PM »
The jackbot has already accepted defeat.

You continually acting like the orbital contribution for LISA being greater than the rotational contribution for LISA

The orbital Sagnac is GREATER THAN the rotational Sagnac for the LISA satellite/space antenna.

This is true for each and every satellite orbiting the Earth.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

But the jackbot claimed otherwise, thus suggesting that the calculations done by NASA and ESA are BS:

With this formula directly indicating that the orbital sagnac effect will be 1/365 times that of the rotational one due to the significantly reduced value of ω.


How do the distinguished scientists at JPL/CalTech calculate the ORBITAL SAGNAC?


THEY USE THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).



http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.


The formula for the difference in path lengths is:

dp = 2ΩA/c (p = path length)

Then, the difference in time will be:

dt = 2dp/c


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).


This is how the best scientists in the world calculate the orbital Sagnac.


Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

The conclusion of the paper:

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.




FOR LISA, THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

THIS IS TRUE FOR EACH AND EVERY GPS SATELLITE ORBITING THE EARTH.

But the orbital Sagnac is missing, even though it is larger than the rotational Sagnac.

This is the reason why most relativists are switching over to the LOCAL ETHER MODEL.


The calculations for LISA can be applied immediately TO ANY SATELLITE IN ORBIT OR TO ANY LIGHT SIGNAL FROM A SATELLITE TO EARTH. Remember this? The ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded by the GPS satellites. This means that the Earth is stationary. The LISA calculations reveal that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times larger than the rotational Sagnac. The same calculations apply for the orbiting GPS satellites as well. But the orbital Sagnac is missing even though it is larger than the rotational Sagnac.


« Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 10:10:48 PM by sandokhan »

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #216 on: February 06, 2018, 10:30:47 PM »
The jackbot has already accepted defeat.
Again, no idea who this jackbot is that you are imagining.
But I certainly haven't accepted defeat.

And you cutting of quotes is just more pathetic dishonesty from you.

Now how about you try using your brain and answering the question:
Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?
We can't move on until you do.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #217 on: February 06, 2018, 11:29:54 PM »
The rabbibot has a very short memory.

"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.

But all of you references seem to written by scientists who are "heliocentrists".

So, you claim that all these are wrong and you and you alone know "the truth".

It's so funny that you can't come up with a workable model that doesn't assume a massive and totally unproven aether density.
This hypothetical aether seems able to slow radar reflections to slower than a car travels.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #218 on: February 06, 2018, 11:45:25 PM »
The jackbot has already accepted defeat.

You continually acting like the orbital contribution for LISA being greater than the rotational contribution for LISA

The orbital Sagnac is GREATER THAN the rotational Sagnac for the LISA satellite/space antenna.

This is true for each and every satellite orbiting the Earth.
Even if true, that's irrelevant. LISA is not a satellite orbiting the Earth.

Why do you repeatedly post exactly the same material? Why don't you just post a link to one of the other thousand copies?
Like this, orbital Sagnac is GREATER THAN the rotational Sagnac for the LISA satellite/space antenna.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #219 on: February 06, 2018, 11:59:24 PM »
But the LISA space antenna is orbiting the Earth.



Together, they orbit the Sun. This is the model for the LISA space project.


There are two orbiting motions.


The orbital Sagnac for the LISA satellite is calculated using THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).


This is true for each and every GPS satellite as well.


E.T. Whittaker has proven the existence of ether, the hidden substructure of the vector fields.

WHITTAKER STRUCTURE OF THE POTENTIAL THEORY

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

Mathematical proof published by E.T. Whittaker showing that gravitational field can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions; these scalar functions are comprised of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether).

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.


“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

"In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance."

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances."


The existence of this hidden structure was proven experimentally by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

“A new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with a remarkable and elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory.

In that year two physicists, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, conducted a seminal "electrodynamics" laboratory experiment ("Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory," The Physical Review, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 485-491; August, 1959). Aharonov and Bohm, almost 100 years after Maxwell first predicted their existence, succeeded in actually measuring the "hidden potential" of free space, lurking in Maxwell's original scalar quaternion equations. To do so, they had to cool the experiment to a mere 9 degrees above Absolute Zero, thus creating a total shielding around a superconducting magnetic ring [for a slightly different version of this same experiment; the oscillation of electrical resistance in the ring (bottom graph) is due to the changing electron "wave functions" -- triggered by the "hidden Maxwell scalar potential" created by the shielded magnet].



Once having successfully accomplished this non-trivial laboratory set up, they promptly observed an "impossible" phenomenon:

Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”

After the first precise experiment carried out by Tonomura and his team at Hitachi using electron holography followed by more experiments using superconducting shields, the Aharonov-Bohm effect is confirmed and that it is a genuine feature of the standard quantum mechanics.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #220 on: February 07, 2018, 12:08:27 AM »
The LISA "trio of satellites":

http://sci.esa.int/cosmic-vision/59243-gravitational-wave-mission-selected-planet-hunting-mission-moves-forward/

The LISA trio of satellites to detect gravitational waves from space has been selected as the third large-class mission in ESA's Science programme.

https://futurism.com/europes-space-program-will-launch-a-gravitational-wave-hunting-spacecraft-in-2034/

The trio of satellites will search for gravitational waves.

The project uses the satellite trio to create a huge triangle in space. The satellites form the corners and lasers bouncing across the 2.5 million kilometers (1.55 million miles) between them form its sides. The triangle itself will follow Earth as it orbits the Sun.

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #221 on: February 07, 2018, 01:03:51 AM »
But the LISA space antenna is orbiting the Earth.
No it isn't.
Stop lying.

You even admit that later:
The triangle itself will follow Earth as it orbits the Sun.

Stop with the lies, stop with the pathetic deflections.

Answer the question.

Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #222 on: February 07, 2018, 01:48:41 AM »
The LISA space antenna has two orbiting motions.

1. It is rotating around its own axis (rotational motion). Each arm has 5,000,000 km.

2. It is revolving around the Sun, together with the Earth (orbital motion).

The LISA "trio of satellites":

http://sci.esa.int/cosmic-vision/59243-gravitational-wave-mission-selected-planet-hunting-mission-moves-forward/

The LISA trio of satellites to detect gravitational waves from space has been selected as the third large-class mission in ESA's Science programme.

https://futurism.com/europes-space-program-will-launch-a-gravitational-wave-hunting-spacecraft-in-2034/

The trio of satellites will search for gravitational waves.

The project uses the satellite trio to create a huge triangle in space. The satellites form the corners and lasers bouncing across the 2.5 million kilometers (1.55 million miles) between them form its sides. The triangle itself will follow Earth as it orbits the Sun.


The orbital Sagnac effect is much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect for LISA.

How do the distinguished scientists at JPL/CalTech calculate the ORBITAL SAGNAC?


THEY USE THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).



http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.


The formula for the difference in path lengths is:

dp = 2ΩA/c (p = path length)

Then, the difference in time will be:

dt = 2dp/c


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).


This is how the best scientists in the world calculate the orbital Sagnac.


Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

The conclusion of the paper:

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


FOR LISA, THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

THIS IS TRUE FOR EACH AND EVERY GPS SATELLITE ORBITING THE EARTH.

But the orbital Sagnac is missing, even though it is larger than the rotational Sagnac.


The calculations for LISA can be applied immediately TO ANY SATELLITE IN ORBIT OR TO ANY LIGHT SIGNAL FROM A SATELLITE TO EARTH. Remember this? The ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded by the GPS satellites. This means that the Earth is stationary. The LISA calculations reveal that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times larger than the rotational Sagnac. The same calculations apply for the orbiting GPS satellites as well. But the orbital Sagnac is missing even though it is larger than the rotational Sagnac.


There is only one way out for the RE (other than becoming flat earth believers).

To adopt the local ether model.

Don't worry, you'd be in very good company: some of the greatest names in GPS technology applications have adopted the MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

The orbital Sagnac is missing.

The solar gravitational potential is missing also.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are totally fulfilled.

This is the last stand of the relativists: adopting the Lorentz relativity and the local ether model.

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #223 on: February 07, 2018, 02:07:00 AM »
Answer the question.

Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?

Every time you fail to answer it you show everyone that you do not care about the truth at all and that you have no shred of decency or integrity.

Answer the question or get lost.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #224 on: February 07, 2018, 02:16:12 AM »
There is nothing else to discuss here.

The jackbot has reached this conclusion, based on its failed analysis:

Thus comparing 2:
dto=k*wo
dtr=k*wr
And thus:
dto/dtr=k*wo/k*wr=wo/wo=1/365.

With this formula directly indicating that the orbital sagnac effect will be 1/365 times that of the rotational one due to the significantly reduced value of ω.



The figure put forth by the jackbot is: 1/365.

This is based entirely on its analysis.


Here are the calculations done by the greatest astrophysicists in the world today.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2019687#msg2019687

They figure they reach is: 30.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


The jackbot has got it wrong by a factor of 10,950.

But for a chatbot this constitutes no problem at all.

It has been programmed to say no, again and again.

This is also called trolling the upper forums.


The jackbot reached a catastrophically wrong answer, based on its analysis.


When confronted with the real facts and figures, it calls them BS.



The jackbot used only the angular velocity to calculate the orbital Sagnac.


How do the distinguished scientists at JPL/CalTech calculate the ORBITAL SAGNAC?


THEY USE THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).



http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.


The formula for the difference in path lengths is:

dp = 2ΩA/c (p = path length)

Then, the difference in time will be:

dt = 2dp/c


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #225 on: February 07, 2018, 02:25:52 AM »
There is nothing else to discuss here.
Yes, there is nothing else to discuss here other than the derivation provided in the OP.
So you continually posting other crap is spamming.

Now answer the question:

Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #226 on: February 07, 2018, 02:27:34 AM »
But the LISA space antenna is orbiting the Earth.
LISA does not orbit the earth!
Quote from: Stephen Clark
LISA Pathfinder on station a million miles from Earth
. . . . . . . . .
The propulsion package attached to the base of the LISA Pathfinder science module fired six times to propel the probe farther from Earth toward the L1 libration point about 1.5 million kilometers (932,000 miles) toward the sun.

A final 64-second maneuver by the spacecraft’s main engine Jan. 20 nudged LISA Pathfinder into a looping, halo-like orbit around L1, an imaginary point between the Earth and the sun where the gravitational pull from the two bodies balances, allowing a spacecraft to loiter there with occasional small corrections.

LISA Pathfinder needed only one of two prescribed burns to enter orbit at L1, and ground controllers programmed the spacecraft to jettison its engine module Friday.

From: LISA Pathfinder on station a million miles from Earth.

So LISA is not orbiting earth, but is orbiting the earth-sun L1 point.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #227 on: February 07, 2018, 02:37:21 AM »
LISA has two rotational motions.

1. It is rotating around its own axis (rotational motion). Each arm has 5,000,000 km.

2. It is revolving around the Sun, together with the Earth (orbital motion).


The SAME Sagnac formulas apply whether the LISA orbits right next to the Earth, or if a satellite orbits the Earth. Technically, LISA is orbiting the Earth, at a much larger distance from the surface than a regular satellite.

The very same formulas.


We have the rotational Sagnac for the rotational motion, and the orbital Sagnac for the orbital motion.


Does the rabbibot try to tell us that DIFFERENT FORMULAS WOULD BE USED?


I dare the jackbot and the rabbibot to say that different formulas would be used.


There is nothing else to discuss here.

The jackbot has been given ample space to promote its findings.


The jackbot has reached this conclusion, based on its failed analysis:

Thus comparing 2:
dto=k*wo
dtr=k*wr
And thus:
dto/dtr=k*wo/k*wr=wo/wo=1/365.

With this formula directly indicating that the orbital sagnac effect will be 1/365 times that of the rotational one due to the significantly reduced value of ω.



The figure put forth by the jackbot is: 1/365.

This is based entirely on its analysis.


Here are the calculations done by the greatest astrophysicists in the world today.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2019687#msg2019687

They figure they reach is: 30.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


The jackbot has got it wrong by a factor of 10,950.

But for a chatbot this constitutes no problem at all.

It has been programmed to say no, again and again.

This is also called trolling the upper forums.


The jackbot reached a catastrophically wrong answer, based on its analysis.


When confronted with the real facts and figures, it calls them BS.



The jackbot used only the angular velocity to calculate the orbital Sagnac.


How do the distinguished scientists at JPL/CalTech calculate the ORBITAL SAGNAC?


THEY USE THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).



http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.


The formula for the difference in path lengths is:

dp = 2ΩA/c (p = path length)

Then, the difference in time will be:

dt = 2dp/c


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #228 on: February 07, 2018, 02:43:36 AM »
Stop spamming the same shit and answer the question:

Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #229 on: February 07, 2018, 02:59:46 AM »
The jackbot has called the calculations done by JPL/CalTech and ESA as:

Stop spamming the same shit.


The jackbot reached a final figure based on his analysis:

With this formula directly indicating that the orbital sagnac effect will be 1/365 times that of the rotational one due to the significantly reduced value of ω.

The scientists at JPL/CalTech and ESA have proven it wrong.

There is nothing else to discuss here.


The jackbot reached a horrendously erroneous answer based on its own analysis, which was given ample space here.


Let us review now the correct calculations:

Here are the calculations done by the greatest astrophysicists in the world today.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2019687#msg2019687

They figure they reach is: 30.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The jackbot has got it wrong by a factor of 10,950.


If a rational human being would be faced with this kind of feedback, it would simply give up its argument, and move on.


But a chatbot cannot do that.


The jackbot gives us a figure of 1/365.


The scientists at JPL/CalTech and ESA have published a figure of 30.


One is incorrect, one is correct.


Obviously the correct figure is 30.


That is why there is nothing else to discuss here.


The jackbot used only the angular velocity to calculate the orbital Sagnac.


How do the distinguished scientists at JPL/CalTech calculate the ORBITAL SAGNAC?


THEY USE THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).

Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #230 on: February 07, 2018, 03:51:14 AM »
The jackbot has called the calculations done by JPL/CalTech and ESA as:

Stop spamming the same shit.
<< Why do you keep spamming these pages with the same material over and over? >>

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #231 on: February 07, 2018, 09:27:48 AM »
The jackbot has been demanding some feedback.

And as Earth's rotational motion (measured as angular velocity or ω) is 365 times as fast as Earth's orbital motion, that means the rotational sagnac effect will be 365 times that of the orbital sagnac effect.

Thus it is quite simple to see that the orbital Sagnac is much less than the rotational one due to the much lower angular velocity.

Please explain why Dr. Kelly measures the Sagnac according to the linear velocity and NOT the angular velocity of the loop.
Because they are a charlatan trying to claim special relativity is broken.

The jackbot is insisting that the orbital Sagnac is much lower than the rotational Sagnac due to a lower angular velocity.

But only the jackbot could have left the TWO DIFFERENT RADII OUT OF THE EQUATION.


The orbital Sagnac uses THE ORBITAL RADIUS: R = 150,000,000 KM.

The rotational Sagnac uses the ROTATIONAL RADIUS: r = 6,400 km.


Let us put now the jackbot's word to a real test.


How do the distinguished scientists at JPL/CalTech calculate the ORBITAL SAGNAC?


THEY USE THE LINEAR VELOCITY AND THE ORBITAL RADIUS (R = 150,000,000 KM).



http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).


This is how the best scientists in the world calculate the orbital Sagnac



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

The conclusion of the paper:

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



The original arm length for LISA: 5,000,000 km (L)

Earth - Sun radius: 150,000,000 km (R)

ORBITAL SAGNAC/ROTATIONAL SAGNAC =~ R/L = 30


This is the only feedback that a stupendously erroneous "analysis" signed the jackbot, is going to get.


« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 09:29:50 AM by sandokhan »

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #232 on: February 07, 2018, 12:46:27 PM »
The jackbot has called the calculations done by JPL/CalTech and ESA as:
Again, stop lying.
I am saying nothing about them as we have not dealt with prior stuff first.
Once we have gone through the above derivation for an interferometer ON EARTH!!! we can move on to other systems.

Now answer the question:
Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θo(R22 - R12)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θo(R22 - R12)

Yes or no?

If you were attempting this in any physical location at a physical debate you would be expelled from the premises for refusing to debate.

Now answer the question or get lost.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #233 on: February 07, 2018, 01:24:00 PM »
The interferometer "here on Earth" cannot have TWO SETS OF RADII.

That's right. For a given loop, A=A.
For the rotation we have wr, for the orbit we have wo.

∆t=4*A*w/c^2

Thus ∆to=4A*wo/c^2
and ∆tr=4A*wr/c^2.
Comparing the 2:
∆to/∆tr=(4A*wo/c^2)/(4A*wr/c^2)=wo/wr.
Thus it is quite simple to see that the orbital Sagnac is much less than the rotational one due to the much lower angular velocity.

Once again, if you use different loops, your comparison is meaningless.



So the jackbot wants a debate.


Can everybody see what it is doing?


The bot has THE SAME AREA for BOTH the orbital and rotational Sagnac evaluations.


The orbital Sagnac has radii, R1 and R2.

The rotational Sagnac has radii, r1 and r2.


But for the chatbot this does not represent a problem at all.


Let us see what happens if indeed A = A for the two Sagnac effects.


θo = angle subtended by the two radii, R2 and R1 = orbital angle

s2 = R2 x θo

s1 = R1 x θo


θr = angle subtended by the two radii, r2 and r1 = rotational angle

s2 = r2 x θr

s1 = r1 x θr


R2 - R1 = r2 - r1

r2 x θr = R2 x θo

r1 x θr = R1 x θo

r2/r1 = R2/R1

(r2 x R1) = (r1 x R2)

Since the two areas must be equal,

r1/R1 = (r2 + r1)/(R2 + R1)



Right away, one runs into huge problems with this scenario.

R2 = r2 - r1 + R1

(r2 x R1) = r1r2 - r12 + (R1 x r1)

r2(R1 - r1) = r1(R1 - r1)

So we end up with: r2 = r1, which is impossible.


Therefore, one cannot use the TWO SETS OF RADII FOR THE SAME AREA to evaluate two different Sagnac effects, which use different radii.


That is, the following comparison is invalid:

Thus ∆to=4A*wo/c^2
and ∆tr=4A*wr/c^2.
Comparing the 2:
∆to/∆tr=(4A*wo/c^2)/(4A*wr/c^2)=wo/wr.
Thus it is quite simple to see that the orbital Sagnac is much less than the rotational one due to the much lower angular velocity.



A reminder for the jackbot:

In the real world, you'd be shown the door in no time at all, if you tried to pull this kind of garbage in the scientific community.


The proper radii have to be used for each Sagnac effect, then and only then, a comparison can be made.


∆to=4A*wo/c^2, where the area is (alpha/2)*(R2^2-R1^2)

By contrast,

∆tr=4A*wr/c^2, where the area now features the term: (r2^2-r1^2)


The ratio will involve TWO LINEAR VELOCITIES AND TWO SETS OF DIFFERENT RADII, and not two angular velocities.


This is exactly how JPL/CalTech and ESA have calculated the orbital and the rotational Sagnac.


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).


Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

The conclusion of the paper:

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 01:26:33 PM by sandokhan »

Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #234 on: February 07, 2018, 01:36:15 PM »
The interferometer "here on Earth" cannot have TWO SETS OF RADII.

That's right. For a given loop, A=A.
For the rotation we have wr, for the orbit we have wo.

∆t=4*A*w/c^2

Thus ∆to=4A*wo/c^2
and ∆tr=4A*wr/c^2.
Comparing the 2:
∆to/∆tr=(4A*wo/c^2)/(4A*wr/c^2)=wo/wr.
Thus it is quite simple to see that the orbital Sagnac is much less than the rotational one due to the much lower angular velocity.

Once again, if you use different loops, your comparison is meaningless.



So the jackbot wants a debate.


Can everybody see what it is doing?


The bot has THE SAME AREA for BOTH the orbital and rotational Sagnac evaluations.


The orbital Sagnac has radii, R1 and R2.

The rotational Sagnac has radii, r1 and r2.


But for the chatbot this does not represent a problem at all.


Let us see what happens if indeed A = A for the two Sagnac effects.


θo = angle subtended by the two radii, R2 and R1 = orbital angle

s2 = R2 x θo

s1 = R1 x θo


θr = angle subtended by the two radii, r2 and r1 = rotational angle

s2 = r2 x θr

s1 = r1 x θr


R2 - R1 = r2 - r1

r2 x θr = R2 x θo

r1 x θr = R1 x θo

r2/r1 = R2/R1

(r2 x R1) = (r1 x R2)

Since the two areas must be equal,

r1/R1 = (r2 + r1)/(R2 + R1)



Right away, one runs into huge problems with this scenario.

R2 = r2 - r1 + R1

(r2 x R1) = r1r2 - r12 + (R1 x r1)

r2(R1 - r1) = r1(R1 - r1)

So we end up with: r2 = r1, which is impossible.


Therefore, one cannot use the TWO SETS OF RADII FOR THE SAME AREA to evaluate two different Sagnac effects, which use different radii.


That is, the following comparison is invalid:

Thus ∆to=4A*wo/c^2
and ∆tr=4A*wr/c^2.
Comparing the 2:
∆to/∆tr=(4A*wo/c^2)/(4A*wr/c^2)=wo/wr.
Thus it is quite simple to see that the orbital Sagnac is much less than the rotational one due to the much lower angular velocity.



A reminder for the jackbot:

In the real world, you'd be shown the door in no time at all, if you tried to pull this kind of garbage in the scientific community.


The proper radii have to be used for each Sagnac effect, then and only then, a comparison can be made.


∆to=4A*wo/c^2, where the area is (alpha/2)*(R2^2-R1^2)

By contrast,

∆tr=4A*wr/c^2, where the area now features the term: (r2^2-r1^2)


The ratio will involve TWO LINEAR VELOCITIES AND TWO SETS OF DIFFERENT RADII, and not two angular velocities.


This is exactly how JPL/CalTech and ESA have calculated the orbital and the rotational Sagnac.


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist


Time Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft Arrays

Massimo Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


The formula is 2VL/c.


The linear velocity is being used, and not the angular velocity.

The orbital radius is being used (R = 150,000,000 km) in the equation for the linear velocity, and not the rotational radius (R = 5,000,000 km for LISA).


Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

The conclusion of the paper:

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.
So far what I see him doing is asking a direct question that you refuse to answer directly.
That's a common theme among many flat earthers

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #235 on: February 07, 2018, 01:44:01 PM »
Questions for badxtoss:

Is using THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects a valid mathematical operation?

Your pal the jackbot is directly contradicted by the calculations published by JPL/CalTech and ESA.

Whom do you agree with? With the jackbot or with real scientists?

PS For your information, I answered its question a long time ago.

Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #236 on: February 07, 2018, 01:48:40 PM »
Questions for badxtoss:

Is using THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects a valid mathematical operation?

Your pal the jackbot is directly contradicted by the calculations published by JPL/CalTech and ESA.

Whom do you agree with? With the jackbot or with real scientists?

PS For your information, I answered its question a long time ago.
Question for sandy.  Are you going to answer his simple yes or no question?
I recall asking a simple question as well.  I asked multiple times.  You spammed pages of stuff but never answered, if I recall correctly.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #237 on: February 07, 2018, 02:03:59 PM »
Badxtoss, do you want to be remembered as the dork who agreed with a chatbot that used THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects as a valid mathematical operation?

Are you scientifically illiterate?

Answer the question.

Is using THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects a valid mathematical operation?

If you do agree with the jackbot, then what you are saying is that the calculations published by CalTech and ESA are wrong.

Please come to your senses, and realize that your pal the chatbot has committed some of the most grievious errors ever posted on this forum.


Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #238 on: February 07, 2018, 02:46:08 PM »
Badxtoss, do you want to be remembered as the dork who agreed with a chatbot that used THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects as a valid mathematical operation?

Are you scientifically illiterate?

Answer the question.

Is using THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects a valid mathematical operation?

If you do agree with the jackbot, then what you are saying is that the calculations published by CalTech and ESA are wrong.

Please come to your senses, and realize that your pal the chatbot has committed some of the most grievious errors ever posted on this forum.
I've neither agreed nor disagreed on this particular topic.  I simply pointed out that over many pages you have run away from answer a direct, simple question with a direct simple answer.  Do you want to be known as the guy who runs away from simple questions?

*

JackBlack

  • 21715
Re: sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« Reply #239 on: February 07, 2018, 03:36:21 PM »
Is using THE SAME AREA for two different sets of radii representing two different Sagnac effects a valid mathematical operation?
Considering the references you have provided have indicated the shape does not matter and it is only the area that is important, YES!
Considering the difference in the 2 is so insignificant you wouldn't even be able to construct them differently, and I stated it was done as an approximation to simplify the math, YES!

If you would prefer to do the more complex math for a rectangular interferometer, go ahead.
I thought I had provided some steps before, but I can't find it.
I can get out the book I did the derivation in and post it for you if you like.

PS For your information, I answered its question a long time ago.
Where?
Did you hide it among mountains of BS?