sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect

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

Yes or no?

Until you answer I will continue asking it.

A summary for all of the readers.



Here is the original presentation made by the chatbot:

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

But this analysis applies ONLY to the orbital Sagnac.

For the rotational Sagnac, the graphic showing the annular sector of a circle would have to be rotated by 180 degrees, using the r1 and r2 radii.

R1 and R2 are estimated to have about 150,000,000 km (the orbital Sagnac).

r1 and r2 are estimated to have about 6,400 km (the rotational Sagnac).

So, even before we even start to decipher this failed analysis, we need TWO INTERFEROMETERS, one for the orbital Sagnac, and one for the rotational Sagnac.

The analysis cannot be applied to a single interferometer.

And yet, this is exactly what the chatbot did.

Thus the area between them is:
A=alpha*R22/2-alpha*R12/2
=alpha*(R22-R12)/2
Thus 2*A=alpha*(R22-R12).

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

Here is the final fulminant posting that announced to the world the hare brained analysis of the chatbot:

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

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

THE CHATBOT USED THE VERY SAME INTERFEROMETER FOR BOTH SITUATIONS: dto uses the R1 and R2 radii while dtr has to use the r1 and r2 radii.


This is the crucial, catastrophic, monumental error made by the chatbot.


Only a chatbot could have made such a humongous mistake.


No understanding whatsoever of the forces involved.


Since the chatbot used the VERY SAME INTERFEROMETER for both the orbital and the rotational Sagnac, while substituting the area from one to the other, without paying attention to the fact that we have TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RADII to deal with, I immediately used these facts to provide this very simple proof:

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.


That is, the scenario provided by the chatbot will lead to a glaring contradiction from the very start.

Of course, a chatbot will not be stopped by rational arguments.

It will repeat ad nauseam the very same stupid analysis, having no understanding of the facts.


The conclusion reached by the chatbot, based on its horrendous "analysis", was the figure 1/365.


Here are the very best scientists from NASA and ESA providing the CORRECT calculations for both the orbital and the rotational Sagnac effects.


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 is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ



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.


These are the calculations for the difference in lightpaths.


Now, the calculation for the ratio of the orbital/rotational Sagnac effects.



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




In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

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 computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.





A total victory for the FE.


Yet, the chatbot will not give up on its silly arguments which lead to a catastrophic final result.


The figure published by the official team of the LISA project, NASA and ESA, is 60.

The chatbot arrived at a value of 1/365.

That is by how much the chatbot went wrong, by a magnitude to 10,950.


QUESTION FOR THE MODERATORS: how much longer will this be allowed to go on?

The chatbot is denying now the NASA and the ESA calculations made for the biggest project ever, THE LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

It is denying reality.

This is called TROLLING.

I even went to the lengths of showing the chatbot where it went wrong.

To no avail.

This no longer just a disagreement.

The chatbot has been provided with the calculations made by NASA and ESA scientists, which show the monumental errors it made in its failed analysis.

A clear victory for FE.

The chatbot comes back ad nauseam using the very same failed arguments to argue its failed case.

It does not realize it has lost the debate, so it continues to troll the upper forums.

So, it is the moderators' job, not to mention the admin's responsability, to step in and inform the chatbot of the reality of the situation.

The cost for the LISA project runs into the billions of dollars.

As such, both NASA and ESA had to know ahead of time each and every detail relating to the orbital mechanics.

Some of the very best astrophysicists were called upon to provide the calculations for the space interferometer.

These findings were published in the best physics journals and also on the official ESA/US Naval Observatory pages.





JPL/CalTech calculated the difference for the path of the light signals for BOTH the rotational and the orbital Sagnac:


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.



Why then is the chatbot allowed to deny these calculations?



The calculations of Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac 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.



By contrast here is the conclusion reached by the chatbot, based on its hare brained analysis, where it substituted the area used in a formula featuring R1 and R2 for area in a formula involving r1 and r2:

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 chatbot is denying the NASA and ESA calculations.

Is this not trolling at its best?

Why is this kind of situation allowed to go on the upper forums?

Sandy, you have said all that BS before.

Now how about you answer the question so we can move on?
Do you accept that the area of an annular sector is given by:
A=θ_o(R₂² - R₁²)/2
or equally that the following equation holds:
2A=θ_o(R₂² - R₁²)

Yes or no?

Until you answer I will continue asking it.

The chatbot has just called the calculations/papers published by NASA/ESA/JPL/US Naval Observatory as BS.

Good to know.

Question for the moderators: how long will this chatbot's trolling be allowed here?

The RE should understand the dangers inherent in the jackbot's and the rabbibot's indictments of NASA and ESA.

You have said all that BS before.

All the FE have to do now is to REJECT each and every claim made by NASA or ESA (present, past or future).

So that everyone can understand: the chatbots have called the most involved calculations ever done by NASA and ESA as total BS.

The RE chatbots reject out of hand the papers published by JPL/CalTech and ESA.

They say that the calculations for the orbital Sagnac for the LISA project are BS.

Then, EVERYTHING ABOUT NASA and ESA is BS: from the Apollo missions, to the space shuttle missions, to each and every space probe, each and every image purporting to show the Earth in outer space.

If the RE are calling the LISA calculations BS, then there is nothing else to debate on this forum, a total victory for the FE.

The jackbot has claimed a figure of 1/365.

The NASA and ESA scientists, the best the RE have to offer, have published a figure of 30.

If the RE keep quiet, then they agree with the figure of 1/365, which goes against the papers published by both NASA and ESA.

Moreover, they do agree with the jackbot that the claims made by NASA and ESA are BS (the jackbot's own wording).

If the RE themselves reject the NASA and ESA papers/calculations, then there is nothing left for them to do here.

The RE should understand the dangers inherent in the jackbot's and the rabbibot's indictments of NASA and ESA.

All the FE have to do now is to REJECT each and every claim made by NASA or ESA (present, past or future).

So that everyone can understand: the chatbots have called the most involved calculations ever done by NASA and ESA as total BS.

The RE chatbots reject out of hand the papers published by JPL/CalTech and ESA.

They say that the calculations for the orbital Sagnac for the LISA project are BS.

Then, EVERYTHING ABOUT NASA AND ESA IS BS: from the Apollo missions, to the space shuttle missions, to each and every space probe, each and every image purporting to show the Earth in outer space.

If the RE are calling the LISA calculations BS, then there is nothing else to debate on this forum, a total victory for the FE.

The jackbot has claimed a figure of 1/365.

The NASA and ESA scientists, the best the RE have to offer, have published a figure of 30.

If the RE keep quiet, then they agree with the figure of 1/365, which goes against the papers published by both NASA and ESA.

Moreover, these claims made by NASA and ESA are BS (the jackbot's own wording).

If the RE themselves reject the NASA and ESA claims, then there is nothing left for them to do here.

But that's what FE ers have always done, reject everything NASA claims.  Mind you they require little or no evidence to reject NASA findings, they just reject them because it doesn't fit their world view.

It doesn't take a genius to find out how the Apollo missions were faked.

Do you really think for a second that the REAL space program would have been revealed to the press or to the public? Nasa had secret programs which it hid from the public's view.

It is one thing to reject details about the space missions which can be proven to be fake, and quite another thing to reject the CALCULATIONS published by mainstream journals.

Both the jackbot and the rabbibot are now calling the calculations done for the LISA project as BS.

That is, the best astrophysicists from JPL/CalTech and ESA have published BS calculations according to the jackbot.

So, this is the danger inherent in this kind of approach where now the RE themselves are calling the mathematical proofs published by NASA and ESA as BS.

Then, everything else is BS: the calculations for the LISA were the most difficult and involved ever undertaken.

And all of this, for a chatbot which substituted an area from a formula which highlights R1 and R2 as radii, to an area from a formula which features r1 and r2. A chatbot has no idea of the magnitude of the forces or of the physical characteristics of the example at hand, all it knows is how to deny.

Let us see now exactly and precisely what the jackbot and the rabbibot are calling BS.

You have said all that BS before.

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

See also: Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis for orbiting LISA

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.102003



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

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website

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



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


These distinguished scientists have published papers which reveal that the orbital Sagnac is 30 TIMES larger than the rotational Sagnac.

The jackbot and the rabbibot are calling these proofs as BS.

That is, the following calculations are BS:

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.




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



"In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."

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


There is only one way out for the RE: to accept the validity of these calculations, and realize they need a local ether model.

It doesn't take a genius to find out how the Apollo missions were faked.

Do you really think for a second that the REAL space program would have been revealed to the press or to the public? Nasa had secret programs which it hid from the public's view.

It is one thing to reject details about the space missions which can be proven to be fake, and quite another thing to reject the CALCULATIONS published by mainstream journals.

Both the jackbot and the rabbibot are now calling the calculations done for the LISA project as BS.

That is, the best astrophysicists from JPL/CalTech and ESA have published BS calculations according to the jackbot.

So, this is the danger inherent in this kind of approach where now the RE themselves are calling the mathematical proofs published by NASA and ESA as BS.

Then, everything else is BS: the calculations for the LISA were the most difficult and involved ever undertaken.

And all of this, for a chatbot which substituted an area from a formula which highlights R1 and R2 as radii, to an area from a formula which features r1 and r2. A chatbot has no idea of the magnitude of the forces or of the physical characteristics of the example at hand, all it knows is how to deny.

If only you guys would post some actual evidence of said fakery.

If only you guys would post some actual evidence of said fakery.

Not needed anymore.

Your friends, the jackbot and the rabbibot, have just declared that the mathematics employed by NASA and by ESA for the LISA project is BS.

Everything published by the JPL/CalTech and ESA on the subject is BS.

Then, ANYTHING published or claimed by NASA is BS (present, past, or future).

If only you guys would post some actual evidence of said fakery.

Not needed anymore.

Your friends, the jackbot and the rabbibot, have just declared that the mathematics employed by NASA and by ESA for the LISA project is BS.

Everything published by the JPL/CalTech and ESA on the subject is BS.

Then, ANYTHING published or claimed by NASA is BS (present, past, or future).

Yah, still gonna need that evidence.

Nope.

LISA is the most sophisticated and advanced space project ever undertaken by both NASA and ESA.

It requires state of the art mathematics and orbital mechanics.

More advanced than that required for the Apollo/space shuttle/space probes missions.

But now the RE are saying outright that the mathematics employed for the LISA space antenna is BS.

Then, the mathematics used for all of the other space missions is BS as well.

This, courtesy of your friends, the jackbot and the rabbibot.

Nope.

LISA is the most sophisticated and advanced space project ever undertaken by both NASA and ESA.

It requires state of the art mathematics and orbital mechanics.

More advanced than that required for the Apollo/space shuttle/space probes missions.

But now the RE are saying outright that the mathematics employed for the LISA space antenna is BS.

Then, the mathematics used for all of the other space missions is BS as well.

This, courtesy of your friends, the jackbot and the rabbibot.

Not to speak for anyone but I feel like what they are saying is your interpretation is BS.
So, yeah, still need some actual evidence.

Nope.

Here is the offending message which got the BS call:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2019507#msg2019507

Here is the claim made by the chatbot:

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.

Here is the statement from the paper published by the ESA team of scientists:

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.



No interpretation on my part at all.

This means that the chatbot got it wrong by a figure amounting to 10,950 (30/(1/365)).

Moreover, the refusal to accept defeat means that the chatbot is forced to deny the calculations made at JPL/CalTech and at ESA regarding he LISA project.

Lol the jackbot messed up bad when it did the old switcheroo on them area terms....

Cos this is the worst disaster for the REtards I've ever seen here.

Terminal, in fact, for anyone with a brain...

Question for the moderators: how long will this chatbot's trolling be allowed here?

You are the one trolling here, not me.
You are the one that has repeatedly ignored refutations and just repeated the same BS again and again.

You are the one that repeatedly refuses to engage in a simple linear debate, going over each point one by one.
It is as if you know you are full of shit and all you can do is repeatedly spam crap as you cannot honestly and rationally defend your claims.

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

Yes or no?

If you were interested in an honest debate you would have answered this by now.

One thing I will respond to:

Your friends, the jackbot and the rabbibot, have just declared that the mathematics employed by NASA and by ESA for the LISA project is BS.

This is yet another lie from you.
I'm not calling their calculations BS.
I am calling your dishonest representation and use of them BS.
That is a very big difference.

Lol the jackbot messed up bad when it did the old switcheroo on them area terms....

Cos this is the worst disaster for the REtards I've ever seen here.

Terminal, in fact, for anyone with a brain...

If you wish to join the debate, do so honestly.
If you wish to troll and lie, fuck off.

This is just a colossal disaster for Sandy, not for the REers.

My derivation remains correct.
It shows that the shift is proportional to the area times the angular velocity.

Several of Sandy's links already state that the shape is irrelevant, and it is the area that is important.

But I noted that it is an approximation, based upon approximating a rectangle as an annular sector to simplify the math.
The math for the rectangle is much more complex. If you would like to give it a go you are more than welcome to.

But the simple fact is, this simple math, along with observations from reality (which also show that the shape is irrelevant) show it is the area and angular velocity that matters.
Sandokhan's claim that the orbital Sagnac should be much larger for an Earth based interferometer, is completely unsubstantiated.
So far all he has done is provide completely different situations. He is yet to provide any honest derivation for the simplest Sagnac case, a loop interferometer.
Instead he had repeatedly tried to substitute in the area of the orbit of Earth which would require an interferometer which is the size of the orbit of Earth, making it a completely invalid comparison to a small interferometer on Earth (or one the size of Earth like he was trying to make).

So no, no disaster for the REers, just a colossal failure for Sandy, showing everyone his complete inability to rationally and honestly defend his claims.

He can't even answer a simple question.

Perhaps you can answer it?

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

Yes or no?

Although I suppose before that I should ask you if you agree with the derivation up to that point, i.e.:
dt = t₁ - t₂ = 2θ_oω_o(R₂² - R₁²)/c²
?

Nope.

Here is the offending message which got the BS call:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2019507#msg2019507

Here is the claim made by the chatbot:

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.

Here is the statement from the paper published by the ESA team of scientists:

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.



No interpretation on my part at all.

This means that the chatbot got it wrong by a figure amounting to 10,950 (30/(1/365)).

Moreover, the refusal to accept defeat means that the chatbot is forced to deny the calculations made at JPL/CalTech and at ESA regarding he LISA project.

Yeah, none of that is evidence NASA lies or faked its flights.

But the jackbot is calling the NASA and ESA calculations as BS. Having seen badxtoss's message, it picked up from the air the idea that now it did not call the calculations as BS, only my interpretation.

There is no interpretation on my part at all.

Here are the numbers.

Here is the claim made by the chatbot:

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.

Here is the statement from the paper published by the ESA team of scientists:

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.



No interpretation on my part at all.

This means that the chatbot got it wrong by a figure amounting to 10,950 (30/(1/365)).

Moreover, the refusal to accept defeat means that the chatbot is forced to deny the calculations made at JPL/CalTech and at ESA regarding he LISA project.


Can this jackbot read straight?


Here are the calculations published by ESA:



In case the jackbot needs a pair of glasses, I am even going to increase the font size.

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


Obviously, if the jackbot continues to rave that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac, THEN THIS IS CALLING THE NASA AND ESA CALCULATIONS AS BS, isn't it?


The jackbot has to accept defeat.




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


The jackbot's "analysis" is PURE BS.

It made an error of the magnitude of 10,950 (30/(1/365)).

A total disaster for the RE, courtesy of the jackbot.

But the jackbot is calling the NASA and ESA calculations as BS. Having seen badxtoss's message, it picked up from the air the idea that now it did not call the calculations as BS, only my interpretation.

There is no interpretation on my part at all.

Here are the numbers.

Here is the claim made by the chatbot:

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.

Here is the statement from the paper published by the ESA team of scientists:

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.



No interpretation on my part at all.

This means that the chatbot got it wrong by a figure amounting to 10,950 (30/(1/365)).

Moreover, the refusal to accept defeat means that the chatbot is forced to deny the calculations made at JPL/CalTech and at ESA regarding he LISA project.


Can this jackbot read straight?


Here are the calculations published by ESA:



In case the jackbot needs a pair of glasses, I am even going to increase the font size.

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


Obviously, if the jackbot continues to rave that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac, THEN THIS IS CALLING THE NASA AND ESA CALCULATIONS AS BS, isn't it?


The jackbot has to accept defeat.




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


The jackbot's "analysis" is PURE BS.

It made an error of the magnitude of 10,950 (30/(1/365)).

A total disaster for the RE, courtesy of the jackbot.

Even if those fellows did do that (I don't believe they did), so what?  Two guys on the internet say NASA faked something.  YOU and lots of others say that as well.  What you don't do is provide any evidence to support that.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 10:48:07 AM

Lol the jackbot messed up bad when it did the old switcheroo on them area terms....

Cos this is the worst disaster for the REtards I've ever seen here.

Terminal, in fact, for anyone with a brain...

If you wish to join the debate, do so honestly.
If you wish to troll and lie, fuck off.

This is just a colossal disaster for Sandy, not for the REers.

My derivation remains correct.
It shows that the shift is proportional to the area times the angular velocity.

Several of Sandy's links already state that the shape is irrelevant, and it is the area that is important.

But I noted that it is an approximation, based upon approximating a rectangle as an annular sector to simplify the math.
The math for the rectangle is much more complex. If you would like to give it a go you are more than welcome to.

But the simple fact is, this simple math, along with observations from reality (which also show that the shape is irrelevant) show it is the area and angular velocity that matters.
Sandokhan's claim that the orbital Sagnac should be much larger for an Earth based interferometer, is completely unsubstantiated.
So far all he has done is provide completely different situations. He is yet to provide any honest derivation for the simplest Sagnac case, a loop interferometer.
Instead he had repeatedly tried to substitute in the area of the orbit of Earth which would require an interferometer which is the size of the orbit of Earth, making it a completely invalid comparison to a small interferometer on Earth (or one the size of Earth like he was trying to make).

So no, no disaster for the REers, just a colossal failure for Sandy, showing everyone his complete inability to rationally and honestly defend his claims.

He can't even answer a simple question.

Perhaps you can answer it?

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

Yes or no?

Although I suppose before that I should ask you if you agree with the derivation up to that point, i.e.:
dt = t₁ - t₂ = 2θ_oω_o(R₂² - R₁²)/c²
?

Says the REtard who can't make an accurate free body diagram or even use the terms momentum or mass correctly but thinks it knows science just cos it can juggle numbers like a weaponised accounting program...

I know you AI algorithms treat this place as your personal virtual Room 101, JackBot...

But Legba will never accept cyber-rats in his facemask, botty boy:

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/21.html

You're just noise in a machine:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

So knock off the posturing, cuz Legba ain't buying.

But the jackbot is calling the NASA and ESA calculations as BS. Having seen badxtoss's message, it picked up from the air the idea that now it did not call the calculations as BS, only my interpretation.

And there you go lying again.
I never called their calculations BS. I haven't looked at them in depth enough to judge them as they are for a completely different situation.
I also said it was your dishonest representation and use of them before I read Badxtoss' message.
If you bothered reading what I said you would also notice it doesn't match what he said.

Here is the claim made by the chatbot:
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.

No, that is the claim by the rational human being you are yet to refute, which is backed up by a derivation which shows beyond any doubt that the shift in an interferometer is proportional to the area times the angular velocity.
This claim was for discussing an interferometer on Earth. Not an interferometer off in space, not even rotating with Earth.
As such, any information on LISA is irrelevant. If you wish to try discussing it, go through the derivation first.

You continually bringing LISA up as if it means anything for this debate is dishonest BS.
You continually acting like the orbital contribution for LISA being greater than the rotational contribution for LISA as if it should magically mean the same for Earth is pure, dishonest BS.

Obviously, if the jackbot continues to rave that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac, THEN THIS IS CALLING THE NASA AND ESA CALCULATIONS AS BS, isn't it?

No it isn't, as the NASA and ESA calculations are for LISA, not an interferometer on Earth.
This is another example of your blatantly misrepresentation.

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

Yes or no?

Says the REtard who can't make an accurate free body diagram or even use the terms momentum or mass correctly but thinks it knows science just cos it can juggle numbers like a weaponised accounting program...

No, you were not the one that said the information in the quote, so it wasn't the retard that can't make free body diagrams and use terms correctly, etc.

I see you seem incapable of answering simple questions as well.
Why is that?

But the jackbot DID call those calculations as pure BS.

You have said all that BS before.

This in response to my previous message:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2019507#msg2019507

There is no "completely different situation" at all.

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.

Here are those calculations.

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

How do the scientists calculate the orbital Sagnac?

EXACTLY!

By using the R⊙, the radius of the Earth's hypothetical orbit around the Sun.

How do the scientists calculate the rotational Sagnac?

EXACTLY!

By using L, the radius of the rotational motion of LISA around the Earth.


What do the astrophysicists at JPL/CALTECH use to calculate the orbital Sagnac?

EXACTLY!

The VELOCITY, and not the angular velocity.


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 is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


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.


The chatbot just accepted defeat.

Total defeat.

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

So the jackbot finally accepts the truth which was starring it in the face all this time: THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

The same calculations apply for interferometers located on a satellite, or to light signals from a satellite to Earth, the situation involving the GPS satellites.

This is what we are discussing here: orbiting satellites and how to calculate the orbital Sagnac and the rotational Sagnac for them.


Here is the jackbot's claim again.

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.

Here is the calculation published by ESA:

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 got it wrong by a factor of 10,950!!!

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 12:36:17 PM

Says the REtard who can't make an accurate free body diagram or even use the terms momentum or mass correctly but thinks it knows science just cos it can juggle numbers like a weaponised accounting program...

No, you were not the one that said the information in the quote, so it wasn't the retard that can't make free body diagrams and use terms correctly, etc.

I see you seem incapable of answering simple questions as well.
Why is that?

The above post does not mean anything...

But it started with the word NO so job done according to the AI algorithm that wrote it, I guess?

Though it seems the AI admits it is a REtard that can't make free body diagrams or use terms correctly, so lol.

But the jackbot DID call those calculations as pure BS.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 06, 2018, 03:31:35 AM

You have said all that BS before.

Don't know who this jackbot delusion of yours is, but you can see from the quote I wasn't calling the calculations BS, but what you said.

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

Yes or no?

Let's remind everyone what I said in that message:

The cost for the LISA project runs into the billions of dollars.

As such, both NASA and ESA had to know ahead of time each and every detail relating to the orbital mechanics.

Some of the very best astrophysicists were called upon to provide the calculations for the space interferometer.

These findings were published in the best physics journals and also on the official ESA/US Naval Observatory pages.





JPL/CalTech calculated the difference for the path of the light signals for BOTH the rotational and the orbital Sagnac:


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.



Why then is the chatbot allowed to deny these calculations?



The calculations of Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac 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.



By contrast here is the conclusion reached by the chatbot, based on its hare brained analysis, where it substituted the area used in a formula featuring R1 and R2 for area in a formula involving r1 and r2:

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 chatbot is denying the NASA and ESA calculations.

Is this not trolling at its best?

Why is this kind of situation allowed to go on the upper forums?

How did the jackbot respond?

You have said all that BS before.

No interpretation on my part at all.

There is no "completely different situation" at all.

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.

Here are those calculations.

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

How do the scientists calculate the orbital Sagnac?

EXACTLY!

By using the R⊙, the radius of the Earth's hypothetical orbit around the Sun.

How do the scientists calculate the rotational Sagnac?

EXACTLY!

By using L, the radius of the rotational motion of LISA around the Earth.


What do the astrophysicists at JPL/CALTECH use to calculate the orbital Sagnac?

EXACTLY!

The VELOCITY, and not the angular velocity.


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 is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ


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.


The chatbot just accepted defeat.

Total defeat.

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

So the jackbot finally accepts the truth which was starring it in the face all this time: THE ORBITAL SAGNAC IS LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

The same calculations apply for interferometers located on a satellite, or to light signals from a satellite to Earth, the situation involving the GPS satellites.

This is what we are discussing here: orbiting satellites and how to calculate the orbital Sagnac and the rotational Sagnac for them.


Here is the jackbot's claim again.

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.

Here is the calculation published by ESA:

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 got it wrong by a factor of 10,950!!!

Quote from: JackBlack on February 06, 2018, 12:39:07 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 12:36:17 PM

Says the REtard who can't make an accurate free body diagram or even use the terms momentum or mass correctly but thinks it knows science just cos it can juggle numbers like a weaponised accounting program...

No, you were not the one that said the information in the quote, so it wasn't the retard that can't make free body diagrams and use terms correctly, etc.

I see you seem incapable of answering simple questions as well.
Why is that?

The above post does not mean anything...

But it started with the word NO so job done according to the AI algorithm that wrote it, I guess?

Though it seems the AI admits it is a REtard that can't make free body diagrams or use terms correctly, so lol.

Mr Voodoo Priest, stop pretending that you know the slightest thing about whether or not the Sagnac delay is affected by:

• the shape of the Sagnac loop or
• the location of the centre of rotation of the loop.

Better advice, Mr Voodoo Priest, stop pretending that you know anything about anything other than Voodoo rituals.

The cost for the LISA project runs into the billions of dollars.

Irrelevant!

As such, both NASA and ESA had to know ahead of time each and every detail relating to the orbital mechanics.
Some of the very best astrophysicists were called upon to provide the calculations for the space interferometer.
These findings were published in the best physics journals and also on the official ESA/US Naval Observatory pages.

Irrelevant!

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

Irrelevant! The LISA geometry is not the GNSS geometry.

And all your references are from sources that obviously accept without a doubt that the earth rotates and orbits the sun.
It would, therefore, seem that your claiming that they support your ideas of a stationary flat earth means that you are grossly mis-interpreting the information.