The Pendulum Effect

Quick question: The Flat Earth Theory says the Earth is not moving. Okay, let's go with that. As such, all things moving would travel the same plain, unless acted upon. For example, a pendulum will swing back and forth in a narrow plane. We've all seen it in clocks. However, a free swinging pendulum, such as an iron ball on a string, will begin "traveling." By that I mean, it will not continue on the same course. It will slowly, but surely, begin rotating. If left long enough, the swinging orb will end up in a circular motion. Without the spinning of the Earth, which is the scientific reasoning, what is the explanation? How does that work in the Flat Earth Theory?

The pendulum you speak of is Foucault's pendulum.

From a FE perspective you will either get nothing to explain it or it will be called out as faked.

The pendulum you speak of is Foucault's pendulum.

From a FE perspective you will either get nothing to explain it or it will be called out as faked.

Most often I've seen the FE explanation for the Foucault Pendulum conundrum is that the movement is due to error. In that the release of the weight to start the movement is imprecise which causes it to swing in the manner that it does. But I was reading somewhere a while back that Foucault himself thought of this. He apparently had a string attached to the weight from the side with the weight pulled outward, sort of cocked, ready to swing. Then he burned the string, severing it, releasing the weight into a straight swing arc.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 17, 2018, 10:57:46 PM

The pendulum you speak of is Foucault's pendulum.

From a FE perspective you will either get nothing to explain it or it will be called out as faked.

Most often I've seen the FE explanation for the Foucault Pendulum conundrum is that the movement is due to error. In that the release of the weight to start the movement is imprecise which causes it to swing in the manner that it does. But I was reading somewhere a while back that Foucault himself thought of this. He apparently had a string attached to the weight from the side with the weight pulled outward, sort of cocked, ready to swing. Then he burned the string, severing it, releasing the weight into a straight swing arc.

They also consistently precess more rapidly near the poles, less rapidly near the equator, not at all on the equator, and in the opposite direction on the other side of the equator. That pretty much eliminates release error, which wouldn't be expected to be consistent. Further, a small initial lateral motion causes the path to be a narrow oval instead of a straight arc, but the axis of the oval precesses.

Foucault's pendulum, gyrocompasses, the Coriolis effect cannot be used to differentiate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: they are physical effects.

The only way to settle the debate, and very fast, is to understand the Allais effect (paraconical pendulum used by Nobel prize winner Dr. Maurice Allais during a solar eclipse), or to obtain the formula for the global/generalized Sagnac effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg944125#msg944125 (Foucault's pendulum)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382 (Allais effect)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907 (global Sagnac effect formula)

Foucault's pendulum, gyrocompasses, the Coriolis effect cannot be used to differentiate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: they are physical effects.

The only way to settle the debate, and very fast, is to understand the Allais effect (paraconical pendulum used by Nobel prize winner Dr. Maurice Allais during a solar eclipse), or to obtain the formula for the global/generalized Sagnac effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg944125#msg944125 (Foucault's pendulum)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382 (Allais effect)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907 (global Sagnac effect formula)

Allais effect is inconsistent and has shown negative results.  And stating that the person won a nobel prize while impressive is moot.  The prize was for economics not science.

Dr. Allais obtained his PhD in physics. Having published his groundbreaking papers on the Allais effect, after 1959, he was virtually shut out from any conferences/research grants. So he turned to economics, where he received the Nobel prize.

Dr. Maurice Allais is one of the most respected physicists of the 20th Century.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

Allais effect is inconsistent and has shown negative results.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

The experiment which features a paraconical pendulum is a difficult test to perform, Dr. Allais spelled out precisely the conditions which have to be met in order to conduct the experiment in a correct manner.

Once those conditions are met, the results are ALWAYS positive.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Foucault's pendulum, gyrocompasses, the Coriolis effect cannot be used to differentiate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: they are physical effects.

You're right. Those are effects of the earth's rotation with respect to inertial space and not the earth's motion about the barycenter of the solar system (effectively, the sun). For evidence of that, we measure other effects, like stellar parallax, and launch interplanetary spacecraft that arrive at their intended destinations.

Quick question: The Flat Earth Theory says the Earth is not moving.

What??? Where does it say that? FET says the Earth is flat. It doesn't say it's not moving. There may be some flat Earth theories that postulate an unmoving Earth, but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis. It could be flying through space on the backs of four elephants standing on a turtle. It could be tumbling end over end. As long as it's flat, FET is satisfied.

If the (flat) Earth is rotating around a central axis, I think the Foucault pendulum and the Coriolis "force" would still work as observed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Foucault and Coriolis have proved that the Earth is indeed rotating around a central axis. Just because it's is flat, doesn't mean it can't rotate.

Dr. Allais obtained his PhD in physics. Having published his groundbreaking papers on the Allais effect, after 1959, he was virtually shut out from any conferences/research grants. So he turned to economics, where he received the Nobel prize.

Dr. Maurice Allais is one of the most respected physicists of the 20th Century.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

Allais effect is inconsistent and has shown negative results.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

The experiment which features a paraconical pendulum is a difficult test to perform, Dr. Allais spelled out precisely the conditions which have to be met in order to conduct the experiment in a correct manner.

Once those conditions are met, the results are ALWAYS positive.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

You should read more:

The veracity of the Allais effect remains controversial among the scientific community, as its testing has frequently met with inconsistent or ambiguous results over more than five decades of observation.

During the solar eclipse of July 22, 1990, no anomalous period increase of a torsion pendulum was detected independently by a team in Finland[21] and another team in Belomorsk, USSR.

An automated Foucault pendulum was also used during the solar eclipse of July 11, 2010 in Argentina, with no evidence of a precession change of the pendulum's oscillation plane (< 0.3 degree per hour).

I guess they did it wrong.

launch interplanetary spacecraft that arrive at their intended destinations.

Right.

What is your opinion of the Leonov space mission? Was it real? A. Leonov's alleged 12 minute spacewalk was by far the most famous space flight ever, more so than the Apollo missions.

If that one was faked, everything else was falsified as well.

but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

But there is: the Sagnac effect.

Any kind of motion, whether it be rotational or translational, will be detected by the Sagnac effect: no such rotational/orbital effects have ever been registered by an interferometer.

The veracity of the Allais effect remains controversial among the scientific community, as its testing has frequently met with inconsistent or ambiguous results over more than five decades of observation.

You came here totally unprepared to debate the Allais effect with me.

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

Foucault's pendulum, gyrocompasses, the Coriolis effect cannot be used to differentiate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: they are physical effects.

Technically true, but only to the extent that a geocentric model with Earth rotating would produce the same results.

The only way to settle the debate, and very fast, is to understand the Allais effect

Which is yet to be shown to be real, complete with alleged observation producing contradictory results.

or to obtain the formula for the global/generalized Sagnac effect.

Good thing we already have that. You not liking it doesn't magically make it wrong. The Sagnac effect detects rotation, or relative motion of components of the light path for the more generalised version. It cannot detect translation of the entire apparatus, and it does detect the rotation of Earth as used in laser ring gyroscope.

If you want to discuss it any further, go back to all those thread you have fled from after repeatedly being refuted.

Why link to the preachers only section? Is it so you can pretend you haven't already brought these BS points up countless times and had your ass handed to you countless times?

Dr. Allais obtained his PhD in physics. Having published his groundbreaking papers on the Allais effect, after 1959, he was virtually shut out from any conferences/research grants. So he turned to economics, where he received the Nobel prize.
Dr. Maurice Allais is one of the most respected physicists of the 20th Century.

Those 2 statements directly contradict one another. If he is one of the most respected physicists he wouldn't have been shut out.
Here is a more likely story: He noticed one anomalous result and rather than doing decent testing and realise it was anomalous he clung to it, ignoring the possibility he was wrong and thus discarded science. Eventually to avoid defeat he changed fields.

Now quit with the BS, quit with bringing up irrelevant claims about subjects you clearly don't understand and address teh OP.

WHAT CAUSES THE APPARENT PRECESSION OF PENDULUMS?

This is explained perfectly with a rotating, round Earth.

launch interplanetary spacecraft that arrive at their intended destinations.

You are not in any hurry to say that the Leonov flight was real, are you now?

How the Leonov flights were faked...

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by the Soviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below). The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ... In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ... One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond the space ship.'

You are not in any hurry to say that the Leonov flight was real, are you now?

Perhaps because that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand?

Can you address the topic at hand without continually spamming your ignorance all over the place?

What causes the apparent precession of pendulums?

but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

But there is: the Sagnac effect.

Any kind of motion, whether it be rotational or translational, will be detected by the Sagnac effect: no such rotational/orbital effects have ever been registered by an interferometer.

Wikipedia disagrees:

In 1926, an ambitious ring interferometry experiment was set up by Albert Michelson and Henry Gale. The aim was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment was a very large ring interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy.

The Sagnac effect actually shows that the Earth is rotating, as measured by the interferometer mentioned above. Note, FWIW, that because the rotation is slow, its measurement required an interferometer with a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer (1.18 miles). If you are using a smaller interferometer you probably won't be able to detect it.

launch interplanetary spacecraft that arrive at their intended destinations.

Right.

What is your opinion of the Leonov space mission? Was it real? A. Leonov's alleged 12 minute spacewalk was by far the most famous space flight ever, more so than the Apollo missions.

It was the first spacewalk, so, yeah, it was famous. As I recall it wasn't particularly easy to accomplish, which sometimes happens when trying things for the first time ever, and they learned a lot about EVAs from the difficulties, which one would hope would happen. The Soviets were famously secretive about their space program, and not all of the problems were known until later. They'd make up stories about a fouled-up mission after the fact. Sure...

But that and Apollo weren't interplanetary, anyway.

If that one was faked, everything else was falsified as well.

Fallacious argument. That's a non sequitur.

The point about interplanetary spacecraft arriving at the desired destination based on the heliocentric solar system still stands.

but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

Your direction of rotation wrt the inertial reference frame wouldn't change as you cross the "equator" (midway between axis and rim) of a rotating disk. On a rotating sphere, it does change when you cross the equator (midway between the poles of rotation). Foucault pendulums, gyroscopes, and Coriolis effects (easily seen in large-scale storms) all demonstrate rotations in opposite directions on opposite sides of the equator, supporting the rotating sphere but clearly not supporting the rotating disk model. Sorry.

But there is: the Sagnac effect.

Any kind of motion, whether it be rotational or translational, will be detected by the Sagnac effect: no such rotational/orbital effects have ever been registered by an interferometer.

Rotation is commonly detected using this effect whether you want to believe it or not. That's what ring-laser and fiber-optic gyroscopes do, and do quite well. The sidereal rotation of the earth is routinely detected, and depending on the purpose for the instrumentation, may have to be corrected for. One way to accomplish that is to mount the apparatus on a clock-driven equatorial mount; this effectively counters the rotation of the earth, and is useful when calibrating or testing some equipment. Over the course of a sidereal day you can watch the platform make a full turn with respect to the room it's in, yet, if properly set up, the gyro will detect no rotation.

Orbital motion is not detected because these devices aren't sensitive to translation. I recall you going on and on a while ago about "the missing orbital Sagnac effect" and how that was supposed to prove... something. It's not "missing"; it doesn't exist and isn't expected to exist. Your insistence that it should exist doesn't mean anything unless you can demonstrate it. If you can, you should write a paper and have it published in a competent journal.

It was the first spacewalk, so, yeah, it was famous. As I recall it wasn't particularly easy to accomplish,

There was no Leonov spacewalk, that was the entire point of the links I provided so that you can update your erroneous beliefs.

How the Leonov flights were faked...

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by the Soviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below). The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ... In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ... One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond the space ship.'

Each and every other '"space mission", including of all the Apollo flights, was faked just as well.


but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

Not my quote.

This is the third time you ascribe someone else's thoughts to me.


Rotation is commonly detected using this effect whether you want to believe it or not.

What the Michelson-Gale experiment/ring laser interferometer detected is the CORIOLIS EFFECT and not the rotational SAGNAC EFFECT, two very different formulas.

In the RE version, the Coriolis force is fictitious.

However, in the FE description, the Coriolis force is very real: it is caused by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth.

In fact, Michelson and Gale measured the effect of the Coriolis force upon the light beams in 1925.

Here is the formula:



The figures for the area of the path, latitude (41deg. 46'), wavelength of the light, speed of light, and the expected fringe shifts are well known.

Expected fringe shift: 0.2364

Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005

Then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be easily computed.

However, what Michelson did is to publish the Coriolis effect formula and state that is was actually the Sagnac formula.

That is why for the past 90 years, the RE have always used with huge success the MGX to put an end to any debate with geocentrists and flat earth believers.

Michelson's interferometer measured ONLY the Coriolis effect (a physical effect, a deflection of the light beams) and NOT the rotational Sagnac effect (an electromagnetic effect, much greater in magnitude than the Coriolis effect).

Modern day ring laser interferometers also use the same Coriolis formula, while physicists running the experiment are claiming that it is the Sagnac formula.

Michelson knew very well that the formula published by him was actually the Coriolis effect formula, since Dr. Silberstein explicitly derived this same formula in 1921 using the most in-depth analysis ever done on the relationship between the Coriolis force effect and the Sagnac interferometer.

This is the correct rotational Sagnac effect formula for an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation (Michelson-Gale, Michelson-Morley, Hammar, ring laser gyroscopes):



Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').

FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4AΩsinΦ/c²

FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4Lv(cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂)/c²


Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ₁ = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ₂ = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72

THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

Case closed.


Orbital motion is not detected because these devices aren't sensitive to translation.

What exactly is it that precludes you from gaining a correct understanding of the world around you?

Certainly a lack of proper knowledge.

CALCULATIONS PERFORMED FOR THE LISA SPACE ANTENNA



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.




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

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

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

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 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.


You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

that was the entire point of the links I provided so that you can update your erroneous beliefs.

So your entire point is to distract from the topic at hand to try to avoid another complete failure.

What do the spacewalks have to do with pendulums? NOTHING!

Not my quote.
This is the third time you ascribe someone else's thoughts to me.

Perhaps you should learn how to use the forum quote feature so it is clear it isn't your post? Putting it in italics is not indicative of it not being your thoughts.

[ignorance regarding Sagnac showing Sandy doesn't understand]

Again, if you want to discuss the Sagnac effect, go back to one of the prior threads you repeatedly had your ass handed to you in.
This thread is for discussing pendulums. STOP SPAMMING!

Can you explain why pendulums precess? If not, shut up.

It was the first spacewalk, so, yeah, it was famous. As I recall it wasn't particularly easy to accomplish,

There was no Leonov spacewalk, that was the entire point of the links I provided so that you can update your erroneous beliefs.

Someone wants to believe the mission was faked, and has managed to convince you of same. Big surprise.

Regardless, your claim:

If that one was faked, everything else was falsified as well.

is still a non sequitur even if you really, really believe that Leonov's spacewalk was faked.

In other words, you have yet to justify your stance that all space travel is fake. That will be tough to do, since it's straightforward to see that it's not all fake ("not all" includes "none", by the way, but "not all" is sufficient for you to be wrong).

but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

Not my quote.

This is the third time you ascribe someone else's thoughts to me.

It's in your post, it's not in quotation marks or a quote block, and it's not attributed to someone else. It's yours.

If you want others to treat something as a quote from someone else, make it a quote. See the quote containing your non sequitur, above, for an example. That was done using the Quote feature of the forum; it's a link (probably on the right side of the subject line of each post, but this might vary depending on the style you have selected) that, if clicked, will open a new post edit page and formats the text of the post it's associated with as a quote block with a link back to the original. Pretty cool, huh?

Another way would be:

"If that one was faked, everything else was falsified as well."
 - sandokhan

See how easy that is? The attribution makes it explicit who is being quoted, which is often helpful. The automatic link back to the original post generated by the quote function is even better, but since your intent appears to make the discussion more difficult since your argument is weak, I can see you preferring to to avoid that.

Rotation is commonly detected using this effect whether you want to believe it or not.

What the Michelson-Gale experiment/ring laser interferometer detected is the CORIOLIS EFFECT and not the rotational SAGNAC EFFECT, two very different formulas.

You don't want to believe it. It matters not.

Is there anything in the long copy-and-paste-a-thon and ramble that followed that's relevant to the topic at hand, which is Foucault pendulums?

but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

Not my quote.

This is the third time you ascribe someone else's thoughts to me.

No! I did not! YOU put that in your post (in italics rather than inside a proper quote box) before claiming that the Sagnac effect showed it to be untrue. I replied, showing that you are mistaken, and that the Sagnac effect confirms rotation.

Learn to post correctly before accusing others of misquoting you, because YOU put that line in your post, without a quote box which would have indicated that it was not your comment.

Someone wants to believe the mission was faked, and has managed to convince you of same. Big surprise.

See, that is why you clearly feigned to offer a clear response to a very simple question: do you believe that the Leonov space flights are real?

The analysis is very clear, the Leonov spacewalk was falsified in a most crude manner.


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by the Soviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below). The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ... In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ... One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond the space ship.'

is still a non sequitur even if you really, really believe that Leonov's spacewalk was faked.

In 1965, the Soviet engineers/physicists were in possession of the SAME mathematical equations and the same laws of physics as were their Western counterparts.

They practically had an unlimited budget at their disposal, that did not need to be accounted for, given the aim of the entire project, a real spacewalk.

Yet, they chose to fake the entire Leonov spacewalk.

There is no way that only FOUR YEARS LATER, Nasa would be able to send people to the Moon and back, with a much smaller budget, and using the same laws of physics which clearly could not be used by the Soviets to produce a real spacewalk in 1965.

Someone wants to believe the mission was faked, and has managed to convince you of same. Big surprise.

See, that is why you clearly feigned to offer a clear response to a very simple question: do you believe that the Leonov space flights are real?

The analysis is very clear, the Leonov spacewalk was falsified in a most crude manner.


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by the Soviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below). The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ... In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ... One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond the space ship.'

is still a non sequitur even if you really, really believe that Leonov's spacewalk was faked.

In 1965, the Soviet engineers/physicists were in possession of the SAME mathematical equations and the same laws of physics as were their Western counterparts.

They practically had an unlimited budget at their disposal, that did not need to be accounted for, given the aim of the entire project, a real spacewalk.

Yet, they chose to fake the entire Leonov spacewalk.

There is no way that only FOUR YEARS LATER, Nasa would be able to send people to the Moon and back, with a much smaller budget, and using the same laws of physics which clearly could not be used by the Soviets to produce a real spacewalk in 1965.

Why are we talking about a spacewalk and not about a pendulum? If memory serves the OP was titled "The Pendulum Effect" not "Russian Spacewalk Hoax".
Just curious.

do you believe that the Leonov space flights are real?

It doesn't matter what I think about it. It has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Start a new thread about that mission if you want to argue about it.

[Edit] omitted "if".

See, that is why you clearly feigned to offer a clear response to a very simple question

Says the one failing to offer a clear response to a very simple question.

What causes the precession of pendulums?
Can you explain it without appealing to the rotation of a spherical Earth?

If not, stop posting as that is what this thread is about. Anything else is spam.
If you want to discuss your ignorance in other areas, make threads about them, stop trying to hide your ignorance by only spamming it in threads where it is irrelevant.

Either explain what causes the precession of pendulums, including its dependence upon latitude, or stop posting in this thread.

Why are we talking about a spacewalk and not about a pendulum? If memory serves the OP was titled "The Pendulum Effect" not "Russian Spacewalk Hoax".
Just curious.

I think Sandokhan's argument is that if the Russians faked a space walk then NASA must be faking the shape of the Earth. I cannot follow the logic of that, but it explains why he brings the spacewalk into the argument.

Quote from: Stash on October 19, 2018, 11:38:39 AM

Why are we talking about a spacewalk and not about a pendulum? If memory serves the OP was titled "The Pendulum Effect" not "Russian Spacewalk Hoax".
Just curious.

I think Sandokhan's argument is that if the Russians faked a space walk then NASA must be faking the shape of the Earth. I cannot follow the logic of that, but it explains why he brings the spacewalk into the argument.

Got it.

Sandokhan, use the quote function so that readers can see who said what and what you are questioning/responding to. It's really hard to parse what you're trying to convey when you don't.

As well, maybe mentioned by others before, it's not necessary to copy in 1600 pixels of data. Just state your point, provide some elucidating stuff, link to source materiel and differentiate between what is sourced and what is your commentary. It makes for you making a better point.

Someone wants to believe the mission was faked, and has managed to convince you of same. Big surprise.

See, that is why you clearly feigned to offer a clear response to a very simple question: do you believe that the Leonov space flights are real?

The analysis is very clear, the Leonov spacewalk was falsified in a most crude manner.

Sandokhan please learn to use the Quote function as magellanclavichord and numerous others have requested!.

As

Quote from: sandokhan on October 18, 2018, 10:41:06 PM

but there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes its being in motion. It could be rotating around a central axis.

Not my quote.

This is the third time you ascribe someone else's thoughts to me.

No! I did not! YOU put that in your post (in italics rather than inside a proper quote box) before claiming that the Sagnac effect showed it to be untrue. I replied, showing that you are mistaken, and that the Sagnac effect confirms rotation.

Learn to post correctly before accusing others of misquoting you, because YOU put that line in your post, without a quote box which would have indicated that it was not your comment.

And whether "Leonov spacewalk was falsified in a most crude manner" or not is quite irrelevant to the long known Foucault's pendulum.